[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 181 (Wednesday, November 15, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H12389-H12404]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 1977, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND RELATED 
                   AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1996

  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 253, I call up 
the conference report on the bill (H.R. 1977) making appropriations for 
the Department of the Interior and related agencies for the fiscal year 
ending September 30, 1996, and for other purposes.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Burton). Pursuant to rule XXVIII, the 
conference report is considered read.
  (For conference report and statement, see proceedings of the House of 
October 31, 1995, at page H11541.)
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula] will be 
recognized for 30 minutes, and the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Yates] 
will be recognized for 30 minutes.
  It is the Chair's understanding that the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. 
Skaggs] will control the time on the Democratic side.
  Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Speaker, that is correct. Mr. Speaker, I ask 
unanimous consent that 5 minutes of the time that the minority would 
otherwise control be controlled by the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Boehlert].
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Colorado?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio 
[Mr. Regula].


                             general leave

  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may 
have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks 
on the conference report to H.R. 1977, which was just agreed to, and 
that I be allowed to include extraneous and tabular material.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Ohio?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I bring to you today the improved and revised Interior 
conference report. When we last met on H.R. 1977, the House voted to 
recommit the Interior Appropriations conference agreement with 
instructions to restore 

[[Page H12390]]
the mining patent moratorium included in the House-passed bill.
  As the original author of the patent moratorium which was enacted for 
the first time last year, I supported the motion to recommit. Mr. 
Speaker, I urge those who joined me in supporting that motion, and all 
of my colleagues, to support this conference agreement and defeat a new 
motion to recommit.
  Mr. Speaker, I will discuss that at a little more length. The 
Interior Appropriations conference agreement is fair. It is a well-
balanced bill. It is fiscally responsible. It cuts spending by 10 
percent from last year's level. It is sensitive to the need to preserve 
and enhance our natural and cultural resources.
  It keeps open the facilities that are important to the public. We 
level-fund the money for the operations of the parks. We level-fund the 
money for the operations of the Forest Service, or close to it, so that 
they can provide the facilities that people enjoy. It is the same with 
other agencies; the Smithsonian, the National Gallery, the Kennedy 
Center.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to address essentially the two issues that we 
will hear a lot about today. It is my understanding there will be a 
motion to recommit this bill back to the conference committee for 
further revision of the mining moratorium and the Tongass language.
  Mr. Speaker, let me say to my colleagues, if reforming the 1872 
mining law were easy, it would have been accomplished years ago, and 
certainly would have been accomplished in the past 2 years, 1993, and 
1994, when my friends from the other side of the aisle had complete 
control.
  Mr. Speaker, they had control of the House. They had control of the 
Senate. They had the President, the executive branch, as a Member of 
their party. So, far 2 years they had a golden opportunity to revise 
the 1872 Mining Law. Nothing happened.
  The only thing that was done in that period of time was a moratorium 
on issuing patents, which was language I introduced into the Interior 
appropriations bill.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. REGULA. I yield to the gentleman from West Virginia.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is fully aware that under the 
last Congress, we passed overwhelmingly out of the House of 
Representatives a bill that was true mining law reform.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I agree, and I supported 
the bill.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would continue to yield, I 
appreciate all of the gentleman's efforts, but to imply that under the 
last majority in this Congress we did not do anything is not a correct 
statement.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, again reclaiming my time, I apologize for 
the misunderstanding. What I meant was nothing was done in terms of 
legislation being enacted into law and signed by the President to 
change the 1872 mining law. I think the gentleman from West Virginia 
would agree that is the case.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would continue to yield, as 
the gentleman just then stated it, that is correct. But we did pass 
true mining law reform out of this body.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, the gentleman from West 
Virginia was a sponsor and it was a good bill and I spoke for it and 
supported it. Unfortunately, it died in conference and it did not get 
to the President.
  But, Mr. Speaker, the point I am making is that it is very difficult 
to revise the 1872 mining law. I think the gentleman from West Virginia 
would agree with that, because the gentleman has been making an effort 
for several years to accomplish that goal.
  What concerns me is that this bill is being used to address that 
problem. We have heard speeches during the rule debate that would 
indicate that we are not doing mining reform. That is not the mission 
of this bill. That is not the venue of this bill. Mining reform is in 
the reconciliation bill. Members who want mining reform, including 
myself, should push hard to get the reconciliation bill to have 
meaningful mining reform.
  Mr. Speaker, what we are doing is stopping the issuance of patents. 
We are stopping the giveaway. We responded in the second conference to 
the directive of the motion to recommit offered by the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Yates], my good friend and the ranking member of this 
committee and former chairman. Mr. Speaker, I agreed with him. I voted 
to recommit. We went back to the conference and it was a struggle with 
the other body, but we got a mining moratorium. It stops the giveaway.
  Of course, it provides that if a reconciliation bill contains 
meaningful mining reform, if it is signed by the President and becomes 
the law of the land, then the mining moratorium drops out. That is only 
fair. But I think, and I emphasize over and over again, we did what we 
were instructed to do. We have a moratorium on the issuance of mining 
patents.
  Certainly some are grandfathered, because they are in the pipeline. 
This was true in the language last year. We made every effort in this 
bill to address the mining question insofar as it is our 
responsibility.
  Mr. Speaker, I hope that in the discussion that follows, that we will 
not be discussing the reconciliation bill, but rather we will be 
discussing what we do, which is to stop the issuance of patents until 
such time as a meaningful mining reform bill is signed by the 
President.
  Of course, this would be in effect until the end of the fiscal year 
1996. The other issue will be the Tongass, and I would again, as I did 
in the rule debate, point out that the Tongass language is subject to a 
decision on the part of the Forest Service, by the chief, because it 
says that any increase in the cut must be to the extent practicable as 
determined by the chief of the Forest Service.
  Mr. Speaker, that means that the administration of my friends on the 
other side of the aisle will be calling the shots on anything that will 
be done in the Tongass. I would point out that in the Tongass, there 
are 17 million acres. A great part of that acreage is already set aside 
as wilderness.
  If my colleagues will look at the chart here, in the Tongass, almost 
7 million acres out of the 17 is wilderness. Not even hunting and 
fishing. It is no cutting of timber certainly. No cutting.
  Another 4.6 million acres is set aside for recreation, and the 
nonsuitable timber is 4 million. That leaves 1.7 million out of a total 
of 17 million acres, or 10 percent as a timber base.
  Mr. Speaker, I would point out that, under the present program 
enacted by this body, will be harvested over the next 220 years.

                              {time}  1615

  So it is not going to impact on the Tongass. Furthermore, the cut 
that is already allowed by legislation passed last year when my good 
friend was chairman of the committee allows a cut of 310 million board 
feet. Under the language that is put in the conference report, it might 
increase to 320. It probably will not increase at all. We would be 
cutting the same amount that was allocated for 1995.
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. REGULA. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Speaker, under the language of alternative P, the 
amount is raised to 410 million board feet; is that not correct?
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, that is correct.
  Mr. YATES. In conversation with officials of the Forest Service, I 
was told that there is no way, no way they can be forced not to cut 410 
million board feet because the Alaska delegation is so insistent upon 
their doing so.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I can only say that one 
of the members of the Forest Service who worked in the Tongass said 
that, as a practical matter, there will be no increase in cut over what 
is allocated. As a practical matter, there is no money to do it, 
regardless of what the Alaska delegation may want to do. We did not put 
enough money in, which I agreed with, and I am sure the gentleman from 
Illinois agreed with, to accomplish a 310 million board foot timber 
harvest.
  So actually the Tongass language for all practical purposes has no 
effect. I think that to send this back to conference on those issues 
does not make 

[[Page H12391]]
sense. We have taken care of the mining moratorium as we were directed 
to in the original motion to recommit. As far as the Tongass is 
concerned, the language was in the bill, in the bill when we sent it 
back to conference, and nobody mentioned it. Now, suddenly this is 
brought up.
  I assume that, if we would go back to conference, make some changes 
here, then there would be something else that would not suit. We have 
to get on with this because if we can pass this bill, the parks will 
open. That is the problem. Let us get this bill down to the President 
and open the parks and the Washington Monument and the Smithsonian and 
the Kennedy Center and the National Gallery. All we need to do to open 
those facilities is to pass this bill and send it to the President and 
have him sign it. Let us do that. That is what the public wants. Let us 
deal with those issues.
  Let the reconciliation bill deal with mining reform. For those that 
do not like what is in that bill, that is the venue that should be 
addressed. Those that do not like mining reform language as it is set 
forth in reconciliation should vote against it. They should object to 
it. They should speak on that issue. This is not the place for mining 
reform. We are doing the best we can to stop the giving away of the 
land by putting a moratorium in. That is the extent of what our right 
is under this bill.
  I am not going to take a lot of time on the other features in the 
bill. I think we have done a good job working with the Members on both 
sides of the aisle to have a fair, balanced budget. I think they would 
agree that it was not in any way partisan. We did the projects. We 
dealt with the things that were important and we keep the facilities 
open. If we can get this bill down to the President, we can get the 
parks opened again and give the public access that they deserve.
  I would certainly say to my colleagues, and I guess I begin to sound 
like a broken record, but let me say over and over again, this 
conference report has a mining patent moratorium as was directed by 
this body in the motion to recommit. The Tongass language does very 
little. That is not a problem. The Forest Service says it is not a 
problem, and certainly I would accept their judgment on that. It was 
not a problem the last time we had a conference report here.
  Suddenly for some reason it came up here. All I can say is, I think 
that this is a reasonable bill. We have done our best to address the 
problems. I hope in this debate we will limit our remarks to what is in 
the bill.

  I kept thinking when I listened to the comments on the rule, this 
must be the reconciliation bill, because most of the speeches were 
directed to the reconciliation bill, which has mining reform, or to 
other items that were in that bill and not to this bill. We heard about 
the Bureau of Indian Affairs and education. We increase tribal 
education over last year. We flat fund the health services. Those are 
the two most important things.
  Obviously, when you have 10 percent less than we had in 1995, to work 
with, it is difficult. We had to work hard to make sure that all the 
essential services, all the essential programs were funded. And some of 
the things that it would be nice to do simply could not be done under 
those circumstances. But I have to say, I believe that in November 
1994, the American people said we want the budget balanced in an 
appropriate time. We want to reduce spending, and we have made every 
effort to accomplish that goal; in the process, not do anything that is 
injurious to the management and the use of the 750 million acres of 
America that are presently owned by the Federal Government and to the 
other programs that are funded by this bill.
  I urge all of my colleagues to reject the motion to recommit and vote 
for the bill. Let us get on with this. Let us get those parks open so 
that the public can again enjoy the parks and the forest and the fish 
and wildlife facilities and the Smithsonian and the Kennedy Center, the 
National Gallery and all the other good things that we fund.
  The bill is 10 percent, or $1.4 billion below 1995 spending levels. 
This represents real savings both now and in the future. By not 
starting programs or construction we save costs in future years. The 
bill terminates agencies and programs and puts others on notice that 
Federal funding will terminate in the near future. This bill is not 
business as usual. We are not cutting at the margins with the hopes 
that if we can keep programs on life support more money will be 
available in the future. Instead we have terminated lower priority 
initiatives to provide scarce resources to meet the many critical needs 
of our public lands, to ensure quality health and education for native 
Americans and to promote quality science and research in energy and 
public land management.
  Specifically four agencies were eliminated: the National Biological 
Service, the Bureau of Mines, DOE's Office of Emergency Preparedness, 
and the Pennsylvania Avenue Development Corporation. In addition more 
than 35 individual programs have been eliminated.
  With respect to the National Biological Service, an issue of some 
interest to many in this body, let me reiterate the NBS has been 
eliminated. However, as many agreed, the core natural resource research 
activities critical to responsible stewardship of our public lands has 
been preserved and will be carried out by what is widely recognized as 
a premier unbiased, credible scientific agency, the U.S. Geological 
Survey. As the statement of the managers makes clear, this merger is 
permanent and is to be fully implemented by October 1, 1996. This will 
ensure that critical research continue and that it be conducted 
independent of regulatory influence or agendas and will ensure 
scientific excellence. I will also commit to my colleagues that have 
had a keen interest in this issue that I intend to very closely monitor 
the elimination of the NBS and the absorption of the core scientific 
functions into the USGS to ensure that the intent of the conferees is 
met. In keeping with our commitment to reduce spending we have also cut 
funding for this activity by 15 percent.
  The National Endowment for the Arts is funded at the House-passed 
level of $99.5 million and the statement of the managers makes it clear 
that it is the intent of the House to terminate Federal support for the 
NEA after fiscal year 1997.
  Funding for land acquisition, as in the House-passed bill, is not 
earmarked and is funded at 40 percent below past year's funding levels, 
ensuring that limited funding will be directed to high priority 
projects for the four land management agencies.
  Contrary to what you may have read in your local press, passage of 
this bill will not force the closure of one single National Park. No 
park will be forced to close under this agreement as funding for park 
operations is over 1995 levels by $5 million. To achieve that increase 
savings were made in lower priority park programs such as land 
acquisition and construction. Construction has been reduced more than 
14 percent and land acquisition is down nearly 44 percent. Overall, 
however, funding for the Park Service is down less than 5 percent.
  Further the bill establishes a new Recreational Fee Demonstration 
Program that may help land managers meet their growing needs by 
collecting fees which can then be used in the areas in which they are 
generated for enhancements and improvements in sites, facilities, 
interpretive programs and so forth, all needs which we cannot fully 
meet with declining budgets.
  Generally we have tried to fund critical maintenance and as much as 
possible, health and safety needs.
  Funding for critical scientific research is also maintained including 
important health and safety research and mineral assessments of the 
former Bureau of Mines which will now be carried out by the USGS and 
the Department of Energy for significant savings. This disposition 
upholds the House position that much of the work of the Bureau in 
health and safety research and minerals information is critical and 
these functions will be preserved.
  Core programs that are critical to providing for the needs of native 
Americans have also been maintained. Funding for the Indian Health 
Service is down less than one percent from last year's level. Of the 
increase above the Senate level virtually all of this was directed to 
the tribal priority allocations which all the tribes indicated was the 
highest priority for restoration.
  Energy programs have also been reduced ten percent from 1995 levels 
with 

[[Page H12392]]
commitments for continued downward trends. Numerous energy projects 
were terminated and limited funding focused on projects and programs 
which leverage significant non-Federal investment.
  While new construction was significantly curtailed it was our goal to 
take care of necessary maintenance and rehabilitation of Federal 
facilities and the Smithsonian is a good example where the conference 
provides nearly $34 million, the budget request, for critical repair 
and restoration of aging Smithsonian facilities.
  Two points of clarification: First, in the statement of the Managers 
accompanying the conference report the managers referred to the 
``existing hospital authority'' in American Samoa. This reference is to 
the institutional entity, and does not preclude charges to the 
composition or the structuring of the authority, particularly if the 
changes strengthen the management of health care in American Samoa; and 
second, the managers for both the House and the Senate agree that funds 
provided in this bill for cooperative conservation agreements may be 
used for the 4(d) rule to ease endangered species land use restriction 
on landowners, whether large or small.
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. REGULA. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Speaker, will the public be able to do that if the 
President vetoes the bill as he said he was going to do?
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, obviously, if the President vetoes the bill, 
we will not be able to do it, but I think we ought to give him a chance 
to make a decision. As it is, he cannot even address the issue. If he 
does veto the bill and sends it back, at least we will know through 
that what his concerns are. I think in terms of an orderly procedure, 
let us do that. Then if he is not satisfied, we will know and we can 
address that by further action of our appropriate committees.
  In conclusion I would urge my colleagues to support this bill. It is 
fiscally responsible and it meets the concerns of my colleagues who 
voted a month ago for reconsideration with respect to the mining patent 
moratorium.
  At this point I ask that a table detailing the various amounts in the 
bill as agreed to by the conference managers be included in the Record.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the following material:

[[Page H12393]]
  TH15NO95.003
  


[[Page H12394]]
  TH15NO95.004
  


[[Page H12395]]
  TH15NO95.005
  


[[Page H12396]]
  TH15NO95.006
  

  
[[Page H12397]]

  Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Mfume].
  (Mr. MFUME asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. MFUME. Mr. Speaker, I rise in absolute opposition to this 
conference report. I urge Members at the conclusions of this debate to 
soundly defeat it.
  Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Yates], the ranking member of this subcommittee.
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Speaker, 7-weeks ago I offered a motion to recommit 
this conference report in order to improve this dreadful bill and 
restore the mining moratorium. Well, the conference committee 
reconvened. Instead of improving the bill, they made it worse. If my 
colleagues voted for my motion to recommit the Interior appropriations 
conference report in September, they must vote for the motion to 
recommit that I will offer at the appropriate time today for two 
reasons: one, that the mining moratorium has not met the expectations 
of the House; and, second, because of what has been, what is being 
proposed for the Tongass National Forest.
  The foreign mining companies will still be able to take hundreds of 
billions of dollars worth of publicly owned minerals from Federal lands 
for next to nothing because clear-cutting will increase by almost 40 
percent in the Tongass National Forest, because this conference report 
does nothing to stop the impending rape of the Alaska National Wildlife 
Refuge for only a few barrels of oil.
  I had hoped to offer that amendment in the conference and was 
prevented from doing so. Specifically, the motion to recommit that will 
be offered today contains instructions to reinstate a true mining 
moratorium and strike the provisions that lead to the destruction of 
the Tongass.
  There is simply no defense for why the conferees are presenting the 
House with this excuse for a mining moratorium. After three votes in 
this body expressing the importance of a mining patent moratorium, the 
conferees ignored the will of the House and instead there is created in 
this conference report a sham mining moratorium.
  With respect to the Tongass, the mining moratorium is not the only 
reason why we should recommit this bill. This conference report 
contains a legislative rider that would force the Forest Service to 
adopt alternative P in the Tongass National Forest. Alternative P is a 
radical forest management plan that has been rejected by the Forest 
Service and by the Governor of Alaska because it would wreak ecological 
havoc on the Tongass.
  What is more, this conference report contains sufficiency language, 
sufficiency language which is a rider that prevents all environmental 
laws from being enforced in the Tongass. The Endangered Species Act is 
dismissed. The National Environmental Policy Act is waived. The Clean 
Water Act is ignored. All other applicable laws are considered 
irrelevant. In addition, this sufficiency language prevents all 
citizens, environmentalists, private landowners from exercising their 
rights to sue the Federal Government.

  If we vote for this motion to recommit, the conference committee will 
be enabled to again consider making this an acceptable bill.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Alaska [Mr. Young].
  (Mr. YOUNG of Alaska asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring to the 
attention of my colleagues the so-called Tongass amendment. It disturbs 
me when I hear my friend, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Yates], 
speak about the Tongass because you have to understand what the Tongass 
amendment does.
  First, you have to also understand what the Tongass is. The Tongass 
Forest is a forest of 17 million acres of land, 17 million acres of 
land, I hope all of my colleagues listen to this, 7 million acres of 
wilderness already set aside by this Congress; 8.3 million acres in 
fact is not suitable for timber harvest. We have now 1.7 million acres 
of land that could be available for harvesting. And because of the 
action of the Forest Service under this administration, it has taken 
585,000 acres out of the remaining 1.7 million acres and made it not 
available, contrary to the action of this Congress.
  I am going to suggest that the Tongass amendment does nothing to 
change the present law. This is in fact what was recommended by the 
Forest Service. What was previously said about exempting the Endangered 
Species Act is not true. What was said about cutting the rain forest is 
not true.
  We have, as I said, over 7 million acres already set aside by this 
Congress of old growth preservation and wildlife habitat. Now we have 
the administration coming down and saying by the Undersecretary that we 
must set this aside for old growth preservation and wildlife habitat. 
If that is the case, then what are we doing with the 7-odd-million 
acres; did we make a mistake there? If so, then let us reopen that.
  What we have done under this amendment that has been proposed by the 
Senator from my State is in fact set forth the original concept of the 
Forest Service itself. This is the Forest Service plan that was signed 
off by the Forest Service prior to this administration.
  I can tell Members this. We have closed over 300 mills in the 
northern part of this great Nation of ours in California, Washington, 
and Oregon. The gentleman from Washington [Mr. Dicks] will recognize 
that, because of the Pacific pact. It is time to understand that this 
amendment offered by the other body is an amendment that creates jobs, 
still maintains the rain forest, the 7-odd-million acres. And those 
that suggest recommittal are in fact falling prey to those 
environmental groups that do not want Americans working, that would 
rather have Americans sitting idle and not harvesting those trees. The 
recommittal act itself is wrong. This is a bill that has been thought 
out, fought out and worked on. It should be accepted. We should vote 
``yes'' on it.
  I ask our Members to consider the history of the Tongass. If they 
have a question, come ask me.

                              {time}  1630

  Let me answer it. Do not read what is being said by certain groups 
who are not telling the truth. This is nothing new in this body. We 
have different groups telling flatout, dishonest, supposedly facts. Let 
us, in fact, have the truth. Vote for this bill, and vote against the 
motion to recommit.
  Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, here we go again.
  The first time the Republican leadership brought this conference 
report to the floor, the House did the right thing--we rejected the 
bill, and told the conferees to go back and try again. That was the 
right thing to do, because that conference report did not deserve to 
pass.
  Sadly, the Republican leadership still hasn't tried very hard to 
improve it--and it shows. We should adopt the motion to recommit, and, 
failing that, we should defeat this conference report.
  For starters, the Republican leadership limited the number of things 
that the conferees could consider. They wouldn't let the conferees try 
to improve the parts of the bill dealing with native Americans--even 
though the previous conference report fell woefully short of providing 
proper funding for the tribal governments and the Bureau of Indian 
Affairs. In fact, the Republican leadership wouldn't let the conferees 
try to improve any of the funding provisions in the previous conference 
report, or any of the antienvironmental riders, like the ban on new 
listings under the Endangered Species Act.
  Instead, the Republican leadership allowed the conferees to consider 
just four things. Those four were: mining; the Mojave National 
Preserve; the Tongass National Forest; and the National Endowments for 
the Arts and the Humanities.

  So, what did the conferees do about those?
  First, about mining: When it sent the bill back to conference the 
House told the conferees to include a moratorium on bargain-basement 
sales of the gold, silver, and other hardrock minerals on public 
lands--a moratorium like the one that was in the House version of the 
bill. But that isn't what happened. 

[[Page H12398]]
Instead, this new conference report contains something that's called a 
moratorium--but that, in fact, will speed up, not slow down, these 
sales. This so-called moratorium will not apply to applications filed 
before September 30 of this year, and it will only last until the 
Republican leadership can get Congress to pass something--anything, 
except a reconciliation bill--that would revise the obsolete Mining Law 
of 1872. Then the moratorium would end, even if that bill were vetoed 
by the President. Meanwhile, this so-called moratorium will actually 
require the Interior Department to speed up its processing of patent 
applications.
  That is not a moratorium. It is a sham. It is a shame. We should not 
accept it.
  What about the Mojave National Preserve? Well, on that issue there's 
no difference between this new conference report and the last one. 
Instead, there's some report language in the statement of managers that 
tries to deny that this conference report is a back-door attack on the 
California Desert Protection Act while at the same time attacking the 
National Park Service and limiting their plans for managing the Mojave. 
So, this, too, is no improvement, and it should not be accepted.
  What about the Tongass? The previous conference report called for 
increased timbering, including in areas that the Forest Service wants 
to put off-limits in order to protect fish and wildlife, and would make 
permanent some temporary restrictions on protecting habitat that were 
misguidedly included as part of the rescissions bill. This conference 
report is exactly the same. The conferees not only didn't remove or 
improve these unsound provisions, they voted to retain them. We 
shouldn't accept that.
  And regarding the endowments, the conferees voted to adopt the so-
called Helms language. That's no improvement, and it should not be 
accepted.
  In short, Mr. Speaker, this second conference report is still a bad 
bill, and still deserves to be defeated. Congress should not pass it. 
If it is passed, it should be vetoed, and that veto should be 
sustained.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the motion to recommit. The 
motion asks nothing more than that the House stick to its original 
position, keep the mining moratorium, keep current law on the Tongass. 
The House position has not yet had a chance to prevail because the 
House majority conferees, with the exception of the esteemed chairman, 
have not backed it. We must not let a handful of Members turn the rest 
of the House into a kind of giant Boys' State where we just pretend to 
legislate. But there are substantive, as well as process, problems with 
this bill.
  On mining, Mr. Speaker, we are being asked to trade a solid 
moratorium for reconciliation language which few Members have seen. It 
is a ``Let's Make a Deal'' situation. We can take what we have or trade 
it for whatever is behind door No. 1, and, by the way those who have 
opened up door No. 1, who have seen the reconciliation language, 
describe it as sham reform, hardly meaningful reform as the chairman 
seeks, a continuing giveaway of our resources. How can we look the 
taxpayers in the face and explain why large, often foreign, companies 
should continue to reap profits from Federal resources while paying 
next to nothing?
  Now I know some Members have been told, ``Don't worry about it, we'll 
fix it after the vote.'' That is no way to make policy. We were told it 
would be taken care of in this reconciliation conference, but it was 
not.
  The question of the Tongass is simpler. We have not acted on it in 
this body. The other body added a provision that will allow more 
logging in ecologically sensitive areas at a hemorrhaging loss to the 
taxpayer. The Governor of Alaska opposes this language, sportsment's 
associations oppose this language, environmentalists oppose this 
language. As a matter of fact, Governor Knowles of Alaska has 
repeatedly stressed, and this is his language, the need for a balanced 
process based on good science, the application of sound management 
principles, and imput from the public. We have such a vehicle; it is 
called the Tongass land management plan.
  The Governor goes on to say, and these are his words, the Governor of 
Alaska, ``Killing the Tongass land management process and leaving 
Alaskans out of the decision is just plain wrong.'' That is the 
Governor of Alaska speaking.
  Mr. Speaker, the only reason this language is in here, and once again 
let me repeat, the House has not acted on this. It was added in the 
Senate. The only reason it is in here is that a few Members in the 
other body are trying to force the issue. There is no reason to give 
in. This report takes the unprecedented step of imposing a forest 
management plan over the objections of scientists and insulates that 
plan from all legal challenges. In other words, it suspends current 
environmental law just as surely as the EPA riders did.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to stick to the House position, as 
we did when a similar conference report came before us in September. 
Vote for the environment, vote for the taxpayers, vote to recommit.
  Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Miller], the ranking member of the Committee on 
Resources.
  (Mr. MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from 
Colorado [Mr. Skaggs] for yielding this time to me, and I want to thank 
the gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert] for his remarks he just made 
because I think he outlined very clearly the issue that confronts us 
both in mining and Tongass. In Tongass we are presented with a radical 
change from established plan that was passed by both Houses of the 
Congress and signed by the President of the United States for the 
management of our largest national forests and our only temperate rain 
forest in the United States.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I only have 2 minutes. I am 
sorry; I only have 2 minutes.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I just want to make sure the gentleman sticks to 
the facts.
  Mr. MILLER of California. The gentleman will not impugn my remarks in 
that way at all. The gentleman from Alaska [Mr. Young] does not have 
the time, and he has no right to do that to this Member.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. McInnis). The gentleman from California 
will suspend.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, that should not be done.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair advises the gentleman from 
California that the gentleman will suspend.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Let the gentleman from Alaska have his own 
time. The gentleman from Alaska wants to take cheap shots, and he can 
take them on his own time. The gentleman knows exactly what he did.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California is out of 
order.
  Gentlemen, all Members need to keep their statements to the Record 
and focused on the issue at hand.
  The gentleman from California [Mr. Miller] controls the time.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker the point is that this 
legislation, as is presented to us, not only substantially increases 
the mandated cut for the Tongass Forest, it also increases a mandated 
hemorrhage of taxpayer dollars from the Treasury. Over the last 3 years 
we had a cashflow deficit of the Treasury because of the Tongass of 
$102 million. We cannot afford to cut these trees in the manner in 
which they want us to do it under this legislation.
  As pointed out by the gentleman from New York and others, the 
Governor of Alaska has asked us not to do it this way. He has asked us 
to do it within the confines of the management plan that relies on 
science, relies on the marketplace, and relies on making sure that the 
Tongass is preserved.
  Now a number of the Republicans who support this recognize that this 
is unacceptable to the American public, so they started a plan where 
the Republicans would plant a tree. Mr. Speaker, if all 234 Republicans 
plant a tree, and we wait 400 years, we will have about 234,000 board 
feet from the little trees that they planted, but, if we pass this 
bill, we will cut 100 million 

[[Page H12399]]
board feet of lumber, more board feet of lumber every year, and 100,000 
trees will get cut from the Tongass National Forest, and, as they cut 
those 100,000 trees, they are going to reach into the taxpayers' 
pockets in this country and ask us to continue to subsidize forest 
practices that are mandated, mandated by a couple of Members of 
Congress that have nothing to do with forest practices, with the 
ecological health of this rainforest. We should not do that.
  Others have spoken about the sham of the mining law reform. It is not 
a royalty, it is a complete, complete loophole, and not only do they 
not change the royalty to these companies, but they let those 
individuals that are in the process now of getting patented claims to 
escape completely from the royalties, so once again we are going to see 
the Secretary of the Interior award tens of billions of dollars in 
minerals, and gold, and platinum, and silver to mining companies, and 
no return to the taxpayer.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the conference report. While 
there are many good reasons to oppose this legislation and to expect 
the President to veto it, there are two issues which are included in 
the motion to recommit to be offered by Mr. Yates which deserve special 
recognition.
  One offensive provision is the rider added by the Senate to greatly 
accelerate logging of the Tongass National Forest in Alaska while, at 
the same time, removing protections for fish and wildlife and 
insulating the timber barons from the public planning process and legal 
challenges.
  The Tongass rider would suspend environmental and management laws, 
and would dictate that a discredited 1991 timber plan rule forest 
management.
  This unprecedented congressional action would boost logging of the 
old-growth forest by 100 million board feet annually, or 44 percent 
over the historic average. By independent calculation, the Tongass 
timber program already costs the taxpayers more than any other national 
forest. GAO concluded that the cash-flow deficit to the Treasury was 
$102 million over the last 3 years. To support the increased logging, 
this Tongass rider could cost another $18 million in annual subsidies.
  The Tongass rider ignores new scientific information and even 
prevents the Forest Service from setting aside habitat to protect fish 
and wildlife. It is a solution in search of a problem that doesn't 
exist, because the economy of southeast Alaska is becoming more 
diverse. It is opposed by the administration, the Governor of Alaska, 
and significant user groups who depend on the forest resources, 
including the Alaska Outdoor Council.
  Recently, the Republican leadership circulated a memo advising that 
Members could enjoy excellent media opportunities and show their 
environmental credentials by planting trees in their districts. The 
same Republican leadership has allowed the Tongass rider to be included 
in this conference report, demonstrating that this advice is nothing 
more than a gimmick to cover up their antienvironmental agenda here in 
Congress.
  Well, the American people should not be fooled by this kind of 
trickery. If every Republican Member were to follow the leadership's 
plot and plant a spruce tree in the Tongass, in about 400 years we 
could have trees the size of those in the rain forest today. If we wait 
400 years and we're lucky, each of the 234 Republican trees could 
produce about 1,000 board feet, for a total of 234,000 board feet of 
potential timber.
  By contrast, this provision in the conference report would accelerate 
Tongass logging by 100 million board feet every single year, requiring 
an annual cut of at least 100,000 majestic old-growth trees.
  Another very good reason to reject the conference report is that it 
contains a sham mining patent moratorium. The House has voted 
overwhelmingly and repeatedly to end this multibillion-dollar ripoff of 
mineral-rich public lands. But this bill does not extend the patent 
moratorium through the entire fiscal year as we have decided in the 
past. Instead, the patent moratorium disappears if the mining 
provisions in budget reconciliation become law. It also can vanish 
simply if the House and Senate pass identical bills but the President 
does not sign the bill, though the Justice Department has already 
concluded that this language is unconstitutional.

  I doubt more than a handful of Members in this body have even read 
the mining provisions in reconciliation which are incorporated by 
reference in this bill. When you do find a copy, what you will learn is 
that these valuable public lands will continue to be given away for a 
fraction of their true worth. All a mining conglomerate has to do is 
pay for the surface value of the land that contains the gold. That is 
like buying For Knox by paying only for the roof.
  The proponents will argue that the taxpayers will get a return from a 
5-percent net royalty. But read the fine print. There are so many 
deductions allowed that this royalty is likely to cost more to 
administer than it will generate in revenue for the Treasury.
  Make no mistake about it. The vote on the motion to recommit is the 
real vote this year on mining reform. We won't have a chance for a 
separate vote on the mining provisions in budget reconciliation. We 
should reject this conference report and send the President the message 
that only real reform--a true patent moratorium, a real royalty, and an 
effective abandoned mine cleanup program--are acceptable. To do 
otherwise is simply to sanction the continuation of a multibillion-
dollar ripoff of the public lands.
  Mr. Speaker, I could go on and on about the flaws in this conference 
report. It prevents the National Park Service from implementing the 
California Desert Protection Act, which we just enacted last Congress. 
it is cruelly unfair to American Indians who bear a disproportionate 
amount of the budget cuts in their programs. It fails even to meet the 
administration's modest request for land and water conservation fund 
appropriations, despite an $11.2 billion surplus in that dedicated 
trust fund.
  Mr. Speaker, this conference report is fiscally and environmentally 
irresponsible. I urge Members to vote for the motion to recommit.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Arizona [Mr. Kolbe].
  (Mr. KOLBE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the chairman of this 
subcommittee for the work he has done on this conference report. This 
has been very contentious. I serve on this subcommittee; I know it has 
not been easy.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge my colleagues to vote in favor of 
this conference report and to reject the motion to recommit. I want to 
focus my remarks on the so-called mining moratorium here. It is a very 
real moratorium. It is real, and to see why, let us look at the process 
it establishes for a second.
  This moratorium stays in effect unless a balanced budget act, that 
is, reconciliation language, is enacted into law. That means 
legislation passed by both Houses and signed by the President. Or, if 
both the House and the Senate pass identical language in some 
freestanding bill the moratorium would be lifted. Now that is a 
significant change from where we were before because it allows those 
who want the moratorium, and this House has supported their position, 
to have a great measure of control, of leverage over this process to be 
sure that the kind of language that we ultimately pass into law works 
to their satisfaction.
  Now let us focus on the substance of the language that we are going 
to be dealing with in the next couple of days on the balanced budget 
act; that is, the reconciliation instructions on mineral royalties. I 
do not agree that it is a sham royalty. I think a 5-percent royalty is 
a very real royalty. It is up from 3\1/2\ percent that we were talking 
about before. A 5-percent tax on top of the other corporate taxes, 
sales taxes, and other Federal and State taxes and fees that are paid. 
And those are not insignificant taxes, I might add. Furthermore, we 
will require payment at fair market rates on land that is taken to 
patent in the future, and it will have to pay on top of that the 5-
percent royalty. Of course there is a clause in there that does not 
apply it retroactively to patent claims that are already in process; 
and it should not be. People that have made the effort to patent land 
should not be told, ``Oh, the rules got changed in the middle of your 
patent process.'' There is also a reverter clause so that land would 
revert to the U.S. Government if its use is changed. That prevents sham 
patents being taken for mining and then put to some other kind of use. 
There will be significant increases in rental payments beginning in 
1999. Forty percent of the royalties would go to reclamation of mined 
land, and that is something I think all of us have wanted to see.

                              {time}  1645

  In addition to these provisions there are many other reasons why we 
should support this conference report. One provision that I am the most 
enthusiastic about is the recreational fee demonstration program, an 
innovative program to allow the Fish and Wildlife 

[[Page H12400]]
Service, the Bureau of Land Management, the Park Service, to establish 
a 1-year pilot program to allow managing agencies to utilize onsite 
recreational use and access fees. We need to give this kind of 
flexibility to these agencies for land management.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a bill that provides a sound and fiscally 
conservative blueprint for the continued management of our public 
lands, and it deserves our support. Vote for it. Defeat the motion to 
recommit.
  Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Montana [Mr. Williams], the Representative at Large.
  Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Speaker, the National Endowment for the Arts and 
the National Endowment for the Humanities have enlivened the lives of 
Americans. Individual Americans have received wonderful things each 
year for less than the price of a milkshake. For that price, they have 
received the last 11 Pulitzer Prize winning plays. The Endowment has 
funded ``Driving Miss Daisy,'' ``Live From Lincoln Center.'' For the 
price of that milkshake, we received those two wonderful TV series, the 
``Civil War,'' and ``Baseball.'' We preserved the papers of Thomas 
Jefferson. We got Garrison Keillor's ``Prairie Home Companion.'' We got 
the Vietnam Wall. Now, this shortsighted bill, a shortsighted Congress 
cuts those Endowments by 40 percent. It is wrong. It is wrong.
  Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the 
gentlewoman from Oregon [Ms. Furse].
  (Ms. FURSE asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. FURSE. Mr. Speaker, because this bill guts the protection of the 
Northwest salmon runs, I oppose the conference report and I urge my 
colleagues to vote no.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my unmitigated opposition to this 
bill. This bill is so packed with ill-advised cuts that it would take 
me an hour just to list them all. Let me speak of just one outrage, the 
treatment of our Nation's sports and commercial fisheries.
  First, this bill terminates three vital initiatives to protect 
fisheries habitat in the Northwest--pacfish, infish, and the Upper 
Columbia Basin assessment.
  Second, this bill drastically slashes funding for land acquisition. 
If we are serious about protecting private property rights, we must 
purchase the lands necessary to provide the habitat for fish and 
wildlife.
  And third, this bill terminates all funding for new species listings 
under the Endangered Species Act. We are simply putting our heads in 
the sand if we think that stopping agencies from listing species will 
somehow magically make the species healthy again.
  On the west coast, we are struggling to reverse the decline of our 
world-famous salmon runs. These salmon once contributed more than $1 
billion and 60,000 jobs annually to our regional economy, but, salmon 
fishing revenues have dropped by 90 percent because of declining 
populations.
  To those of you who think that gutting funding for the ESA or habitat 
protection or land acquisition will help the economy, I say go talk to 
the unemployed fishermen and women in my district, go talk to the 
bankrupt tackle shop owners in Idaho, go talk to the thousands of 
recreational fishermen and women in this country who may never be able 
to catch a salmon in the Pacific Northwest again, go talk to the Native 
Americans whose culture and religion rely on salmon that will soon no 
longer exist.
  Yes, we need to reduce the deficit. But the priorities in this bill 
are all wrong. We can do better than this. I urge my colleagues to vote 
no on this bill.
  Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
West Virginia [Mr. Rahall].
  (Mr. RAHALL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in very strong support of the motion 
of the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Yates] to recommit this bill.
  This appropriation bill for the Interior Department has the most 
tortured and longest history of any appropriation bill I think this 
body has ever witnessed. I think that tortuous history is well 
deserving, indeed. That is because the conference committee on this 
bill has consistently and in a most blatant fashion ignored the 
majority view of this body on the question of mining claim patents.
  As the distinguished gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula], the 
subcommittee chairman knows, this body has expressed its opinion quite 
clearly on mining law patent moratoriums in previous actions on motions 
to recommit, and on true mining law reform itself in the last Congress, 
when we passed a bipartisan and in a large measure true mining law 
reform that even had the support at that time of the current Speaker of 
this body. That was true reform. We have also voted for a true 
moratorium, which is not what we are talking about today at all. We are 
talking about a sham moratorium in this bill today.
  There was in place during the last fiscal year a moratorium on the 
processing and issuance of these patents. In that true reform I 
referred to in the last Congress, we even ended the patenting process, 
again, clearly supported by this body.
  This moratorium last year was put in place to halt a national scandal 
involving the Federal Government giving away billions of dollars worth 
of public lands to mostly foreign-controlled corporations, without the 
benefit of a royalty and for the sale price of $2.50 an acre.
  The history of recommittal motions on this bill has already been 
stated many times during this debate. I shall not do that again at this 
time. But this moratorium, as I say, is a sham moratorium. It is a 
fraud. It is a mockery. Once again, I repeat, it ignores the views of 
the majority of this body, Republican and Democrat alike, that the 
American people deserve better from their Government. They do not 
deserve to be ripped off and the mineral wealth of this Nation 
plundered on the altar of corporate welfare.
  Why is the pending mining claim patent language a fraud? First, and 
we have been through it already, apparently nobody in the conference 
committee ever heard of the Chadha decision. The pending language would 
lift the moratorium if minimal provisions relating to patenting are 
simply passed by both the House and Senate. They do not have to be 
enacted into law; no, simply passed by both bodies.
  Second, the moratorium would be lifted if the sham mining reform 
provisions that will be part of the budget reconciliation package are 
enacted into law. That is not true reform.
  This bill will most assuredly be vetoed by the President.
  So this leaves us with a situation where, in order to lift the 
moratorium, all that would have to be done would be to pass a one-
sentence bill by both the House and Senate, despite the questionable 
constitutionality of that action.
  Too much is at stake here. And the will of the House has simply been 
ignored too many times on this issue.
  This time, once again, I urge my colleagues to stand firm and vote, 
yes, vote once again, to recommit this conference report with 
instructions to maintain the fiscal year 1995 moratorium language.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Nevada [Mrs. Vucanovich], a member of the subcommittee.
  Mrs. VUCANOVICH. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman 
from Ohio [Mr. Regula] for bringing this conference report back to the 
House. I rise in support of this revised conference report. This bill 
is 10 percent below last year's funding and within our budget 
allocation.
  All of the rhetoric notwithstanding, the mining provisions in this 
bill are not a ``sham.'' The moratorium on issuing new mining patents 
is real. So much so, that I had to think twice before I decided I would 
support this conference report.
  Those of us who support responsible mining in our country have moved 
toward mining law reform. We are willing to negotiate royalties and 
payment for patented land. How much of a royalty, and how much should 
be paid for the land--these are issues we will have to negotiate with 
the administration in budget reconciliation.
  On the other hand, those who will vote against the bill are voting 
for the status quo. The question is whether we want to go forward or 
not. I, for one, do indeed want to make some progress on mining law 
reform. I urge my colleagues to reject the motion to recommit and 
support the conference report.
  Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Nadler].
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, 1984 has come and gone, but Big Brother is 
alive 

[[Page H12401]]
and well. It may seem like tilting at windmills to focus on this bill's 
restrictions on the content of art that the National Endowment for the 
Arts may fund, but we must not lose sight of the larger issue. Freedom 
of expression is the bedrock of our national identity.
  This bill prohibits the NEA from funding art ``* * * which depicts or 
describes sexual or excretory activities or organs.'' Does the 
definition of ``sexual'' include kissing or holding hands? Does the 
prohibition against the depiction of sexual organs bar the works by 
Michelangelo? This language is probably unconstitutional. It is clearly 
blatant censorship. The new majority has declared deregulation and 
decentralization to be at the top of its agenda. I guess those lofty 
goals had a run-in with the Republican censors.
  Along with censorship, the bill reduces NEA funding by 40 percent. 
When this body established the NEA, it said, ``* * * it is necessary 
and appropriate for the Federal Government to help create and sustain 
not only a climate encouraging freedom of thought, imagination, and 
inquiry * * *.'' Let us not forget that our constituents sent us here 
to protect their rights, not to clip away at their freedoms.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Washington [Mr. Nethercutt], a member of the subcommittee.
  Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
time and for his good work on this bill, the fiscal year 1996 Interior 
appropriations conference report.
  As a new Member of Congress from the West--eastern Washington--and as 
a member of the Interior Subcommittee I have had the opportunity to 
work closely with those parties with an interest in land-use issues, 
including the mining patent moratorium.
  The conference report before us is a fair agreement that reconciles 
the interests on all sides of the mining issue.
  I would like to remind members that we currently live under the law 
of the 1872 Mining Act. This law must be reformed, however, it is 
inappropriate to impose a total moratorium on an appropriations bill 
because we don't like the law. The law should be and will be reformed 
outside of the of the appropriations process.
  On September 29, the House voted to recommit the Interior conference 
report with instructions to impose a moratorium on the processing of 
mining patents. I did not support that motion, however the conference 
complied with the will of the House and reinstated the moratorium for 
all new patent applications. And consistent with the language in the 
bill last year, the conference agreed to grandfather those patent 
applications already in process. This is a fair agreement.
  Before voting on this report, members should know that I am told the 
other body will not support a conference report that does not 
grandfather patents that were filed before the moratorium was enacted.
  I emphasize again, if this conference report is passed and signed 
into law, no new mining patent applications will be processed. The will 
of the House has been met.
  I also want to address the issue of logging in the Tongass Forest. 
The language in this conference report simply directs the Forest 
Service to proceed with alternative P. It may surprise some to know 
that alternative P was the Forest Service's own preferred management 
plan under the Bush administration. This plan will allow a sustainable 
yield of timber while protecting the environment.
  I strongly urge all members to support the Interior conference 
report. It's a fair agreement and a good bill--vote against the motion 
to recommit and for the report.
  Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Vento].
  (Mr. VENTO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this 
conference report and this action of this Congress, which is building 
on one of the worst environmental records of any Congress in recent 
history. It is a sad day to come here and to face the types of changes 
that are being proposed in this bill, and then to have them suggest 
that our House conferees actually did better in contact with the Senate 
counterparts in this bill. They certainly did not.
  This bill upsets and interjects itself into almost all the 
professional decisions that have had great, great consideration of the 
past decade in terms of the environment, which have been debated. 
Furthermore, in this Congress we have not been given and afforded the 
opportunity, with all the hours that have been worked, somehow we could 
not find the time to deliberate and consider these bills on the floor 
in an open manner so we could debate them. No. What we have been 
treated to is one closed rule, one closed debate process after another, 
whether it has been on the rescission bill that dealt with the salvage 
logging issue, whether it has been in the reconciliation bill that the 
Republicans have put forth; no opportunity to even vote on some of the 
provisions on the House floor on these measures, and now in the 
Interior Appropriation bill and other appropriation bills repeatedly.
  The authorizing committees in this Congress have been rendered 
irrelevant, by and large, in terms of this process. There are but just 
a few examples. That is what this really is all about, that the 
American public is not getting the benefit of the debate. The Members 
cannot work their will on these issues. They are presented with 
legislation logrolled into one enormous package of environmental 
changes, of landscape changes, sort of take it or leave it.
  We might have a vote today on the mineral patent moratorium; which 
surely this bill does not uphold the will of the House in terms of that 
mining patent moratorium. It does not uphold the will of the House. In 
fact, beyond that, it goes in and interjects itself into decisions made 
by professionals, whether it is in the Bureau of Land Management and 
dealing with the roads in the West, or whether it is the grazing 
moratorium that is continued in here, on the moratorium on the 
Endangered Species Act barring the professionals from enforcing the law 
and doing their jobs.
  Of course, it goes beyond that and adopts new policy, timber harvest 
mandates in Tongass, plus this bill further immunizes the rescission 
timber salvage process bill in terms of salvage logging that was 
written into the rescission bill last year. We told you it was bad 
then, and now we know, as we see it unfold, how really bad these 
salvage timber provisions are--logging without laws or common sense. 
This is not forest health, this is not fair. This is not the democratic 
way. This is not considering policy, basing judgments on issues' 
merits. It is basically destroying our landscape: Destroying the legacy 
of future generations.
  It is a sad day when this Congress steps forward to begin to write 
these types of measures into law to be our policy. We are not 
fulfilling our role as diligent stewards. We are not protecting the 
natural resources.
  This bill is not necessary to deal with the deficit in this country. 
This will leave an enormous environmental deficit in this country that 
you will not be able to repair in many, many decades to come. We should 
defeat this bill and send it back to conference.

                              {time}  1645

  Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Miller].
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I would just like to make a couple of points. One is 
that the suggestion that when they went from 3.5 royalty to 5.5-royalty 
that somehow that is an increase in the royalty, but my colleagues 
really ought to know that there is almost 3.5 payment of royalty 
exceptions. That means that you will never really get that 5.5-percent 
royalty, because the companies will be allowed to deduct almost their 
entire operations, far beyond what is touted as the Nevada law, so that 
is a huge loophole.
  The gentleman from Washington suggested that this takes us back to 
plan P on the Tongass National Forest and that was the preferred plan 
of the Forest Service. The fact is, that plan was never adopted by the 
Forest Service, and the fact is that since that time, this Congress of 
the United States passed a bill to better manage that forest, and that 
was done with Presidential signature.
  So there is a lot of suggestions that somehow this is major reform, 
both in 

[[Page H12402]]
mining and in forestry, but the fact of the matter is it is not. In 
mining, almost 300,000 claims that have not even made application for a 
patent are going to be exempted from a royalty should they ever decide 
to make an application for a patent. That is a loophole that you can 
drive the entire U.S. Treasury through.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Louisiana [Mr. Livingston], the chairman of the Committee on 
Appropriations.
  (Mr. LIVINGSTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I just want to take this opportunity to 
commend Chairman Regula of the subcommittee and all of the staff and 
Members on both sides who have worked to try to come up with a 
compromise on this issue.
  This has been a very difficult bill, and I realize that my friend, 
the gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert], is still not happy with it, 
and I will tell him that there are people who are pro-mining folks who 
are not happy with it either, and I suppose that there are always going 
to be people on both sides that are unhappy with this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I just want to give credit to the gentleman from Ohio 
[Mr. Regula]. He played the role of Solomon. He divided the baby in 
half. If people on one side do not like it and people on the other side 
do not like it, it must be a pretty good compromise, because if it were 
too far to one side or the other, frankly, there would be no hope that 
it would pass.
  So I urge all of my colleagues to take a look at the progress that 
has been made in these negotiations. It may not be everything one 
likes, it may not be everything one has hoped for, but this is a good 
bill, and in view of what is going on in the current political 
environment, it is very, very important that the conference report be 
adopted and passed today, that it will then go over to the Senate, that 
it be passed, and we can send this bill to the President for his 
signature or do whatever he wants.
  The point is, there are a lot of people in the Park Service and a lot 
of the other agencies that are covered by this bill who, once this bill 
becomes law, will not have to worry about furloughs, will not have to 
worry about their next paycheck; they will get paid because the work of 
the Government under the Interior appropriations will be law, but only, 
only if we take this first step toward approving the conference report 
here today.
  Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Speaker, I am not sure whether the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. 
Livingston], the chairman of the full committee, wished to rest on the 
Biblical allusion that he recently invoked. I think actually the 
gentleman from Ohio has done better than dividing the baby in half, 
which would have been, or course, a mortal act. He has done well, given 
the restrictions that have been imposed on him.
  Mr. Speaker, the problem with this bill is that the gentleman had 
lousy restrictions to work within. And so we really have decimated so 
many important programs that even, given his genius at trying to make 
this into a halfway respectable bill, even the good works of the 
gentleman from Ohio have not been sufficient to make this worthy of the 
endorsement of the House, whatever shape the baby may be in at this 
point.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the chairman of the full committee is absolutely right. 
The gentleman from Ohio is probably as respected as any person in this 
House. That is why this is a very difficult position for those of us in 
the new majority.
  The fact of the matter is, he tried very hard. The fact of the matter 
is he led this House before in voting to recommit with instructions on 
the mining section. The fact of the matter is, this House has not 
spoken previously on Tongass.
  Mr. Speaker, I think we should maintain the House position. The House 
has already spoken. Ninety-one Republicans have done so in terms of the 
mining permitting section.
  Mr. Speaker, it is this bill that will drive the reconciliation 
process. We can send a strong signal to those people so that they will 
get the message, so that they will deal with the mining permitting 
section in a responsible manner.
  This issue is not whether or not we will have logging in the Tongass. 
We have logging now, more than 300 million board-feet per year. The 
question is whether it should be increased through unprecedented 
congressional action. In essence, a mandate from Washington, a mandate 
from Washington that the Governor has told us he does not want.
  The motion to recommit is pro-taxpayer at a time when we are all 
talking about balancing the budget. That is the number one objective. 
If you vote for this motion to recommit, if we succeed in our mission, 
then we will bring additional revenue into the Treasury, which will 
help us in that very demanding, challenging task of balancing the 
budget. It certainly is pro-environment. All America is watching. They 
want us to be concerned about sensitive environmental issues.
  Mr. Speaker, let me conclude by once again heaping praise on the 
distinguished gentleman from Ohio. He has done a masterful job, 
although there are some areas of disagreement. I would urge my 
colleagues to join me in voting for the motion to recommit so that we 
can make a pretty good bill even better.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time to close.
  Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
distinguished gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Yates].
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Speaker, I have sought this time to join the others in 
throwing accolades upon the gentleman from Ohio who has done a very 
fine job with meager offerings. The job could have been better. The job 
can be better. If we are given the opportunity to again review the work 
that this committee has done, I believe we can come in with a much 
better bill.
  Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker and my colleagues, I think we have had an excellent 
debate on this issue, and certainly my good friend, the ranking member 
and former Chairman, made the point.
  I just want to make sure everybody has all of the correct facts. We 
have heard this called a sham. Well, the Department of Interior said 
this: ``This amendment language would hold back a rush while Congress 
passes at least some form of mining law reform legislation.''
  We have the Secretary of Interior, the Department of Interior saying, 
this is a good moratorium.
  Let me read the moratorium that we put in in conference so that 
everybody has all of the facts. This is in the law, and they are 
attempting to send it back. I would say to the gentleman from Illinois 
[Mr. Yates], my good friend, when the gentleman says more, I do not 
know what more we can do. Because here is what the moratorium language 
says, and we did this at the direction of Members of this House, 
including myself:

       None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available 
     pursuant to this act shall be obligated or expended to accept 
     or process applications for a patent, for any mining or mill 
     site claim located under the general mining laws, unless 
     legislation to carry out reconciliation instructions pursuant 
     to a concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 1996 
     is enacted into law and such legislation contains, at a 
     minimum, provisions relating to the patenting of and payment 
     of royalties on such claims or an agreement is approved by 
     the House and Senate in identical form in other legislation 
     containing provisions relating to patents.

  Mr. Speaker, it is clear. It says, unless there is mining reform 
legislation in reconciliation which will have to be passed by a 
majority of both Houses and signed by the President that, otherwise, 
the patent moratorium stays in place. This is what this body requested 
that we do.
  I think therefore it is important to understand that we vote ``no'' 
to recommit and we vote ``yes'' on the bill. It accomplishes that goals 
of budget reduction. It does it without hurting anything. It takes care 
of the important needs. There is no give-away, it stops the give-away 
of the mining patents that are presently taking place. As far as the 
Tongass is concerned, there is no 

[[Page H12403]]
money to increase the cut despite what has been said out here. The cut 
will remain at 310, maybe a few thousand extra board feet.
  Mr. Speaker, I would point out something else that we did in the 
conference, and that is we allow the planning to go forward on the 
Tongass. We allow the Forest Service to continue their planning process 
and to determine what is the best way long-term to deal with this 
resource.
  Furthermore, it protects the Tongass because it gives the Forest 
Service the decision as to whether or not there should be additional 
cutting, because the language says that they can only cut to the 
maximum extent practicable, and that word practicable is determined by 
the Forest Service. So I think the control remains in the Forest 
Service. All the dire things that have been outlined here simply will 
not happen.
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. REGULA. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Speaker, I would inquire of the gentleman, will the 
gentleman agree with me that the Forest Service should not cut more 
than 310 million board feet?
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, that is right, and I do not think that there 
will be more than 310, more than that, because the money is not there, 
and the Forest Service has the judgment as to what is practicable.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote against the motion to 
recommit. Vote for the bill. It is a good bill, it is a responsible 
bill.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in opposition to H.R. 1977, 
the Department of the Interior and related agencies appropriations bill 
for fiscal year 1996. Time and again, I have stood on the floor of this 
House to defend our Nation's modest, but vital investment in cultural, 
educational and artistic programs. As Chair of the Arts Caucus, I have 
watched the 104th Congress hammer away at the National Endowment for 
the Arts and we keep hearing the same ridiculous argument from the 
other side of the aisle. America can no longer afford to support arts 
or cultural institutions.
  I simply cannot understand the priorities of this Congress when 1 
minute we rush to dismantle the NEA, and the next we deliver 20 
unnecessary B-2 bombers to the Pentagon, and then we sign away $7 
billion the military didn't even ask for. The other week, several 
Members here were just ecstatic after passing a budget that will cost 
Americans billions of dollars in lost revenue and sinks our progress on 
deficit reduction. As long as the 104th Congress follows these 
budgetary priorities, no one can convince me that the decimation of the 
NEA is any kind of economic plan, or that it has anything to do with 
money.
  My colleagues, we have all listened to this debate before, and we 
should all know this is not about deficit reduction or about what we 
can afford--this is all about philosophy, plain and simple. How many 
Government programs can point to an investment of 64 cents a year per 
taxpayer, which supports over 1.3 million jobs in nonprofit arts, and 
which yields $3.4 billion a year in tax revenue? To those who claim 
that Federal involvement is not needed, I would remind you that a few 
dollars from the NEA often come first before a museum exhibit, a 
ballet, an opera or a dance troupe receives any financial commitment 
from the private sector.
  Mr. Speaker, of all the reasons why we should not eliminate the NEA, 
I cannot think of any one more important than the effect on our 
children. Throughout America and in all of our districts, the NEA 
routinely provides minority, at-risk and financially disadvantaged 
students their first exposure to arts, drama and theater. Thanks to NEA 
grants, some of our most troubled inner city schools have established 
innovative programs which emphasize art in teaching math, science and 
history. If we approve these cuts to the NEA, these and so many other 
projects in financially-strapped schools will be grounded immediately.
  My colleagues, it is clear to me, and should be to all of you: the 
arts are a vital investment in our economy, our children, and in the 
future of our nation. There are numerous problems with the Interior 
appropriations bill, but I would ask each of you to seriously consider 
your vote today--to realize the message we are sending young people and 
to think about what legacy we are leaving behind. Don't sacrifice 
what's left of our Nation's cultural programs. Vote against this 
measure.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge my colleagues to vote 
no on this conference report. This conference report rolls back decades 
of responsible stewardship of our natural resources through 
shortsighted funding cuts, overturning of existing laws, and abdication 
of our responsibility to preserve our natural lands for future 
generations.
  Mr. Speaker, since 1872, the mining law has allowed more than 278 
billion dollars' worth of gold, silver, and other metals to be taken 
from public lands in return for minuscule payments, according to the 
Mineral Policy Center. This conference report allows new patents, now 
blocked by the moratorium, worth more than $15.5 billion to follow the 
same giveaway trail.
  This past September, the House voted 277 to 147 to reject this brazen 
example of corporate welfare and insist on maintaining a true patenting 
moratorium. The mining provisions contained in this conference report 
ignore the clear will of the House.
  In addition to mining industry giveaways, this conference report 
contains numerous legislative policy riders which attempt to weaken 
existing environmental laws. The conference report encourages increased 
logging in the Tongass National Forest, places a moratorium on listing 
of endangered species, suspends grazing regulations, and cripples the 
National Biological Service.
  In California, the conference report overturns the establishment of 
the new Mojave National Park Preserve by denying funding for its 
transfer to the National Park Service. Just 1 year ago, Congress voted 
overwhelmingly to establish the Mojave as one of the largest natural 
preserves. This capped 8 years of debate and compromise and was a 
significant victory for our natural lands.
  Since passage, the Park Service has improved visitor services, 
resource protection, and law enforcement in the Mojave. Visitation to 
the California desert has increased significantly and has generated 
additional revenue in the surrounding communities.
  By contrast, the conference report rider would transfer management of 
the Mojave to the Bureau of Land Management thereby eliminating or 
jeopardizing visitor services and safety, the processing of hunting, 
grazing, and mining permits, and the maintenance and protection of 
valuable park resources.
  Mr. Speaker, taken as a whole, this conference report constitutes a 
massive assault on our natural heritage. It offers unprecedented levels 
of corporate welfare to the mining industry, encourages clearcutting of 
our ancient forests, and ignores the future health of both threatened 
and endangered species and their habitats.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this conference report.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered.
  There was no objection.


                motion to recommit offered by mr. yates

  Mr. YATES. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the conference 
report?
  Mr. YATES. I am, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  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 the amendments of the Senate 
     numbered 108 and 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 ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. REGULA. 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 230, 
nays 199, not voting 4, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 799]

                               YEAS--230

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Bass
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chapman
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Danner
     Davis
     de la Garza
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Evans
     
[[Page H12404]]

     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Goss
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Holden
     Horn
     Hoyer
     Jackson-Lee
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Klug
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lantos
     Latham
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lincoln
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Markey
     Martini
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Meyers
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Moran
     Morella
     Nadler
     Neal
     Ney
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reed
     Richardson
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rose
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Taylor (MS)
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weldon (PA)
     Williams
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates
     Zimmer

                               NAYS--199

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bateman
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooley
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Ensign
     Everett
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Flanagan
     Fowler
     Frisa
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gillmor
     Gingrich
     Goodling
     Graham
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Hostettler
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Largent
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Livingston
     Longley
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     Martinez
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Murtha
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Petri
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Regula
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Royce
     Salmon
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stump
     Talent
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Traficant
     Upton
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Fields (LA)
     Houghton
     Tucker
     Waldholtz

                              {time}  1735

  Mr. PACKARD, Mrs. CUBIN and Mr. TIAHRT changed their vote from 
``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Messrs. WYDEN, POMEROY, BERMAN, NEY, SAXTON, PETERSON of Minnesota, 
SMITH of New Jersey, BILIRAKIS, BASS, TORKILDSEN, DAVIS, EWING, 
WILLIAMS, and LaHOOD 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 reconsider was laid upon the table.

                          ____________________