[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 198 (Wednesday, December 13, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H14798-H14802]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




WAIVING POINTS OF ORDER AGAINST FURTHER CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 1977, 
  DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 
                                  1996

  Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules and 
pursuant to House Resolution 297, I call up House Resolution 301 and 
ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 301

       Resolved. That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to consider the further conference report to 
     accompany 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. 
     All points of order against the conference report and against 
     its consideration are waived.
       The conference report shall be considered as read.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms. 
Pryce] is recognized for 1 hour.
  Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to my good friend, the distinguished gentleman 
from California [Mr. Beilenson], pending which I yield myself such time 
as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time 
yielded is for purposes of debate only.


                             general leave

  Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may 
have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks 
on the legislation under consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is their objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from Ohio?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to bring to the floor today this rule 
providing for the consideration of the further conference report on 
H.R. 1977, the Department of the Interior and related agencies 
appropriations bill for fiscal year 1996. This is a simple, fair rule 
which waives all points of order against the conference report, and 
against its consideration.
  The blanket waiver includes a waiver of clause 2 of rule XX, as well 
as a waiver of clause 3 of rule XXVIII, which will permit the House to 
discuss provisions which may exceed the scope of differences between 
the House and the Senate.
  Under the normal rules of the House, we will have one hour of debate 
on the conference report itself, in addition to the minority's 
traditional right to offer a motion to recommit, with or without 
instructions.
  Mr. Speaker, despite recent press reports to the contrary, we are 
making progress toward completing our work on the thirteen regular 
appropriations bills. Seven of the thirteen bills have thus far been 
enacted into law, and passing this bill, and this rule today will bring 
us one step closer to our goal of balancing the Federal budget and 
avoiding any unnecessary shutdown of the Federal Government.
  Clearly, the task of finishing all of the spending bills on time has 
not been easy, and the Interior appropriations bill is certainly no 
exception. Issues related to the development and stewardship of 
America's natural resources often spark great controversy, as we have 
seen with regard to mining patents and the management of national 
forests with this particular piece of legislation.
  But, under the leadership of my friend and colleague from Ohio, Mr. 
Regula, who is the distinguished chairman of the Interior Subcommittee, 
the conferees have reached a new a hopefully final agreement on these 
two very sensitive issues.
  First, the conference report continues the existing moratorium on 
issuing mining patents, and there is no trigger that would cancel the 
moratorium. Any repeal would be contained in separate mining law reform 
legislation. In addition, the conference agreement extends the schedule 
for processing grandfathered applications from 2 to 5 years.
  Second, with regard to the Tongass National Forest, it is my 
understanding that the conference agreement actually lowers the annual 
harvest ceiling in the forest's current management plan, and maintains 
the size of the current timber base for 2 years.
  I would also add, Mr. Speaker, that in response to the 
administration's request, conferees restored a significant amount of 
funding for Indian-related programs. The conference agreement restores 
a total of $137 million to these programs, which is $27 million above 
the administration's request.
  Other than these modifications, the conference report is essentially 
unchanged. It still provides funding for the core programs and missions 
of the agencies covered by this legislation, including funding to 
operate the National Park System and all of our public lands, and for 
the health care and education needs of native Americans.
  Overall, total spending in this year's conference agreement is more 
than one billion dollars less than the amount provided in last year's 
legislation. That is the fiscally responsible thing to do, and I 
commend Chairman Regula and members of the Appropriations Committee for 
crafting a bill that honors our commitment to the American people to 
achieving meaningful deficit reduction and a limited, but effective 
Federal Government.
  In closing Mr. Speaker, I believe it is only fair and proper that we 
do everything we can to move the budget and appropriations process 
forward--not only to keep the Government up and running, but to give 
future generations of Americans the kind of financial stability and 
economic prosperity that can only come from a balanced Federal budget.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 301 is the customary rule 
granted by the Rules Committee this year for conference reports on 
general appropriations bills, and it is entirely appropriate for this 
debate. The Rules Committee reported this rule by unanimous voice vote 
earlier today. I urge my colleagues to adopt the rule and to pass the 
conference report without any further delay.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, we oppose this rule and the measure it makes in order, 
the conference report on Interior appropriations for fiscal year 1996. 
As Members know, this is the third time this conference report has been 
brought to the House floor. Our good friend, the gentleman from Ohio 
[Mr. Regula], has our greatest respect for the difficult and time-
consuming process he has had to endure from the beginning with this 
bill, but unfortunately, this legislation remains highly objectionable 
to many of us. Although the new conference report finally extends the 
moratorium on processing new mining patents for the duration of the 
fiscal year, as the House has called for through repeated votes, it 
contains questionable provisions for processing some 370 claims that 
had reached a certain stage in the patenting process.
  On the other issue the conferees were specifically directed to 
address, the Tongass National Forest, the conference report clearly 
fails to respond to the House's direction. The new provision would 
increase timber harvests from an average 315 million board feet 
annually to 418 million board feet, which is the same amount that would 
have occurred under the previous version of this legislation.
  The rule before us waives all points of order against the conference 
report and against its consideration. One major reason why the 
conference report needs such a rule is that it contains numerous 
violations of clause 2 of rule XXI, the rule that prohibits 
legislation, that is, policy matters, in an appropriations bill. We 
acknowledge 

[[Page H14799]]
that it is very difficult to avoid violating rule XXI entirely in an 
appropriations bill, but the Committee on Rules usually tries, or we 
did try, at least, in previous Congresses to minimize the extent to 
which appropriations bills contain policy matters. Not only did those 
efforts prevent flagrant intrusions on the jurisdiction of the 
authorizing committees, but they also kept appropriations bills from 
getting bogged down in disagreements over issues that are unrelated to 
the amount of funding being provided to government agencies.
  This rule, however, sanctions the use of the appropriations process 
to make far-reaching changes in policies governing the use of our 
Nation's resources. It makes it possible for the House to consider a 
bill that the Los Angeles Times has said is ``swollen with hidden 
attacks on the public lands, national parks, and the environment.''
  Many egregious provisions that were contained in the original 
conference report remain in the new version. For example, the 
conference report removes the Mojave preserve in California from the 
protection of the National Park Service by prohibiting the Park Service 
from spending more than $1 on it in 1996. New report language 
accompanying the conference report allows the National Park Service to 
use a half million dollars to develop a management plan for the east 
Mohave area which is an increase over the second version of the 
conference report, but the legislation itself would still shift 
authority for the area back to the Bureau of Land Management, whose 
rules are much more lenient than are the Park Service's on mining, 
grazing, dirt biking, and other potentially detrimental activities.
  It prohibits adding new species of plants and animals to the 
Endangered Species Act list, despite clear scientific evidence that 
hundreds of species awaiting listing are headed toward extinction. It 
cripples a joint Forest Service-BLM ecosystem management project for 
the Columbia River Basin in the Northwest, a project that was intended 
to allow a sustainable flow of timber from that region. This provision 
threatens the protection of salmon and other critical species and 
guarantees continued court battles over logging in that region. It 
places a moratorium on the development of Federal energy efficiency 
standards, and it delays implementation of the Interior Department's 
new grazing regulations.

  In addition, this latest version adds a brandnew provision waiving 
certain environmental laws to expedite the construction of a telescope 
and supporting infrastructure on Mount Graham on the Coronado National 
Forest in Arizona, a site that contains rare and valuable ecological 
resources.
  In addition to all these troubling provisions, the conference report 
endangers resource protection by reducing spending for many critical 
activities. The conference report cuts spending on the Interior 
Department and related agencies as a whole by 10 percent from this 
year's level, but within that reduction are much more severe cuts in 
many valuable programs, including wildlife protection, energy 
conservation, land acquisition, support for the arts and humanities, 
and support for native Americans, despite the modest increase in the 
new version for that issue.
  Mr. Speaker, these are programs that do an enormous amount of good 
for our Nation for a relatively small sum, and they ought to be 
sustained at adequate levels. These are also programs that are strongly 
supported by the American people. I recently sent a survey to my own 
constituents asking them to chose what they would cut from a list of 
virtually everything the Federal Government spends money on.
  In response, and there were about 20,000 voters in our area who 
responded, and even though they wanted us to cut spending in many other 
areas, a full 87 percent, Mr. Speaker, 87 percent of the respondents 
opposed cutting spending on national parks, forests, and wildlife 
refuges. Eighty percent opposed cutting spending on environmental 
protection, 78 percent opposed cutting energy conservation and other 
energy research programs, and 59 percent opposed cutting Federal 
support for the arts and humanities. I have little doubt that if the 
same questions were asked almost anywhere else in the country, the 
results would be close to the ones that I received.
  Defenders of these cuts, Mr. Speaker, say they are necessary to help 
balance the budget, but in fact, the $1.4 billion cut this bill makes 
from last year's level of spending is necessary only in the sense that 
the majority's budget plan needs it to help pay for the defense 
appropriations bill's additional $7 billion in spending that Pentagon 
officials themselves say they do not want or need.

                              {time}  1330

  It is necessary only because the majority's budget plan needs it to 
help pay for a 7-year, $245 billion tax cut that the vast majority of 
Americans believe should not be provided until the Federal budget is 
actually balanced.
  The real significance of this legislation is not its contribution to 
reducing the Federal budget deficit but rather its contribution to the 
comprehensive assault on environmental protection that has been 
launched by the Republican leadership in the House. When this 
legislation is viewed in the context of other antienvironmental 
measures the House has already passed, its negative impacts are even 
more apparent.
  This conference report follows House passage of several so-called 
regulatory reform bills, the Contract With America bills that would 
cripple Federal regulatory agencies' ability to implement and enforce 
environmental protection laws.
  It follows House passage of the amendments to the Clean Water Act 
that would permit more water pollution and allow the destruction of 
more than half the Nation's remaining wetlands.
  It follows enactment of a provision included in the fiscal 1995 
rescission bill which already has dramatically increased logging in 
national forests.
  It follows House passage of an appropriations bill that cuts funding 
dramatically for the Environmental Protection Agency.
  It follows House passage of the budget reconciliation bill that would 
open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil and gas drilling, and 
would provide special deals for industries that want to use the natural 
resources that belong to all Americans--mining, ranching, timber, and 
oil and gas interests--and special deals for concessionaires in our 
national parks.
  Mr. Speaker, to repeat, the conference report this rule makes in 
order is severely flawed. It fails to provide the necessary funding and 
safeguards for our Nation's natural resources that the American people 
overwhelmingly want us to provide.
  I urge Members to vote ``no'' on the rule and ``no'' on the 
conference report.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley], the 
ranking member of the Committee on Rules.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California for 
yielding me the time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule. And, Mr. Speaker, 
every single Member of this House who voted for a constitutional 
amendment to balance the budget should oppose this rule.
  Now is the time for Members who voted to balance the budget, no 
matter what the cost no matter how painful, to show that they mean what 
they say. Now is the time for my Republican colleagues to show that 
they can live within their own budget.
  Because, Mr. Speaker, this bill is a budget buster. This bill will 
cost $21 million more than my Republican colleagues said this country 
could afford. It is $21 million over budget and $21 million over the 
602b allocation.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to state for the Record that never, in the 
history of Democratic control of the House did we waive the 602b 
requirement on an appropriations conference report. Every single one of 
our appropriations conference reports stayed well within its limits. I 
wonder why my Republican colleagues cannot do the same and I wonder how 
on Earth they can vote for this rule.
  I urge my colleagues to defeat this rule. If you voted to balance the 
budget, now is your chance to do so.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to 

[[Page H14800]]
  the distinguished gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Yates], the ranking 
member of the Appropriations Subcommittee.
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time, and I want to congratulate him upon a magnificent and accurate 
statement of what this bill contains and why it should be defeated.
  But I rise, Mr. Speaker, to read from a book review that appeared in 
the Washington Post last August on a book that is entitled ``The Making 
of a Conservative Environmentalist'':

       In 1992, an American-Canadian agency charged with 
     overseeing the health of the Great Lakes surprised the White 
     House, never mind governors in 8 States bordering the lakes, 
     by making a radical proposal. Convinced that the toxic by-
     products of chlorine-based industrial compounds were harming 
     wildlife and perhaps poisoning people, the panel called for 
     phasing out one of the basic chemical feedstocks of modern 
     manufacturing straight elemental chlorine.
       One might assume that the man behind such a noble gambit 
     was a learned statesman and veteran environmentalist. Hardly. 
     The recommendation's main champion was Gordon K. Durnil, the 
     panel's American chairman, a Rush Limbaugh-loving 
     conservative Republican from Indiana.
       Here was a plain, middle-aged guy who freely admits that 
     before being appointed by George Bush in 1989 to the 
     International Joint Commission, a little-known but 
     influential oversight agency that watches the Great Lakes--

  He had done little. Those last few words are mine, but I go back to 
the quote.

       In fact, Mr. Durnil acknowledges in ``The Making of a 
     Conservative Environmentalist'' that he possessed absolutely 
     no qualifications for one of the continent's senior 
     environmental posts, other than having served as Republican 
     Party chairman in Indiana and cultivated a close political 
     friendship with former Vice President Dan Quayle.
       How could such a naif advance one of the single boldest 
     environmental policy ideas of the 1990s? The answer, we are 
     told, is a simple tale of personal discovery. A Midwestern 
     party operative late in life suddenly awakens to find truth 
     in the popular concern for the safety of the earth. The 
     message is that someone as conventional and as conservative 
     as Mr. Durnil can latch on to one of the great social 
     transformations of the American century, then so can every 
     other Republican in the country.
       The fact that they have not, particularly this year when 
     Republican leaders in the House and the Senate are 
     desperately trying to unravel 25 years of environmental 
     regulation, has Mr. Durnil in a gentlemanly lather--

  And so forth. It continues.
  The reason I read that, of course, Mr. Speaker, is the fact that Mr. 
Durnil would have been very much upset by the attack that our bill 
makes upon the natural resources of our country.
  A third more of our ancient forests are being cut in this bill than 
were authorized for cutting in the previous bill. The Indian people 
have not received the kind of funding that they should have received, 
in spite of the fact that additional funds were made available in the 
last session of the conference committee. Environmental damage is being 
done to our forests, to our streams, to our parks, to every other 
natural resource.
  I would urge, Mr. Speaker, that the rule be defeated, and if the rule 
is not defeated, that the bill then be defeated.
  Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
distinguished gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula], the chairman of the 
subcommittee.
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. REGULA. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. YATES. I might say that Mr. Durnil could very well come from Ohio 
as well as from Indiana.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, a lot of conservative environmentalists come 
from Ohio.
  Mr. YATES. That is true. I wonder why they are not on the committee.
  Mr. REGULA. I think one of them chairs it.
  Mr. Speaker, I am intrigued by the gentleman from Massachusetts 
complaining that we are spending too much money. It is the new math 
that we have in Washington, DC, as near as I can figure out, since this 
bill is $1.3 billion less than in 1995. It is about a 10-percent 
reduction from 1995 funding. It is responsive to the movement to a 
balanced budget.
  We have had to make tough decisions, of course. But as I have said 
previously, we divided the responsibilities into three parts: The must-
do's, the need-to-do's, and the nice-to-do's.
  The must-do's we took care of. We kept the parks at level funding, 
the forests at level funding and operations. The Smithsonian, the 
National Gallery, the Kennedy Center, the things that the people enjoy, 
that they want to use, are nearly level-funded.
  Certainly, in order to save $1.3 billion, we had to eliminate or 
substantially downsize some other activities. But I simply point out 
again that in terms of the budget and the deficit reduction which I 
think the American people very much want to see, this bill is extremely 
responsible. I do not think that in any way it is environmentally 
detrimental.
  It responds to the motion to recommit. We have made adjustments on 
the mining issue of the moratorium. We have made adjustments on 
Tongass. All the parties involved and both sides worked on the 
language, and I will address that more in the general debate.
  On the matter of the Indians, we have added $50 million, $25 million 
for health services, $25 million for tribal priorities. In fact, this 
is more than the administration requested. They wanted something like 
$125 million over the Senate level. We are at about $111 million over 
the Senate level.
  So I think we have a very responsible bill here. I hope that the 
Members will support the rule, I hope that the Members will support the 
bill, and that the administration will sign it.
  There are 130,000 employees that are directly affected by this bill, 
and what a great gift we could give them by passing this excellent, 
responsible bill that has been developed with a lot of give-and-take, 
so that those 130,000 employees would know on Friday that their jobs 
would be secure, that they can go out and open the gates to the parks, 
to the forests, to the Smithsonian, to the fish and wildlife 
facilities.
  If Members are concerned about the environment, the way to support 
the environmental issues is to vote for this bill so the funding will 
be available to these dedicated people who do truly take care of the 
environment as they provide the services in the Department of the 
Interior, to the cultural institutions, to the Department of Energy.
  I would strongly urge the Members to support the rule and support the 
bill. I think, given the restraints that we had on the funding levels, 
that we have done a responsible job of meeting the needs of this 
Nation.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], the ranking 
member of the Committee on Appropriations.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I think every Member of the House needs to 
know that if you vote for this rule today and if you vote for this bill 
today, you will be voting to bust the budget.
  Just a week ago, on December 5, the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. 
Livingston] filed on behalf of the Committee on Appropriations the 
Report on Budget Allocations Between Subcommittees as required by 602 
of the Budget Act. That act sets the ceiling above which no 
appropriation bill may go without being subjected to being knocked off 
the floor by a point of order lodged by any Member.
  Yet 1 week after they did that, and just a few short days before we 
are going to confront the need for a continuing resolution, or else see 
the Government shut down because the Speaker of the House is still at 
this point talking about using the leverage of the continuing 
resolution to force settlement of the overall budget issues, in the 
long-range budget talks that are now taking place, after being told 
that that is important enough to shut the Government down to get to a 
balanced budget, we are being asked to pass a proposition here today 
which busts the budget.

                              {time}  1345

  The filing by the committee on December 5 indicated that the ceiling 
for spending in this bill would be $12,213,000,000 in budget authority. 
The ceiling reported in this bill, 8 days later, is $12,234,476,000. 
That means it is $21.5 million above the allowable ceiling.
  Now, we tried on three different occasions to get the committee to 
adopt a different 602 allocation to make room for additional funding in 
this and other bills. We were turned down by the majority in the 
committee, and yet today 

[[Page H14801]]
we are being asked to put that limitation aside.
  I would ask Members of the House on both sides of the aisle, how many 
times do you remember having the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. 
Walker] come to the House floor and berate the then majority Democratic 
Party for waiving budget rules when they brought rules to the floor 
under which appropriation bills would be debated? the answer is time 
and time and time again we were told by the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
and many others that we were waiving the Budget Act. Now, today, we are 
being asked not only to waive the Budget Act, but to waive spending 
ceilings within that budget.
  If you take a look at the history of this House on regular 
appropriation bills, you will find that it ha been a rare experience, 
indeed, when we were asked on a regular appropriation bill to waive 
those ceilings. It just seems to me that when we are facing a situation 
which may lead again to a Government shutdown, it is a very odd thing, 
indeed, for the committee to ask us to bust the budget ceiling to the 
tune of $21.5 billion. I do not think that is the orderly way to 
proceed. A much better way to proceed would have been to adjust those 
602 allocations so that we are behaving as we are supposed to behave in 
a situation like this.
  I also make the point this rule will allow us to proceed to 
consideration of a bill which allows for a significant increase in 
timber cutting in the Tongass Forest, one of a handful of temperate 
rain forests in the entire world, and yet this bill is going to 
accelerate that cutting. I do not believe we ought to do that. I do not 
think most persons concerned with preserving the environment think we 
ought to do that, certainly not in this appropriation bill.
  So I would urge both on environmental grounds and because this bill 
breaks the very budget ceilings which were imposed on us just 8 days 
ago by the majority party, I would urge Members to vote ``no'' on the 
rule.
  Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston], the distinguished chairman 
of the Committee on Appropriations.
  (Mr. LIVINGSTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I listened attentively to my friend from 
Wisconsin who, throughout this last year, has been complaining that we 
have not been spending enough money on one program or another, on 
babies, on children, on old people, on Indians. The gentleman from 
Illinois sitting over there wants to help the Indians. In fact, the 
administration wanted to help the Indians, too. They wanted at the 
outset of the conference $110 million above the Senate level to help 
the Indians.
  This bill provides, I think, $137 million for the Indians above the 
Senate level. This bill provides more than the administration asked for 
them, and still the administration is threatening to veto it because 
now they still say there is not enough money for the Indians.
  The gentleman from Illinois is opposing it because there is not 
enough money for the Indians. The gentleman from Wisconsin has opposed 
this bill because we are not spending enough money. He is not here 
arguing against the bill. He is just saying, well, we technically 
exceeded our budget allocations. Well, we did, in trying to accommodate 
his side, in trying to accommodate his administration, and we can cure 
the technicality, we can rearrange the budget allocations. In fact, we 
are in the process of working on that, and that is a technical glitch, 
and technically we are in error.
  But do not say that we are not spending enough money and then attack 
us because we spent too much money. It does not make sense. But that is 
the position of the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, that is not the position of the gentleman from 
Wisconsin. The position of the gentleman from Wisconsin is that if we 
have budget ceilings, we ought to live by them. But in my view, as you 
know, I tried twice or three times in the committee to try to adjust 
those ceilings in the proper way so that we could get that money from 
another place. I do not believe in busting the budget in order to fund 
the Interior bill. What I do believe is bills that are too high should 
be brought down to make room for the spending in this bill. I do not 
believe in spending $7 billion more than the White House asked on the 
military budget and then also exceeding the spending authority in this 
bill.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, the gentleman knows 
the Defense budget has been enacted into law. I think it called for 
spending about $400 million less than we spent last year, even though 
the administration wanted $700 million less than we appropriated, and 
he still wanted to send the troops to Bosnia. But the Defense bill is 
not before us.
  The gentleman is technically correct. I concede the gentleman's 
technical assertion. He is absolutely technically correct, but 
substantively we are giving him more money than he asked for in the 
first place. This is a ridiculous objection.
  I urge adoption of the rule.
  Mr. FARR. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak in opposition to the 
Interior appropriations conference report for fiscal year 1996. One of 
the main reasons for my opposition is the severe cuts to the National 
Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities. 
For a modest investment of $162 million, the preservation of our 
cultural resources outweigh the small cost to the government each year.
  Recently, this Republican Congress proposed the elimination of 
Federal funding for these institutions. The purpose of these agencies 
is to provide support for arts organizations. In turn, these groups 
offer the community many activities such as plays, festivals, and 
seminars that cannot occur without Federal assistance. Furthermore, no 
arts organizations receive grants from the NEA or the NEH without 
providing matching funds.
  On July 17, the House voted to approve the fiscal year 1996 Interior 
appropriations bill which cut Federal funding to the National Endowment 
for the Arts by 40 percent, leaving only $99 million. There were three 
amendments to the bill which would have cut all funding to the 
endowment and thus, completely phase out the agency at the end of this 
year. Fortunately, bipartisan efforts defeated the amendments.
  However, in this era of Federal budget constraints, every Federal 
program, whether it is worthy or not, is subject to cuts. While we must 
work toward a balanced budget, we must not make indiscriminate and 
arbitrary cuts in the NEA budget. Recently, Chairman Jane Alexander has 
had to implement a 47 percent reduction of staff. Because of these 
reductions, the number of applications will have to be significantly 
cut and viable arts organizations will be hurt.
  During my tenure in the California legislature, I continually met 
with business leaders who supported the arts. I believe that support 
for the arts is essential and contributes to our economic edge. The 
same hands that mold clay or play the piano can also program computers 
and start new businesses. It is our creativity which must be nurtured 
from an early age. We cannot afford to abolish the NEA and the NEH. It 
is an investment in our future.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and 
I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, I yield 
back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the 
resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The question is on the 
resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. BEILENSON. 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 Members.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 231, 
nays 188, not voting 13, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 852]

                               YEAS--231

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Callahan
     Calvert
     
[[Page H14802]]

     Camp
     Canady
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Cooley
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Longley
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     Martini
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Moorhead
     Morella
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Petri
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stockman
     Stump
     Talent
     Tate
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Traficant
     Upton
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                               NAYS--188

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bishop
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Bryant (TX)
     Cardin
     Chapman
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Danner
     de la Garza
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gonzalez
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Holden
     Hoyer
     Jackson-Lee
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Klink
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lincoln
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moran
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Richardson
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rose
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Taylor (MS)
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Williams
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates

                             NOT VOTING--13

     Brewster
     Brown (OH)
     Buyer
     Dickey
     McInnis
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Sisisky
     Smith (NJ)
     Tauzin
     Tucker
     Velazquez
     Wilson

                              {time}  1413

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

                          ____________________