[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 198 (Wednesday, December 13, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H14802-H14816]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1415
CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 1977, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND RELATED 
                   AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1996

  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 301, 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. LaHood). Pursuant to House Resolution 
301, the conference report is considered as having been read.
  (For conference report and statement, see proceedings of the House of 
December 12, 1995 at page H14288.)
  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.
  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 in which to revise and extend their remarks.
  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 and my colleagues, this is the conference report on 
Interior. As my colleagues know, it was recommitted once on the 
question of the moratorium on mining, and the second time on the mining 
issue and also on the Tongass timber program.
   Mr. Speaker, the questions on mining and the Tongass, I will 
address, but let me say at the outset I think what we have is a very 
fair bill. For example, we had dozens and dozens of requests from 
Members for various things that might impact in their districts, and 
the number on the Democratic side that we responded to is actually a 
few more than on the Republican side. We made an effort to respond on 
the merits of the issues without regard to partisanship, and I would 
hope that my colleagues on the minority side would support this 
legislation. I think likewise that the majority Members should do the 
same, and I think, as I explain what we made in the way of changes, 
that my colleagues will understand we have responded to the concerns of 
the Members.
  Also I think it is very important that we get this bill down to the 
President, and I would hope he would sign it. There are 130,000 
employees who are waiting and hoping that this legislation will become 
law so they can get on with the job of managing the parks, keeping the 
gates open for the public to enjoy these wonderful facilities; likewise 
in managing our forests, our public lands, the grazing lands, the fish 
and wildlife facilities, the Smithsonian, the National Gallery. Many of 
my colleagues probably had their visitors here experience the fact that 
the doors were closed on the Smithsonian, the National Gallery, the 
Kennedy Center during the period of time, the 5 days or so, that we did 
not have funding, and, if we can get this conference report passed in 
the House and the Senate, get it to the President, I think to examine 
the merits of the bill, that the executive branch, the President, will 
recognize that we have been as fair as possible, that we have addressed 
the problems.
  I want to say also at the outset that there is some talk about a 
budget buster. That has got to be the new math in this town, because 
this bill is $1.3 billion under 1995 in budget authority. It 

[[Page H14803]]
is about 10 percent below 1995, and it causes some tough decisions, but 
if we are to get to a balanced budget in 7 years, we have to look at 
each expenditure and say can we do this more efficiently, and we have 
tried to apply the policies of total quality management to the 
responsibilities that we have.
  Let me address the issues that caused the recommittal, the first 
being the Tongass, the rain forest in the State of Alaska. A statement 
was made during the debate on the rule that actually we were increasing 
the cut. Exactly the opposite is happening. In the modified language, 
which I might say was worked over and agreed to by both sides of this 
issue on the Tongass, we reduced the allowable cut from 450 million 
board feet to 418 million board feet in the Tongass, so this is a 
reduction of the amount that can be allowed as far as cutting the 
timber. The practical matter is that the money in the bill, because of 
reduced funding, is only enough to allow for about 310 million board 
feet, and the same will likely be true in the 1997 bill. So, as far as 
the amount of cut that is allowed, it is substantially below what had 
been allowed prior to this time, so I think that is one of the ways we 
responded to those who have a concern for the Tongass.
  Second, we removed the sufficiency language. Sufficiency language 
insulates actions from the courts from the requirements for 
environmental evaluation, and in the original bill that was language 
that was placed in there by the other body. We remove that so that the 
cuts in the Tongass, with one exception, are subject to all the rules, 
regulations, the actions of the courts, the Environmental Protection 
Agency, the endangered species law, the whole 9 yards, and therefore I 
think for those who are concerned about the environmental impacts, Mr. 
Speaker, we have made every effort to insure that environmental 
concerns are addressed. The one sale has already gone through all this, 
and we would allow that sale to be transferred to another buyer.

  We have also allowed the planning process by the Forest Service to 
continue. They can go forward in their planning process to determine 
what should be the allowable cut and how it should be handled in the 
future, and that plan, we would hope, would be developed in the next 
several months. We give the Department a totally free hand in the 
planning process.
  We removed the language concerning the Goshawk and permanently 
prohibiting establishing certain habitat conservable areas. The 
administration strongly objected to this permanent provision and it has 
been deleted.
  I think on balance what we have done in the Tongass represents a very 
good compromise between those who are concerned about providing the 
jobs in Alaska, allowing a cut, and those who want to protect the 
environment, protect this forest, and as I said earlier, this 
represents a compromise among the interested parties.
  On the mining issue, which was also part of the motion to recommit, 
we removed the triggers that would lift the moratorium so what we have 
is a moratorium with no triggers. We also provide that the Department 
of Interior, or BLM, has a 5-year period to process the grandfathered 
patents, and I know that is of an interest to those who have concern 
about the mining proposals. But, the moratorium that has been in place 
in the 1995 bill remains in place in the 1996 bill, and I think this is 
the important fact that I want to convey to all members:
  We responded to the motion to recommit exactly as has been requested 
in that motion. It also provides that the Secretary of Interior should 
give us a report in the year as to what success they are having in 
getting the grandfather patents in which people have a proprietary 
interest effectuated or out to the applicants.
  On the question of the Indians, I know the gentleman from Wisconsin, 
the minority leader on the Committee on Appropriations, was concerned 
about adequate funding for the Indians, and we had a request from the 
administration. Actually they requested $110 million over the Senate 
level. We end up here with $11 million. We have added $50 million from 
the second conference report to this one, $25 for tribal priorities. 
This allows the Indian tribes to use these funds in the way that will 
best serve their individual tribes and the people that are members 
thereof, and we put $25 million in Indian health, recognizing again 
that this is extremely important as we discharge our responsibility. 
One of the treaty obligations, the really true major obligations we 
have under the treaties, one is to provide health services, and the 
second is to provide education, and we have addressed those, and we 
have added the $50 million.
  We have some other changes in the conference report. They are not big 
items, and I would be happy to address those in response to any 
questions. One of these would be requested by the Department of 
Interior, to allow them to work out agreements in cooperation with 
other levels of government. Also, a requirement that limits the log 
exports for an additional period of time in the Western States, and 
most of the other changes were agreed on, but I think the important 
thing I want to impress on the Members is that we responded to the 
motion to recommit. On the Tongass, on the mining moratorium, we 
responded in a way in which I think those who are interested parties 
will tell the Members during this debate that they are very well 
pleased with what we have been able to do, and the bill itself, I 
believe, responds, given the fiscal constraints we had, very 
effectively in meeting the needs of the people.
  So I would hope that we can get this passed and get on with it. our 
responsibilities, and we can say to those 130,000 employees, ``We know 
your job is important, we know the public depends on you to provide the 
services in the parks, the forests and so on, and we want to let you 
know that we are behind you by supporting this legislation.''
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Record include a table 
on the various accounts in the bill, as agreed to by the conference 
managers.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Ohio?
  There was no objection.
  The table on the various accounts in the bill is as follows:

[[Page H14804]]
  TH13DE95.000
  


[[Page H14805]]
  TH13DE95.001
  


[[Page H14806]]
  TH13DE95.002
  


[[Page H14807]]
  TH13DE95.003
  

  
[[Page H14808]]

  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  My good friend, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula], has done as 
good a job as one can do with the assets that were at hand, a 
reasonable job, but it still is a very, very bad bill, and I intend to 
vote against it. He said that the conferees had responded to the 
motions of the House by making appropriate changes to Tongass and 
mining. The mining change does restore the moratorium, but the change 
to Tongass is so small as to be infinitesimal, and it still will be 
environmentally unsound.
  Mr. Speaker, the song asks where have all the flowers gone, and the 
poem asks where are the snows of yesteryear. I ask where are all the 
Republican moderates going? Will the Republicans reject a bill that is 
as environmentally disgraceful as the previous bill? It appears that 
the Republican leadership has pressured their moderate members to 
swallow hard and support this bill, and that is too bad because this 
bill is not worthy of their support, nor is it worthy of the support of 
any of us in the House.

                              {time}  1430

  The conference report before us still puts our precious natural 
resources at grave risk. This conference report mandates the Forest 
Service implement the discredited alternative P management plan in the 
Tongass National Forest in Alaska, and this bad plan is not forced upon 
the Forest Service for 1 year, but it mandates alternative P be 
employed as well in fiscal year 1997.
  I think most Members now know that alternative P is a radical forest 
management plan that was rejected by the Forest Service and rejected by 
the Governor of Alaska because it would wreak ecological havoc on the 
Tongass. Currently the Forest Service allows 310 million board feet of 
timber to be cut from the Tongass each year. Alternative P does not 
recognize that limitation, although my good friend, the gentleman from 
Ohio, indicated that the funds that are made available for the cut in 
this year will only allow a cut of 310 million board feet. 
Nevertheless, the spurs will be put to the Forest Service, the whip 
will be lashed upon its employees to exceed the 310 million board feet, 
because alternative P puts that pressure upon them.
  In addition, the Tongass provisions are fiscally irresponsible. The 
Tongass is a notorious below-cost forest. In the last 3 years the 
Government lost $102 million in timber sales there. If the timber 
harvest increases, the loss to the taxpayers increases. It will go up 
dramatically. What is more, this conference report also contains 
sufficiency language concerning which my good friend, the gentleman 
from Ohio, spoke. It is aimed at overturning the 9th Circuit Court 
ruling that blocks the sale of 280 million board feet of timber. If 
this sufficiency language is approved, no environmental laws will be in 
effect for the large sale, the large sale for which the sufficiency 
language is placed in the bill.
  That means, Mr. Speaker, the Endangered Species Act is dismissed, the 
National Environmental Policy Act is waived, the Clean Water Act is 
ignored, and all other applicable laws are considered irrelevant. In 
addition, this sufficiency language prevents all citizens, 
environmentalists and private landowners alike, from exercising their 
right for a fair hearing before the courts.
  If we do not recommit this conference report, we will be rejecting 
the judgment of the Forest Service. We will be putting a great forest 
at risk, and we will be setting a dangerous legal precedent.
  Mr. Speaker, I intend to offer a motion to recommit at the 
appropriate time, and I hope that motion may be sustained, with the 
help of the moderate Republicans, again.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes and 30 seconds to the 
gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Kolbe], a member of the subcommittee.
  (Mr. KOLBE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Interior 
appropriations conference report. This $12.1 billion appropriations 
bill is the result of a lot of hard work, and yes, a lot of compromise. 
As we know, this bill has been recommitted twice because of concerns 
that have been expressed regarding two of the provisions that have 
already been mentioned here today, the mining patent moratorium and 
statutory language regarding the Tongass National Forest. But those two 
issues have been resolved after a lot of tough negotiations. Now it is 
time we pass this important legislation and send it to the President.
  Putting together a workable budget for the Department of the 
Interior, the Department of Energy, the Forest Service, and numerous 
other independent agencies under this subcommittee's jurisdiction has 
not been an easy one. There have been a lot of roadblocks. Some of them 
have been legitimate, some of them frivolous. But here we are with a 
conference report that is fair, it is fiscally conservative, and I 
think it represents an excellent starting point for the 7-year journey 
toward a balanced budget that both the Congress and the President have 
now committed themselves to doing.
  The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula], chairman of the committee, has 
informed us of the various provisions that are in this bill. I just 
want to reemphasize a couple of them. We have attempted to place an 
emphasis on preserving natural and cultural resources, the maintenance 
of scientific and research functions, our commitment to the health and 
educational needs of Native Americans. The conference report also 
ensures that adequate resources are allocated for our Nation's public 
parks and, our crown jewels, our National Park System. In fact, in an 
era of decreasing budgets, this bill actually contains an increase in 
the operational account of the National Park Service. This is going to 
prove invaluable to the management of America's parks. Contrary to some 
published reports, the subcommittee never, never considered or even 
contemplated closing any of our Nation's parks.
  I have spoken previously about some of the projects and programs in 
this report. A couple, though, deserve to be highlighted again. An 
important and much needed initiative is the recreational fee 
demonstration program. This innovative program will give the National 
Park Service, the Bureau of Land Management, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service, the Forest Service, the opportunity to establish a 1-year 
pilot program that allows these land management agencies to charge and 
utilize onsite recreational use and access fees. The conference report 
directs each agency to establish up to 50 demonstration sites where 
broad fee authorities are established.

  The best aspect of this program is that the bulk of the fees that are 
collected stay at the site which collects them. Allowing 80 percent of 
the fees that are collected to be used in that particular park is a way 
to give park managers an incentive to collect fees and make visitor 
driven improvements.
  Another important aspect of this conference report is the level of 
funding for the Bureau of Indian Affairs. Is it as much as the House 
initially provided? No. Compromises did have to be made. I think the 
level of funding proposed in this report is fair and it goes a long way 
to providing the necessary infrastructure services our tribal 
communities depend upon.
  Under this bill, the BIA will receive $1.3 billion in fiscal year 
1996. This represents an additional $25 million we added during the 
third conference for the tribal priority allocation program. It will 
now have $653 million in fiscal year 1996. That is $111 million above 
what the Senate had proposed. Conferees also added another $25 million 
to the Indian Health Service Account, bringing their 1996 funding level 
to $1.747 billion.
  In addition to the preceding, the conference report contains a 
provision which is vitally important to the astrophysical community and 
certainly to the State of Arizona. This provision will allow the Mt. 
Graham Observatory project to continue construction of the world's 
largest ground-based telescope, the large binocular telescope. This 
legislative clarification was needed because of constant and often 
frivolous lawsuits that have beset the project, even though Congress 
spoke clearly on 

[[Page H14809]]
this matter when it passed the Arizona-Idaho Wilderness Act in 1988, 
authorizing the construction of these three telescopes.
  I want to thank the chairman of the committee, Senator Gorton, and 
all my colleagues on the conference committee for supporting this 
effort. Mr. Speaker, the conference report provides a sound and 
fiscally conservative blueprint for the continued management of our 
public lands. As stewards of these lands, it is incumbent upon us to 
ensure that they are preserved for future generations to enjoy. Let us 
stop the demagoguing and political posturing. It is a good bill, it is 
one that merits our support. Let us send it to the President. Support 
this conference report and let us defeat any motion to recommit.
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Skaggs], a member of our subcommittee.
  Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, as we begin debate on this conference report, the third 
time we have had a conference report on this measure, I want to join my 
other colleagues in both paying my respect and expressing my affection 
toward our chairman, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula], even as I 
express my dislike for his bill. I suspect that perhaps the chairman 
would rather have affection for his bill, rather than for him. But be 
that as it may, we are back again for the third time on this particular 
measure, and the Republican leadership's third try for an acceptable 
conference report on this important appropriations bill.
  The first two times this bill was brought to the floor, the House did 
the right thing. We rejected the conference report and told the 
conferees to go back and try again. It was the right thing to do 
because neither of those conference reports deserved to pass.
  This version is not quite so bad, but it still falls short, in my 
opinion, and I cannot support it. The Republican leadership would not 
let the conferees even try to improve many of the funding provisions in 
the previous conference report. While this version does provide 
somewhat more funding for native American programs, which I endorse 
heartily, the other provisions remain unchanged. The report still has 
all of the previous version's antienvironmental riders, like the ban on 
any new listings under the Endangered Species Act.
  The report does a much better job dealing with a moratorium on 
bargain basement sales of mineral lands. But as the ranking member, the 
gentleman from Illinois, has already pointed out, what about Tongass? 
The previous 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 of the temporary 
restrictions on protecting habitat that were misguidedly included in 
the rescissions bill earlier this year. This conference report with 
respect to Tongass is almost as bad, and on this point alone, if for no 
other reason, we should send it back so we may try again.
  Regarding the National Endowment for the Arts, the conferees voted 
again to retain the so-called Helms language. That is a sad decision, 
and it should not be accepted.
  In short, Mr. Speaker, this third conference report still is a bad 
bill, still deserves to be defeated. We should not pass it. If we do, 
the President should veto it and we should sustain that veto.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Alaska [Mr. Young], chairman of the Committee on 
Resources.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I would ask, where are the timber 
jobs of yesteryear? We asked where the flowers were and where the 
moderate Republicans are, but where are the timber jobs of yesteryear? 
The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Yates] had the privilege of serving at 
one time as the chairman, and knows full good and well, he voted for 
the Tongass agreement to allow us, in fact, to have a sound economy, 
yet leaving over 15 million acres in southeast Alaska out of the 
mutiple-use timber base.
  Good fiction never dies, especially fiction about the Tongass Forest 
that is being spread on this floor today. I can hardly believe my ears. 
Such a distinguished gentleman saying this would destroy the last 
standing rain forest of the great southeast Alaska, when there are 15 
million acres already off limits to logging, and he has twice voted in 
this Congress to do so.
  But we have lost 42 percent of our timber workers since the last act 
of this Congress on the Tongass in 1990.
  This bill, as I suggested to the conference and the gentleman from 
Ohio [Mr. Regula], is not everything I would want. In fact, this 
Tongass issue is truly a red herring. All we are asking in this 
agreement is to freeze a land base of 1.7 million acres, the amount of 
land agreed to in 1990 that would be available for timber over a 100-
year period. The amendment says that the land base can no longer be 
taken away. And remember, we have 15 million acres of land available 
for wildlife and old growth habitat today. We are talking about a very 
small, tiny land base for timber.

  Harvesting does not change, in fact, what can be harvested, does not 
increase at all under the provision. It does not tell the Forest 
Service what they can do, other than the fact it says ``You can no 
longer take away any of that land base that we made available in two 
previous acts of Congress.''
  This, in fact, is further than I would have gone, but my senior 
Senator in fact has agreed to this. He sits on the conference. I am 
going to suggest, this conference report must pass.
  I listened to the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer] yesterday 
saying ``We can solve these problems if we just send the appropriation 
bills to the President.'' We are going to do that today. We will send 
him a bill that should be signed, a bill that does take care of the 
problem, a bill, in fact, that does keep a moratorium on mining, which 
the gentleman wishes to do. That is what he wanted.
  This is good legislation, but I again would like to put to rest this 
constant misinformation, this constant fiction about the Tongass 
National Forest. We are talking about 1.7 million acres available for 
harvest but not cut, and we are talking about 15 million acres of rain 
forest unavailable for logging, 15 million acres for the future 
generations to study those great old trees and watch them become gray 
and fall down. We have already done that. Let us vote for this 
conference report. This is good legislation. Let us support the 
chairman.

                              {time}  1445

  Mr. YATES. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New 
York [Ms. Slaughter].
  (Ms. SLAUGHTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
her remarks.)

[[Page H14810]]

  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in opposition to H.R. 1977, 
the Department of Interior appropriations for fiscal year 1996. As my 
colleagues all know, this is now the third time the House has 
considered this measure. Twice before, we sent it back to conferees and 
demanded that they place a moratorium on the sale of Federal lands for 
as little as $2.50 an acre. Today, we have a third try at the Interior 
conference report which could stop this giveaway temporarily, but still 
contains some dangerous provisions.
  When I look at the conference provisions to eliminate the Bureau of 
Mines, I am dismayed that Congress is rushing to dismantle the agency. 
As a child in Harlan County, KY, I was aware of mine disasters 
regularly occurring with great loss of life. Mining is considered the 
most dangerous of jobs. It took President Franklin Roosevelt to care 
enough about working people to intervene and impose worker safety 
standards.
  Now, deciding that businesses know better, the 104th Congress has 
already crippled worker safety programs in the Labor Department. Under 
this legislation today, we will approve eliminating the Bureau of 
Mines, and accept a vague promise that health and safety research will 
be transferred to the Energy Department; itself slated to be 
demolished.
  Another grave mistake in this conference report is the destruction of 
the NEA. When I see provisions to slash funding for the arts, I cannot 
understand the sense of this Congress to phase out an agency which 
costs about 64 cents a year per taxpayer and yields $3.4 billion a year 
in tax revenue. I urge my colleagues to realize how much economic 
growth results from a modest investment in the arts.
  Just last week, an article in the New York Times described the annual 
storytelling festival held in Jonesborough, TN, which drew crowds from 
all 50 States and generated over $5 million in economic activity.
  All across the country, cities and convention centers are forming 
partnerships with arts councils and museums, realizing the revenue 
possibilities with increased tourism.
  In October, the White House Conference on Travel and Tourism devoted 
a day long session to cultural tourism, and the conference 
overwhelmingly agreed that arts and museum attractions were vital to 
any city's competition for tourists.
  Besides the economic reasons to support the arts, we have to realize 
the arts' impact on our children's education. In a recent survey of 
public elementary and secondary schools conducted by the Department of 
Education, teachers and administrators viewed the arts, music, and 
creative writing as essential to a child's education. If we vote today 
to approve these cuts to the NEA, the educational and economic impact 
to our cities would be greater than we could ever imagine.
  Mr. Speaker, a vote for the Interior appropriations bill sends a 
message that we approve of clearcutting and logging; that we accept 
rolling back protection for mine workers; and that we feel secure 
sacrificing Federal support for our Nation's cultural programs. Vote 
against this bill.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
New York [Mr. Boehlert].
  (Mr. BOEHLERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this conference 
report. We did not get it right the first two times. We have made some 
significant improvements this time.
  Once again I want to extend my appreciation to Chairman Regula, who 
did truly Herculean work in brokering this compromise. For weeks he 
engaged in a sort of shuttle diplomacy that would put Henry Kissinger 
to shame. He has my deepest appreciation.
  We have heard a lot about the moratorium on the mining. That is a 
plus, because that moratorium is in this legislation. And I believe the 
language on the Tongass National Forest in this bill is a reasonable 
compromise. Certainly I would prefer that the bill have no Tongass 
provision at all, but I believe we needed to reach an agreement to move 
this appropriation forward, and it is a fair compromise.
  The compromise removes the sufficiency language that would have 
insulated alternative P from legal challenges. That is an important 
victory for the environment.
  The compromise removes the prohibition against setting up habitat 
conservation areas. That is an important victory for the environment.
  The compromise removes the constraints on future planting in the 
Tongass, allowing science to determine the content of future forest 
management plans. That, too, is an important victory for the 
environment.
  These are all important advances that will protect the forest from 
excessive logging and permit science to be the basis for future 
planning.
  I want to emphasize that nothing in this bill in any way limits the 
ability of the Forest Service to make decisions about the future of the 
Tongass, including reducing the timber acreage or timber sale quantity. 
Science, that means peer review science conducted in line with standard 
scientific procedures. Science will determine those figures.
  The managers' language makes clear that the Forest Service is 
empowered to continue with its planning, including filing a final 
environmental impact statement and record of decision.
  The only limitation is that no revisions can be implemented before 
September 30, 1997. So this is a reasonable compromise.
  And my good colleague and friend from Illinois with whom I worked 
closely on this issue has asked, where have the moderates gone? The 
moderates have gone into the conference room to sit down with all the 
players to work out something that makes sense, that protects the 
environment and gets us the progress we want. Those who oppose this 
conference report should consider the alternative, and that alternative 
is not very friendly to anyone, most likely a continuing resolution 
with lower funding and more restrictions. We do not want that.
  I urge my colleagues to support this conference report, and I thank 
the distinguished gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula], the chairman, He 
deserves our praise.
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy].
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, this is one of the 
clearest cut, so to speak, examples of corporate welfare that we see 
padded in our Federal budget.
  What we have here is plain and simple, a recognition that while this 
bill goes about cutting a program to provide low-income people and 
moderate-income people weatherization funds which are cut by 47 
percent, in the same bill we go back in and provide subsidies to the 
biggest lumber companies in this country, of hundreds of millions of 
dollars to go in so that they can cut down virgin trees in our most 
pristine areas of our national forests.
  We use Forest Service employees to go in and identify trees, that 
then the big companies come in cut the trees down, take the trees over 
to Japan, they mulch them up into fiberboard, we bring them back, buy 
them in the United States, build our homes with Japanese-supported 
improvements on our own trees, and then what we do is send the bill to 
the American taxpayer.
  We sit here on the House floor and watch time and time again while 
the Republican Party stands up and condemns black women on welfare, and 
yet when it comes to corporate welfare, all of a sudden they lose their 
tongues.
  It is time for this country to come to grips with where the money 
goes in the Federal budget, whether or not we are willing to stand up 
to those that have and want more, or whether or not we want to provide 
a meager opportunity to those that are struggling to put their house in 
order and to try to be part of the American dream.
  I think that this bill demonstrates when we start throwing hundreds 
of millions of dollars at the Tongass, the Tongass, the most pristine 
and most beautiful place that I have ever been in the United States of 
America, and we are extending the amount of land that the Tongass has 
to be allowed to be cut down by our lumber companies by a third in this 
bill.
  Why would we possibly destroy America's forests and not come to grips 
with the cost to the American taxpayer?
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Lewis], a member of the full committee.
  (Mr. LEWIS of California asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)

[[Page H14811]]

  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciate my 
colleague yielding me the time.
  I want to say to Chairman Regula and his subcommittee members and 
staff that I know it has been a very difficult process finally putting 
this conference report together. I think the kind of work that has been 
done by our chairman in connection with making compromises can best be 
illustrated by pointing to a very serious problems that relates to the 
work that is being done in the California desert.
  As all of your know, the last Congress, we spent many hours on this 
floor debating the future of the California desert. No small part of 
that debate centered around the fact that some of us were concerned 
that the Park Service was being asked to become the new managers of a 
region that they had very little experience in managing. The Park 
Service by statute is a single use agency. The desert, however, is 
unique area that for generations has a long and successful history of 
multiple use management.
  I was very much concerned about the National Park Service's ability 
to handle these responsibilities. Indeed, we have learned in recent 
months that they need a good deal more preparation for that management.
  Let me share with my colleagues an unfortunate problem that developed 
recently. The Park Service, in classic form, decided to run their new 
responsibilities at the Mojave Preserve in a single purpose fashion. In 
doing so, they essentially excluded many volunteer wildlife 
organizations that had been very helpful in managing the California 
desert. The California Department of Fish and Game was excluded as were 
volunteers from the Society for the Conservation of Bighorn Sheep. 
These volunteers have worked for years to build a fantastic success 
story in dealing with the bighorn sheep. Unfortunately, the Park 
Service excluded them from the Mojave Preserve. As a direct result of 
Park Service mismanagement, water guzzlers that were voluntarily 
developed in conjunction with the Bureau of Land Management and the 
California Department of Fish and Game to help build up our bighorn 
sheep population malfunctioned. As a result of restricted access by the 
Park Service, 38 bighorn sheep were killed.
  What that really means is our efforts to build that herd up to some 
2,000 animals by the year 2000 probably has been undermined because of 
frankly a lack of experience on managing a multipurpose area.
  There is absolutely no doubt that this bill begins to meet that 
challenge by directing the Park Service to rethink where they have 
been, come forward with a management plan that will recognize the 
traditional multiple uses of the Mojave region so that we can save the 
wildlife success stories that we have had in the eastern Mojave Desert.
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Montana [Mr. Williams].
  Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Speaker, this bill started out terrible and it is 
slowly getting better. I think maybe the third time is the charm, 
although I still do not support it because I still believe it is a bad 
bill that undercuts essential American efforts, it is still 
environmentally unsound, although incrementally getting better thanks 
to the efforts of Democrats, being joined by a few moderate 
Republicans.
  However, this bill still savages the National Endowment for the 
Humanities and the National Endowment for the Arts and still contains 
language that on its own merit, the Helms language, would not pass even 
this Congress because it is unconstitutional. But the bill is getting 
better.
  I want to commend both sides for adding funds for Native Americans. 
Frankly the Democrats embarrassed the Republicans into putting this 
additional money in here and even though it is not enough, it improves 
the bill.
  I want to take a moment now, however, to mention a matter of great 
importance to my constituents in Montana and also other Americans. The 
Senate is going to place in the report, Senate committee report, 
language which, although it does not have the force of law, is very 
disturbing. The Senate report language represents an attempt to 
discourage the efforts of our Secretary of Agriculture to protect the 
best wild places left in the northern Rocky Mountains in Montana.
  Secretary Glickman, a number of weeks ago, announced his intention to 
issue a directive which will protect the wildest remaining roadless 
lands in Montana. Those are lands, by the way, which just a year and 
some ago this House voted overwhelmingly to place in wilderness.
  In the last session of Congress, the House voted to place 1.7 million 
acres of Montana's wildest remaining roadless lands in wilderness. 
Secretary Glickman is determined, on behalf of President Clinton, to 
follow the intention of that Congress in which 308 members voted to 
provide ultimate protection to those wild lands.
  Those lands are now under threat. They are under threat from oil and 
gas leasing, they are under threat from green harvest, most 
particularly under threat from the salvage sale because of the bill 
that was supported, sadly, by a majority in this House and Senate.

                              {time}  1500

  Those areas are now under threat of being roaded, blasted and gouged. 
Secretary Glickman has announced his intention to issue an order 
protecting those areas under his discretion as Secretary of Agriculture 
until finally both the House and Senate can move, as the House did, 
alone, in the last Congress.
  The Senate report language, in effect, asks the Secretary of 
Agriculture not to do that, asks that development go ahead in this the 
last best place of America.
  I simply want the Record to show that in the last Congress by a vote 
of almost 3 to 1. This House voted that those areas receive the 
ultimate protection of wilderness and I am convinced that this Congress 
might do no less if it had the opportunity.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from West 
Virginia [Mr. Rahall].
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, as the old saying goes,three times is a 
charm.
  This is the third time this body is considering the conference report 
on the fiscal year 1996 Interior appropriation.
  And, by golly, this time they have finally got it right, at least, as 
right as they'll ever get it in terms of maintaining the moratorium on 
the issuance of mining claim patents.
  This version of the conference agreement basically extends the 
moratorium on the Interior Department issuing mining claim patents that 
was in place during fiscal year 1995.
  In recognition that some patent applications are far enough along the 
process where the right to a patent may have vested, as with the fiscal 
year 1995 moratorium, the pending language grandfathers those claims.
  While I would prefer to see no patents issued, I cannot quarrel with 
this grandfather provision as it is aimed at protecting the taxpayer 
from expensive takings claims.
  I also would prefer not to see language in the moratorium requiring 
an expedited processing of the grandfathered claims. Frankly, the 
deadline set in the legislation will be impossible for the Department 
to meet so I do not place a great deal of weight on it.
  I am going to support this conference agreement. I am not enthused 
about the Tongass provision or the Mount Graham telescope language.
  I strongly support the designation of Yellowstone National Park as a 
world heritage site in danger, and note that the conferees simply wrote 
report language against this proposal. This report language does not 
carry the weight of law.
  And finally, if I had my preference, the appropriations for the 
Office of Surface Mining and the National Park Service would be a lot 
different than what is contained in this bill.
  However, in light of the fact that the conferees have finally 
addressed the important issue of mining claim patents in a suitable 
fashion, and that we must provide funding for the many important 
programs within the Interior Department, I intend to support this 
conference agreement although not the bill I would have written, but 
then rarely is a bill so written.
  Mr. Speaker, I do strongly commend the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. 
Regula], the subcommittee chairman, as well as the ranking member, the 
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Yates], for their years and years of 
dedicated effort to 

[[Page H14812]]
try to enact true mining law reform, and absent that we have had to go 
along with this moratorium as it exists, and as it exists in this 
particular bill, I will support it.
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield myself this time to bring to the attention of 
the House the letter I have just received from the Executive Office of 
the President, OMB, dated December 13, 1995, relating to H.R. 1977, the 
Department of Interior and related agencies appropriations bill, and I 
quote:

       This statement of administration policy provides the 
     administration's views on H.R. 1977, the Department of the 
     Interior and related agencies appropriations bill, FY 1996, 
     as approved in conference December 12, 1995.
       In the November 6, 1995, statement of administration policy 
     to the House, the administration identified the most 
     troublesome provisions in the original conference report with 
     the goal of arriving at a bill that serves specific vital 
     interests and that could be signed by the President.
       Regrettably, the third conference report does not 
     adequately address the significant funding shortfalls and 
     objectionable legislative riders. If the bill, as approved by 
     the third conference, were it presented to the President,  he 
      would  veto it.  With  few exceptions, the issues that were 
     identified in the November 6 statement of administration 
     policy remain serious problems and are described below.
  And there are three pages of objections.
  Mr. Speaker, I am including the full statement of administration 
policy as a part of the Record at this point.

                                Executive Office of the President,


                              Office of Management and Budget,

                                Washington, DC, December 13, 1995.

                   Statement of Administration Policy

       (This statement has been coordinated by OMB with the 
     concerned agencies.)


      h.r. 1977--department of the interior and related agencies 
                      appropriations bill, fy 1996

       Sponsors: Livingston (R) Louisiana; Regula (R) (Ohio).
       This Statement of Administration Policy provides the 
     Administration's views on H.R. 1977, the Department of the 
     Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill, FY 1996, 
     as approved in conference on December 12, 1995. Your 
     consideration of the Administration's views would be 
     appreciated.
       In the November 6, 1995, Statement of Administration Policy 
     to the House, the Administration identified the most 
     troublesome provisions in the original conference report with 
     the goal of arriving at a bill that serves specific, vital 
     interests and that could be signed by the President.
       Regrettably, the third conference report does not 
     adequately address the significant funding shortfalls and 
     objectionable legislative riders. If the bill, as approved by 
     the third conference, were presented to the President, he 
     would veto it. With few exceptions, the issues that were 
     identified in the November 6th Statement of Administration 
     Policy remain serious problems and are described below.

                             Funding Issues

       While the Administration appreciates the $50 million in 
     funding restored for the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the 
     Indian Health Service, this additional funding falls short of 
     the levels needed to maintain these important programs. In 
     addition, the third conference has done nothing to restore 
     funds for the Department of Energy's (DOE's) energy 
     conservation programs.
       The Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) budget has been 
     increased in the third conference $25 million above the 
     previous conference level. That would still leave the program 
     $111 million short of the House mark and $159 million below 
     the FY 1995 enacted level. The most significant effect of 
     this action remains the crippling reductions targeted at 
     tribal priority allocation programs, which support essential 
     tribal government, law enforcement, housing improvement, 
     general assistance, Indian child welfare, adult vocational 
     training, road maintenance, and other basic reservation 
     services. The Administration's view is that funding must 
     be restored more substantially for these programs.
       DOE's energy conservation programs are still funded at a 
     net level of $536 million. There has been no increase from 
     the first or second conference levels. This funding level is 
     $187 million, or 26 percent, below the net FY 1995 enacted 
     level of $723 million, and 38 percent below the President's 
     request. Funding for these programs must be restored 
     significantly in order to reach acceptable levels.
       In addition to the satisfactory resolution of the language 
     issues addressed below, the President will not sign an 
     Interior appropriations bill unless funding for these 
     programs is significantly restored without harming in other 
     high-priority programs or unless there is an overall 
     agreement between the Congress and the Administration on 
     budget priorities that addresses the Administration's 
     fundamental concerns about spending priorities both in this 
     bill and elsewhere.

                            Language Issues

       The conference committee has made few changes to the 
     numerous legislative riders in the bill that the 
     Administration finds seriously objectionable. Except for the 
     continuation of the existing mining patent moratorium, the 
     riders that were cited in the November 6th Statement of 
     Administration Policy has not been significantly improved in 
     the third conference. These provisions are so seriously 
     flawed that the Administration sees no way to remedy them, 
     short of removing them altogether. The most serious problems 
     are:
       The Tongass (Alaska) forest management provisions. These 
     provisions would dictate the use of the current forest plan 
     for FY 1996 and FY 1997, require unsustainable timber sale 
     levels, and not allow the plan to be updated during this 
     period;
       The Interior Columbia River Basin provision. This provision 
     would continue to impede implementation of the comprehensive 
     plan for management of public lands by prohibiting the 
     publication of the final Environmental Impact Statement or 
     Record of Decision and limiting the contents to exclude 
     information on fisheries and watersheds, although it would 
     extend by 90 days the due date for the assessment project. 
     The provision would risk a return to legal gridlock on timber 
     harvesting, grazing, mining, and other economically desirable 
     activities;
       Bill language that provides $500,000 from available funds 
     for the National Park Service (NPS) to develop the Mojave 
     National Preserve's management plan. This provision would 
     still limit funding to $1 for NPS land management operations 
     within the Preserve, while providing $599,000 for operational 
     funding to be managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 
     Report language adopted by the third conference calling for 
     more studies by the Park Service, and prohibiting any 
     transfer of funds to NPS to augment operations, does not 
     change the fact that the Preserve would be starved of 
     funding, and the purposes of the California Desert Act would 
     be undercut; and
       No change in language from the first conference in a rider 
     to make permanent the protocol for identification of marbled 
     murrelet nests that was included in the FY 1995 rescission 
     bill, thereby eliminating normal flexibility to use new 
     scientific information as it develops.
       In addition, the Administration has previously expressed 
     concern about other legislative riders, including the 
     moratorium of future listings and critical habitat 
     designations under the Endangered Species Act, the Department 
     of Energy efficiency standards one-year moratorium, and the 
     provision affecting the Lummi Tribe and seven other self-
     governance tribes in Washington State.
       An additional funding issue concerns the severe cuts 
     (nearly 40 percent) to the National Endowment for the Arts 
     (NEA) and the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH). 
     These significantly reduced funding levels would jeopardize 
     NEA's and NEH's ability to continue to provide important 
     cultural, educational, and artistic programs for communities 
     across America.

  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the 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 opposition to this Interior 
appropriation bill. Unfortunately, what has occurred here as we have 
marched through 3 months of off and on floor consideration of this 
Interior appropriation is that the House has on two occasions, on one 
occasion by over a 2-to-1 vote, sent this back to conference because of 
the mining patent problems, has sent it back to conference because of 
the Tongass language, and not only has the conference not dealt 
effectively with those issues, they have made some cosmetic changes in 
terms of them, but the substance and thrust of them, the effect that 
they would have in terms of the policy initiatives, remains intact, 
that it is and remains intact in terms of its micromanagement and, of 
course, according to the mineral rights and patents of the various 
claims that were filed before 1994. The effect is to make the effect of 
having a moratorium on mining patients null and void in this insofar as 
anything that occurred before September 30, 1994. That is probably the 
ball game. That is the ball game in terms of what is going on.
  In the Tongass, the national forest bill modified the language but 
the levels of timber, 418 million board feet out of the Tongass, is 
exactly what the language was before. It may be modified in some 
respects, but it has the same effect.
  Worst than that, Mr. Speaker, it seems like this measure has become a 
moving target, this particular legislation, and I lament that it has 
become a moving target to attach any legislative matters that the 
Republican majority thinks that they need to get done, they do not want 
to have considered or voted on the floor in an up-or-down vote and 
debated in an open way.

[[Page H14813]]

  We have maintained log exports from the Northwest, regulations 
limiting log exports from the Pacific Northwest is set aside. There is 
authorizing law; a designation of the Vancouver national historic site, 
an issue that is being and should be considered in the resources 
authorizing committee. It has changes in the Columbia River Basin 
assessment. It has new National Park Service authorities. It has 
managers language in terms of what the park service may do with regard 
to the protection of Yellowstone, one of the crown jewels of the 
National Park System in terms of how we can protect the areas around it 
because there is development in terms of goldmining and that is going 
to affect the watersheds and this national park. This legislation bars 
protection or action to monitor.
  And so apparently that is of paramount concern to the new majority to 
protect that degradation of Yellowstone National Park in this 
legislation.
  It talks about wilderness designation and limiting such designation 
to law. I always thought we legislated wilderness designation. 
Apparently, at best this measure is the redundant reiteration of the 
self-evident with regard to what we do with wilderness designation, but 
I do not know what the language does, or its purpose.
  Far more, it goes on to keep all the other riders and limitations 
preventing the Secretary to exercise his stewardship responsibilities 
with regard to grazing, preventing the Secretary from trying to attain 
the recordation of roads and the degradation of the environment.
  This bill deserves to be defeated once more today because it has 
grown worse, not better, in the bad faith effort on the part of the 
Republican majority party. Today they point to the date and the 
pressure to enact funding for the departments and agencies in this 
measure, but the basis for not acting to pass this measure in October 
or November have not changed. The mining provisions have not changed, 
the Tongass timber language retains all the limits on the ability to 
reasonably regulate grazing, road rights of ways and the Endanged 
Species Act persist in this measure and to add insult to injury the 
measure piles on new riders and limits--it was not right in September, 
October, or November and even this crock of December does not justify 
and warrant passing an appropriation that has grown worst with age not 
better.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Louisiana [Mr. Livingston], the distinguished chairman of the full 
committee.
  (Mr. LIVINGSTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend, the gentleman 
from Ohio, for his incredible patience in working this bill through. 
This is the third time we have tried to get this through the House, and 
as the gentleman who preceded me in the well has vigorously pointed 
out, some people are never going to be satisfied with this bill. He is 
not, and there will be others who will vote against it.
  But we have massaged this bill under the leadership of the gentleman 
from Ohio. He has worked with the environmentalists. He has worked with 
the people in the West who are concerned about mining. He has worked 
with the people in Alaska who are concerned about the Tongass and the 
environmentalists who are concerned about the same issue on the other 
side. We have worked with people concerned about the Mohave Desert, and 
one issue after another, and we have brought them together in the 
spirit of compromise. That is the legislative process.
  The Senate and the House have come together, Republicans and 
Democrats have come together to agree. Liberals and conservatives, 
environmentalists and other people who may not consider themselves 
quite within the environmental mode, all of these people have come 
together, and today is the day.
  The bill did not pass the first time, because one group or another 
was unhappy. The bill did not pass the second time because other people 
were unhappy. Today, for crying out loud, let us pass this bill. Send 
it to the Senate and send it to the President for his signature, yes, 
for his signature. I know he is threatening a veto, as the gentleman 
from Illinois has pointed out, but he threatened a veto on the defense 
bill, too, and he ended up letting that become law.
  This is as good a bill as we can get. We have got all the interests 
competing. We have worked, we have massaged, and we have tried to mold 
this bill and satisfy everyone's concerns. It is a reasonable bill. It 
is a good bill. The President of the United States should sign it into 
law.
  I urge the adoption of this conference report.
  Mr. Speaker, earlier the technical 602(b) violation was discussed. I 
just want to make clear the committee is well within its overall 602 
allocation. This particular subcommittee's subdivision however is in 
technical violation of the so-called 602(b) at this time. The committee 
has not had an opportunity to revise its latest allocation to shift the 
necessary funds into the Interior subcommittee. In order to make this 
new conference report comply with the allocation we will have to shift 
some $22 million in budget authority and some $36 million in outlays. 
Even with this shift in funds the committee's domestic allocation would 
still be some $2.1 billion in budget authority below the ceiling and 
some $570 million in outlays below the ceilings.
  The committee has always stayed within its overall allocation, and 
will redirect the funds accordingly.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, Members, my colleagues, this is a good bill. We have 
addressed your concerns. You have heard the gentleman from New York 
[Mr. Boehlert] speak and the gentleman from Alaska [Mr. Young] who had 
some differences on the Tongass and on mining, and they both agreed 
that this represents a reasonable compromise, as was clearly pointed 
out by the chairman.
  I would just point out, also, that in terms of the Tongass, we have 
reduced the cut from 450 million board feet to 418 and as a practical 
matter, it will be about 310.
  Likewise, we have addressed the mining concerns. The issues that were 
in the recommittals, I think, have been very thoroughly addressed, and 
this is quite evident by the fact that the people who have an interest 
on both sides have spoken in favor of this bill.
  Also, I would address the question the President raises in his 
message about not enough money is being spent. Well, obviously earlier 
we heard that it was a budget buster. Now, I think that message is a 
bit in conflict. The truth of the matter is it is a responsible bill, 
and it does reduce spending, but it uses the funds available in a very 
prudent way.
  As far as the Bureau of Indian Affairs, we have addressed the needs 
of education, of health. We are actually above the President's request 
in one of his last statements.
  Overall I think that we have a very good bill. I think it is 
important we get this down to the White House, and I hope that they 
would sign this so that the 130,000 people that serve all of us in the 
parks and forests can get on with the job and serve the American people 
in the way that they would like.
  Let me strongly urge the members on both sides to reject the 
recommittal motion which will be again on the Tongass. We have already, 
as you have heard from other speakers, we have addressed the problems 
in the Tongass. Let us reject the recommittal motion and pass the bill.
  Mr. FAZIO. Mr. Speaker, once again, I cannot support this Interior 
appropriations conference agreement, It is a bad deal. Not only are the 
mining provisions a sham, but once again the bill is a back door 
attempt to repeal the California Desert Protection Act.
  In addition to retaining the $1 limit on the Park Service budget to 
manage the Mojave Preserve, this version goes even further by capping 
their planning money as well. While this third attempt provides a 
nominal increase to $500,000 in planning money, it does nothing to 
restore the protections needed to ensure the park is properly 
maintained.
  When Congress passed the California Desert Protection Act, it placed 
much of California's desert wilderness under the jurisdiction of the 
National Park Service. This provided much greater environmental 
protection than previously afforded under the Bureau of Land 
Management.
  Last year the National Park Service improved visitor services, 
resource protection, and law enforcement in the Mojave resulting in 
significantly increased visitation and revenues for the surrounding 
communities. During the 14 years that the BLM managed the Mojave as a 
national scenic area, open pit mining, 

[[Page H14814]]
motorcycle races, and general environmental degradation led to 
widespread protest.
  I understand my good friend and colleague Mr. Lewis' concern that the 
Park Service not become overzealous in its oversight of the preserve. 
However, even the local chamber of commerce has conceded that the new 
management of the park has enhanced tourism and made the Mojave more 
enjoyable for everyone. They endorse the changes made by the California 
Desert Protection Act and oppose the language in this appropriations 
measure. Not only is the BLM funding level for the preserve inadequate 
in this measure--a mere $600,000--but the Park Service's ability to 
devise a plan to manage the preserve in the future is severely 
restricted both in dollars and in time. Unless a plan is devised in the 
next few months, management of the Mojave will in all probability stay 
in BLM clutches.
  I urge my colleagues to once again send the message on this measure 
that major policy changes affecting the environment--regarding both 
mining and the Mojave--should be conducted through an open and 
deliberative legislative process, not shortcutted through the 
appropriations bills. Vote ``no'' on the Interior appropriations 
conference report.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the 
conference report on Interior and related agencies appropriations.
  There are a number of reasons to oppose this ill-conceived 
legislation, and I have discussed some of them in previous debates on 
this bill. Today, I would like to focus on one shortcoming that is 
particularly disturbing about the legislation, and that is its failure 
to provide adequate funding for energy efficiency programs at the 
Energy Department.
  DOE's efficiency programs support the development of new energy 
efficient technologies that prevent pollution, create jobs, make our 
economy more competitive, and save consumers precious dollars. 
Unfortunately, the Republican majority has elected to slash funding for 
our energy efficiency efforts by 28 percent from the fiscal year 1995 
enacted budget.
  Of particular concern is the nearly 50 percent cut in low-income 
weatherization assistance. This program leverages over $100 million 
dollars in outside money, enabling low-income Americans to better 
handle winter and summer energy costs. Because of these debilitating 
cuts, many thousand fewer homes will become energy efficient this year.
  President Clinton has vowed to veto the fiscal year 1996 Interior 
appropriations bill if and when a conference report clears the 
Congress. A recent statement of administration policy on the Interior 
bill stated that, ``Funding for [energy efficiency] programs must be 
restored significantly in order to reach acceptable levels.'' I 
strongly encourage the President to stand firm on his commitment to 
energy efficiency as a solution which protects the environment and 
helps the economy.
  The President is quite right to criticize this legislation for 
failing to adequately fund the energy conservation programs within the 
DOE. The level of funding in H.R. 1977 is inadequate to carry on the 
important work of these programs.
  Many House Members continue to support the President's position on 
this matter. I urge defeat of the conference report and request that 
the attached letter to the President, which was signed by 68 House 
Members, be included in the Record.

                                Congress of the United States,

                                 Washington, DC, December 6, 1995.
     Re H.R. 1977--energy conservation programs

     Hon. William J. Clinton,
     The President, The White House
       Dear Mr. President: We want to take this opportunity to 
     strongly endorse the Statements of Administration Policy of 
     November 7, 1995 and October 19, 1995, in which you indicated 
     that the Department of Interior and Related Agencies 
     Appropriations Bill for Fiscal Year 1996 (H.R. 1977) should 
     and would be vetoed for a variety of reasons. We share your 
     concern that this legislation does not adequately fund the 
     energy conservation programs within the Department of Energy 
     (DOE).
       The funding level for these programs of $553 million is 
     identical to the first conference report funding level and 
     remains $215 million (or 28 percent) below fiscal year 1995 
     appropriations and 38 percent below your budget request.
       We believe that this level of funding is inadequate to 
     carry on the important work of these programs. As you know, 
     DOE's energy conservation programs help every American by 
     saving consumers precious dollars, making the economy more 
     efficient and internationally competitive, and improving the 
     environment by preventing pollution. These programs largely 
     work with the private sector to develop and deploy new and 
     more efficient technologies, as well as saving energy on the 
     local level through state energy conservation programs (SECP) 
     and low-income weatherization. We concur with OMB Director 
     Alice Rivlin's statement that ``funding for these programs 
     must also be restored significantly to reach acceptable 
     levels.''
       The approximately 50 percent reduction in funding for low-
     income weatherization and SECP is of special concern to us. 
     Many thousand fewer homes will receive economically 
     empowering energy efficiency improvements this winter because 
     of the proposed Congressional cuts.
       We applaud your continuing leadership in this area and 
     stand ready to support you in insisting on a strong federal 
     energy efficiency program.
           Sincerely,
         Edward J. Markey; Sidney R. Yates; Frank Pallone, Jr.; 
           Martin Olav Sabo; Barney Frank; John D. Dingell; Joe 
           Moakley; Vic Fazio; Ronald V. Dellums; John W. Olver; 
           Jerrold Nadler; Patrick J. Kennedy; Lucille Roybal-
           Allard; Bernard Sanders; Dale E. Kildee; Alcee 
           Hastings; Sam Farr; James P. Moran; Earl Hilliard; 
           Maurice Hinchey; Jim McDermott; Robert T. Matsui; Harry 
           Johnston II; James A. Traficant; Carolyn Maloney; Nita 
           M. Lowey; Ike Skelton; Charles E. Schumer; Thomas J. 
           Manton; John Lewis; William Clay; Jose Serrano; Anthony 
           C. Beilenson; Lane Evans; Gerry E. Studds; Sam 
           Gejdenson; Jack Reed; Nydia Velazquez; Ed Towns; John 
           Conyers; Richard E. Neal; George E. Brown, Jr.; Rosa 
           DeLauro; Ed Pastor; Peter DeFazio; David E. Skaggs; 
           Sherrod Brown; Eliot Engel; Tom Barrett; Bill 
           Richardson; Elizabeth Furse; Sander Levin; Henry 
           Waxman; George Miller; James Oberstar; Ron Wyden; Louis 
           Stokes; Louise Slaughter; Lynn Rivers; Bruce Vento; 
           Earl Pomeroy; Barbara Kennelly; Major Owens; Patricia 
           Schroeder; David R. Obey; Benjamin L. Cardin; David 
           Bonior; Tim Johnson.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to 
this conference report.
  There are many reasons to vote against this report, and there are 
lots of reasons for the President to veto this bill, which he certainly 
will in its present form.
  Let me focus on just one of the important reasons why Members should 
vote against the conference report and that is because of the language 
which will lead to increased federal spending and accelerated logging 
in the Tongass National Forest.
  On November 15, the house voted 230 to 199 to instruct the conferees 
to drop the Tongass logging rider from this legislation. They haven't 
done that. What they have done instead is to return to the floor with a 
cosmetic coverup of more taxpayer subsidies for clearcutting this 
rainforest.
  As one of the architects of the Tongass Timber Reform Act of 1990, I 
can assure you that this rider is offensive to the goal of that act, 
which was to modernize forest management. This rider tries to turn the 
clock back to the days when subsidized clearcutting took priority over 
all other uses of the forest.
  The Tongass rider requires that an outdated, scientifically 
discredited draft timber plan shall govern management of the National 
Forest for the next 2 years. What that means is that logging is 
authorized at a rate of 418 million board feet per year, 100 million 
board feet over the historic average. Even though the Forest Service 
already has a solid scientific basis and has rejected this plan as 
allowing an unsustainable, environmentally destructive rate of harvest, 
the rider would impose the plan by congressional edict for 2 years.
  To add further insult, the rider has sufficiency language which is 
intended to overturn environmental lawsuits applying to existing sales.
  Even at current rates of logging, the Tongass has the Nation's most 
heavily subsidized timber program. According to GAO, between 1992 and 
1994, the cash flow deficit to the Treasury was $102 million. If we 
adopt this rider, losses to the Treasury could increase by another $18 
million annually.
  And what are we getting for the taxpayer's money? We're taking 400-
year-old trees from the rainforest and turning them into pulp. I don't 
recall that provision being in the Republican Contract With America.
  I do recall that during the timber salvage sale debate on the 
rescissions bill last March, Members were told that the amendment 
jointly applied to dead, dying, and burnt trees. What has happened is 
that we got a lot more than we were told about, including cutting of 
healthy, green old-growth timber in the Northwest.
  Don't get fooled again. Vote against this conference report.
  Mrs. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this 
conference report. While this bill contains many important elements for 
natural resource dependent communities, I want to highlight one very 
important provision that was included in the conference committee 
yesterday by Senator Gorton.
  This provision calls for the National Park Service to extend the 
lease at Pearson Airpark in the city of Vancouver past the year 2002. 
This is a key element in my legislation (H.R. 2172) to create the Fort 
Vancouver National Historic Reserve. While I anticipate that my 
legislation will pass the House next year, I am supportive of efforts 
to expedite the process with respect to Pearson Airpark. The 
designation of the Fort Vancouver National Historic 

[[Page H14815]]
 Reserve will, of course, go through the normal authorizing process.
  It was important to expedite the extension of the lease to give the 
city of Vancouver and the M.J. Murdock trust the certainty they need to 
forge ahead with the construction of the Murdock Aviation Museum. This 
will be a Smithsonian quality museum that will highlight the rich 
aviation history in the city of Vancouver. This legislation will go a 
long way to making this museum a reality.
  I urge my colleagues to support this conference report.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in strong 
support of the conference report on the Department of the Interior 
Appropriations Act. This appropriations bill contains a moratorium on 
new listings of endangered or threatened species or new designations of 
critical habitat under the Endangered Species Act. This moratorium is 
based on my Farm, Ranch and Homestead Protection Act.
  The Endangered Species Act has destroyed the rights of hardworking, 
taxpaying American families for the sake of blind cave spiders, fairy 
shrimp, and golden-cheeked warblers. Until Congress reauthorizes the 
Endangered Species Act to balance the rights of landowners and common 
sense with environmental concerns, we must protect American landowners 
by putting regulators on a leash. This amendment would extend the 
regulatory moratorium on listing of endangered or threatened species or 
designation of critical habitat until Congress reauthorizes the 
Endangered Species Act.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). Without objection the previous 
question is ordered on the conference report.
  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. Mr. Speaker, very much.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The clerk will report the motion.
  The clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Yates moves to recommit the conference report on the 
     bill H.R. 1977 to the committee of conference with 
     instructions to the managers on the part of the House to 
     insist on the House position on the amendment of the Senate 
     numbered 108. In order to protect the Tongass National Forest 
     from increased timber harvests.

                              {time}  1515

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). Without objection, the previous 
question is ordered on the motion to recommit.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 187, 
nays 241, not voting 4, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 853]

                               YEAS--187

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bishop
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Cardin
     Chapman
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Danner
     de la Garza
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Durbin
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     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
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Richardson
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rose
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Walsh
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates

                               NAYS--241

     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
     Brewster
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooley
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     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
     Goss
     Graham
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     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
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Martini
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     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 (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stump
     Talent
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Torkildsen
     Traficant
     Upton
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                             NOT VOTING--4

     McInnis
     Tucker
     Velazquez
     Waldholtz

                              {time}  1535

  The Clerk announced the following pair:
  On this vote:

       Ms. Velazquez for, with Mr. McInnis against.

  Mr. PACKARD changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay''.
  Ms. WATERS and Messrs. FARR, BERMAN, CHAPMAN, and PETERSON of 
Florida, changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea''.
  So the motion to recommit was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The question is on the 
conference report.
  Pursuant to the provisions of clause 7 of rule XV, the yeas and nays 
are ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 244, 
nays 181, not voting 7, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 854]

                               YEAS--244

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brewster
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     
[[Page H14816]]

     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Cooley
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Funderburk
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hefley
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Horn
     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
     Lincoln
     Linder
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Longley
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     Martini
     Mascara
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Murtha
     Myers
     Myrick
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Reed
     Regula
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Seastrand
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stump
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Torkildsen
     Traficant
     Upton
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wise
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                               NAYS--181

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Cardin
     Chapman
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Cubin
     de la Garza
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Durbin
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gonzalez
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hayworth
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Holden
     Hostettler
     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)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Moran
     Morella
     Nadler
     Neumann
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Rangel
     Richardson
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rose
     Roth
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stupak
     Taylor (MS)
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Williams
     Wilson
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Callahan
     Chenoweth
     Hancock
     McInnis
     Tucker
     Velazquez
     Waldholtz

                              {time}  1553

  The Clerk announced the following pair:
  On this vote:

       Mr. McInnis for, with Ms. Velazquez against.

  So the conference report was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsidered was laid on the table.

                          ____________________