[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 96 (Wednesday, July 9, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H4938-H4945]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




QUINCY LIBRARY GROUP FOREST RECOVERY AND ECONOMIC STABILITY ACT OF 1997

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 180 and rule 
XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the bill, 
H.R. 858.

                              {time}  1241


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole 
House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the 
bill (H.R. 858) to direct the Secretary of Agriculture to conduct a 
pilot project on designated lands within Plumas, Lassen, and Tahoe 
National Forests in the State of California to demonstrate the 
effectiveness of the resource management activities proposed by the 
Quincy Library Group and to amend current land and resource management 
plans for these national forests to consider the incorporation of these 
resource management activities, with Mr. Pease in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole House rose earlier 
today, all time for debate had expired.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman from Alaska [Mr. 
Young] is recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I apologize to Members that there 
is a little confusion going on right now, but there has been some 
discussion in trying to reach an agreement with the administration. I 
have letters from the administration saying that they basically support 
the implication of this legislation, from Mr. Glickman, the Department 
of Environmental Quality. What we have been trying to do for the last 
hour is to work out some mutual agreement where I personally believe 
that we can, in fact, send this bill to the Senate and have the Senate 
take it up without any amendments and send it to the President.
  Now, there may be some that may not agree with what has been done on 
both sides, but it is my belief it is the best way to try to solve 
these problems. Because I am a realist, and I recognize there are those 
that oppose this bill, especially the national environmental community, 
I understand that and I understand that there are those in the Senate 
who have the power, because their rules put holds on bills and nothing 
occurs, I think it is very important to get this pilot project on its 
way to become a law.
  I have worked with the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller] for the 
last hour, and we have been saying things to one another and discussing 
this, what we can accomplish. I am resentful of the administration, 
because I just got their letters about 10 minutes, 15 minutes ago. I 
think this is inappropriate on the part of the administration when this 
is their brainchild, when they thought this would be the way to go.
  We have done everything possible to make this work. It is my belief, 
the way that this has been made up, that we have an opportunity now to 
really solve what was in my substitute but was a definition that 
appeases not only the administration but the gentleman from California 
[Mr. Miller] and others that are involved.
  Now, I will not say that we did not have the votes. I believe we had 
the votes to pass it in the House big time, and I understand that, but 
there is also a chance in the way this works, if we want to get this 
program in place, on time, working for the people, the Quincy Library 
Group and the people in that arena, we must try to solve the problems 
here on the floor of the House to give them that opportunity.
  If these amendments destroy the intent of the bill and if it does not 
work, then we can always review it. We can come back and find out what 
is happening. But it is an attempt to make sure that we have a 
fledgling duckling turn into a beautiful swan. It is an opportunity to 
make this work.
  I know there is some question about what we are doing here, and I 
apologize to those people, but this is the way this program works. This 
is a democracy. This is a legislative process, putting a package 
together that becomes a reality.
  So with that, I would like to thank the gentleman from California and 
those involved. I would like to suggest respectfully, for those that 
are unaware of what we are doing, that this is really, I think, our 
opportunity to fulfill not only an obligation, although we can win on 
this floor, but we can go forward and have an opportunity on the Senate 
side and get this to the President of the United States and make sure 
that these local people are heard and done correctly.
  If it does not work, we can come back and revisit it again. I do 
believe it will work.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Miller] is recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the chairman 
for offering this amendment. I think, in fact, as I said, there is very 
little disagreement about the intent and the purpose of this 
legislation and what all of us would like to see carried out. The 
gentlewoman from Idaho, the subcommittee chair, has worked long and

[[Page H4939]]

hard on this legislation, has accepted many changes by the various 
concerned parties to this legislation, as has the gentleman from 
Alaska, the chairman of the committee.
  The gentleman from California [Mr. Herger] who represents this area 
and has championed this legislation, this approach, I think also has 
accepted many changes to this legislation that I believe is consistent 
with the idea that we would try to empower local communities to have a 
say in the planning of forest practices and forest managements that are 
consistent with the best interests of those communities while, at the 
same time, being consistent with the overall system of general forest 
health.
  I think the suggestions put forth now by the chairman, the gentleman 
from Alaska, now ensure that we have legislation here that can be 
considered on a very timely basis in the Senate and be sent to the 
President's desk so, in fact, the Quincy Library Group pilot project on 
this 2\1/2\ million acres can go forward and it can go forward with 
every Member being assured that it is in compliance with the laws and 
it is in compliance with the intent and the purposes of the Quincy 
Library Group.
  It is not easy to fashion these kinds of amendments when we are 
dealing with resource issues. When I used to be chairman of the 
committee, I used to tell people that wanted to get on the committee 
that we do not deal with anything abstract in this committee. We are 
either moving a boundary 10 feet north or 10 feet south, and trees 
either end up vertical or they end up horizontal. This is not an 
abstract committee.
  So I want to commend the gentleman and the other Members on the other 
side for their effort in offering this amendment, and it is my 
intention to support the amendment, to support the legislation, and to 
work hard to see that it becomes the law of the land.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, amendment numbered 1 in the 
Congressional Record is considered as an original bill for the purpose 
of amendment and is considered read.
  No further amendment is in order, except the amendment enabled by the 
recent order by unanimous consent which may be offered by the gentleman 
from Alaska [Mr. Young] or his designee, shall be considered read, 
shall be debatable for 1 hour equally divided and controlled by the 
proponent and an opponent, and shall not be subject to amendment.


 Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute Offered by Mr. Young of Alaska

  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment in the nature 
of a substitute.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment in the nature of 
a substitute.
  The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute is as 
follows:

       Amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. 
     Young of Alaska:
       Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the 
     following:

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Quincy Library Group Forest 
     Recovery and Economic Stability Act of 1997''.

     SEC. 2. PILOT PROJECT FOR PLUMAS, LASSEN, AND TAHOE NATIONAL 
                   FORESTS TO IMPLEMENT QUINCY LIBRARY GROUP 
                   PROPOSAL.

       (a) Definition.--For purposes of this section, the term 
     ``Quincy Library Group-Community Stability Proposal'' means 
     the agreement by a coalition of representatives of fisheries, 
     timber, environmental, county government, citizen groups, and 
     local communities that formed in northern California to 
     develop a resource management program that promotes ecologic 
     and economic health for certain Federal lands and communities 
     in the Sierra Nevada area. Such proposal includes the map 
     entitled ``QUINCY LIBRARY GROUP Community Stability 
     Proposal'', dated June 1993, and prepared by VESTRA Resources 
     of Redding, California.
       (b) Pilot Project Required.--
       (1) Pilot project and purpose.--The Secretary of 
     Agriculture (in this section referred to as the 
     ``Secretary''), acting through the Forest Service and after 
     completion of an environmental impact statement (a record of 
     decision for which shall be adopted within 200 days); shall 
     conduct a pilot project on the Federal lands described in 
     paragraph (2) to implement and demonstrate the effectiveness 
     of the resource management activities described in subsection 
     (d) and the other requirements of this section, as 
     recommended in the Quincy Library Group-Community Stability 
     Proposal.
       (2) Pilot project area.--The Secretary shall conduct the 
     pilot project on the Federal lands within Plumas National 
     Forest, Lassen National Forest, and the Sierraville Ranger 
     District of Tahoe National Forest in the State of California 
     designated as ``Available for Group Selection'' on the map 
     entitled ``QUINCY LIBRARY GROUP Community Stability 
     Proposal'', dated June 1993 (in this section referred to as 
     the ``pilot project area''). Such map shall be on file and 
     available for inspection in the appropriate offices of the 
     Forest Service.
       (c) Exclusion of Certain Lands, Riparian Protection and 
     Compliance.--
       (1) Exclusion.--All spotted owl habitat areas and protected 
     activity centers located within the pilot project area 
     designated under subsection (b)(2) will be deferred from 
     resource management activities required under subsection (d) 
     and timber harvesting during the term of the pilot project.
       (2) Riparian protection.--
       (A) In general.--The Scientific Analysis Team guidelines 
     for riparian system protection described in subparagraph (B) 
     shall apply to all resource management activities conducted 
     under subsection (d) and all timber harvesting activities 
     that occur in the pilot project area during the term of the 
     pilot project.
       (B) Guidelines described.--The guidelines referred to in 
     subparagraph (A) are those in the document entitled 
     ``Viability Assessments and Management Considerations for 
     Species Associated with Late-Successional and Old-Growth 
     Forests of the Pacific Northwest'', a Forest Service research 
     document dated March 1993 and co-authored by the Scientific 
     Analysis Team, including Dr. Jack Ward Thomas.
       (3) Compliance.--All resource management activities 
     required by subsection (d) shall be implemented to the extent 
     consistent with applicable Federal laws and the standards and 
     guidelines for the Conservation of the California Spotted Owl 
     as set forth in the California Spotted Owl Sierran Provence 
     Interim Guidelines or the subsequently issued final 
     guidelines whichever is in effect.
       (d) Resource Management Activities.--During the term of the 
     pilot project, the Secretary shall implement and carry out 
     the following resource management activities on an acreage 
     basis on the Federal lands included within the pilot project 
     area designated under subsection (b)(2):
       (1) Fuelbreak construction.--Construction of a strategic 
     system of defensible fuel profile zones, including shaded 
     fuelbreaks, utilizing thinning, individual tree selection, 
     and other methods of vegetation management consistent with 
     the Quincy Library Group-Community Stability Proposal, on not 
     less than 40,000, but not more than 60,000, acres per year.
       (2) Group selection and individual tree selection.--
     Utilization of group selection and individual tree selection 
     uneven-aged forest management prescriptions described in the 
     Quincy Library Group-Community Stability Proposal to achieve 
     a desired future condition of all-age, multistory, fire 
     resilient forests as follows:
       (A) Group selection.--Group selection on an average acreage 
     of .57 percent of the pilot project area land each year of 
     the pilot project.
       (B) Individual tree selection.--Individual tree selection 
     may also be utilized within the pilot project area.
       (3) Total acreage.--The total acreage on which resource 
     management activities are implemented under this subsection 
     shall not exceed 70,000 acres each year.
       (4) Riparian management.--A program of riparian management, 
     including wide protection zones and riparian restoration 
     projects, consistent with riparian protection guidelines in 
     subsection (c)(2)(B).
       (e) Cost-Effectiveness.--In conducting the pilot project, 
     Secretary shall use the most cost-effective means available, 
     as determined by the Secretary, to implement resource 
     management activities described in subsection (d).
       (g) Funding.--
       (1) Source of funds.--In conducting the pilot project, the 
     Secretary shall use--
       (A) those funds specifically provided to the Forest Service 
     by the Secretary to implement resource management activities 
     according to the Quincy Library Group-Community Stability 
     Proposal; and
       (B) excess funds that are allocated for the administration 
     and management of Plumas National Forest, Lassen National 
     Forest, and the Sierraville Ranger District of Tahoe National 
     Forest.
       (2) Prohibition on use of certain funds.--The Secretary may 
     not conduct the pilot project using funds appropriated for 
     any other unit of the National Forest System.
       (3) Flexibility.--Subject to normal reprogramming 
     guidelines, during the term of the pilot project, the forest 
     supervisors of Plumas National Forest, Lassen National 
     Forest, and Tahoe National Forest may allocate and use all 
     accounts that contain excess funds and all available excess 
     funds for the administration and management of Plumas 
     National Forest, Lassen National Forest, and the Sierraville 
     Ranger District of Tahoe National Forest to perform the 
     resource management activities described in subsection (d).
       (4) Restriction.--The Secretary or the forest supervisors, 
     as the case may be, shall not utilize authority provided 
     under paragraphs (1)(B) and (3) if, in their judgment, doing 
     so will limit other nontimber related multiple use activities 
     for which such funds were available.
       (5) Overhead.--Of amounts available to carry out this 
     section--

[[Page H4940]]

       (A) not more than 12 percent may be used or allocated for 
     general administration or other overhead; and
       (B) at least 88 percent shall be used to implement and 
     carry out activities required by this section.
       (6) Authorized supplemental funds.--There are authorized to 
     be appropriated to implement and carry out the pilot project 
     such sums as are necessary.
       (7) Baseline funds.--Amounts available for resource 
     management activities authorized under subsection (d) shall 
     at a minimum include existing baseline functioning levels.
       (h) Term of Pilot Project.--The Secretary shall conduct the 
     pilot project during the period beginning on the date of the 
     enactment of this Act and ending on the later of the 
     following:
       (1) The date on which the Secretary completes amendment or 
     revision of the land and resource management plans for Plumas 
     National Forest, Lassen National Forest, and Tahoe National 
     Forest pursuant to subsection (j).
       (2) The date that is five years after the date of the 
     commencement of the pilot project.
       (i)(1) Consultation.--Each statement required by subsection 
     (b)(1) shall be prepared in consultation with the Quincy 
     Library Group.
       (2) Contracting.--The Forest Service, subject to the 
     availability of appropriations, may carry out any (or all) of 
     the requirements of this section using private contracts.
       (j) Corresponding Forest Plan Amendments.--Within 180 days 
     after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Regional 
     Forester for Region 5 shall initiate the process to amend or 
     revise the land and resource management plans for Plumas 
     National Forest, Lassen National Forest, and Tahoe National 
     Forest. The process shall include preparation of at least one 
     alternative that--
       (1) incorporates the pilot project and area designations 
     made by subsection (b), the resource management activities 
     described in subsection (d), and other aspects of the Quincy 
     Library Group Community Stability Proposal; and
       (2) makes other changes warranted by the analyses conducted 
     in compliance with section 102(2) of the National 
     Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)), section 
     6 of the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning 
     Act of 1974 (16 U.S.C. 1604), and other applicable laws.
       (k) Reporting Requirements.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than February 28 of each year 
     during the term of the pilot project, the Secretary after 
     consultation with the Quincy Library Group, shall submit to 
     Congress a report on the status of the pilot project. The 
     report shall include at least the following:
       (A) A complete accounting of the use of funds made 
     available under subsection (g)(1)(A) until such funds are 
     fully expended.
       (B) A complete accounting of the use of funds and accounts 
     made available under subsection (g)(1) for the previous 
     fiscal year, including a schedule of the amounts drawn from 
     each account used to perform resource management activities 
     described in subsection (d).
       (C) A description of total acres treated for each of the 
     resource management activities required under subsection (d), 
     forest health improvements, fire risk reductions, water yield 
     increases, and other natural resources-related benefits 
     achieved by the implementation of the resource management 
     activities described in subsection (d).
       (D) A description of the economic benefits to local 
     communities achieved by the implementation of the pilot 
     project.
       (E) A comparison of the revenues generated by, and costs 
     incurred in, the implementation of the resource management 
     activities described in subsection (d) on the Federal lands 
     included in the pilot project area with the revenues and 
     costs during each of the fiscal years 1992 through 1997 for 
     timber management of such lands before their inclusion in the 
     pilot project.
       (F) A schedule for the resource management activities to be 
     undertaken in the pilot project area during the calendar 
     year.
       (2) Limitation on expenditures.--The amount of Federal 
     funds expended on each annual report under this subsection 
     shall not exceed $50,000.
       (l) Final Report.--
       (1) In general.--Beginning after completion of 6 months of 
     the second year of the pilot project, the Secretary shall 
     compile a science-based assessment of, and report on, the 
     effectiveness of the pilot project in meeting the stated 
     goals of this pilot project. Such assessment and report--
       (A) shall include watershed monitoring of lands treated 
     under this section, that should address the following issues 
     on a priority basis: timing of water releases, water quality 
     changes, and water yield changes over the short and long term 
     in the pilot project area;
       (B) shall be compiled in consultation with the Quincy 
     Library Group; and
       (C) shall be submitted to the Congress by July 1, 2002.
       (2) Limitations on expenditures.--The amount of Federal 
     funds expended for the assessment and report under this 
     subsection, other than for watershed monitoring under 
     paragraph (1)(A), shall not exceed $150,000. The amount of 
     Federal funds expended for watershed monitoring under 
     paragraph (1)(A) shall not exceed $75,000 for each of fiscal 
     years 2000, 2001, and 2002.
       (m) Relationship to Other Laws.--Nothing in this section 
     exempts the pilot project from any Federal environmental law.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from Alaska [Mr. 
Young] and a Member opposed each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Alaska [Mr. Young].
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume. Again may I stress the importance of this legislation and the 
amendment which I offer to the original amendment by the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Miller].
  This is an interpretation which was disputed between the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Miller] and myself and from the administration and 
what they requested. We still believe we did what we should have done 
in the original bill, or the substitute which I offered, but there is a 
disputing of definitions. We now believe that we have an opportunity 
with my amendment to take and resolve that dispute between the 
gentleman from California, myself, and the administration.
  I have had the commitment of the gentleman from California that he is 
going to support this legislation if my amendment is adopted. Now, the 
total package will be voted on. And I have also had indications that 
the Senate would work appropriately with this legislation and the 
administration would sign this legislation if it gets out of this House 
in this form.
  If this does not occur, that means that we would have to go back to 
conference; but I am confident that if we went to conference, I have 
the support of the ranking member and other members involved whereby we 
can in fact solve this problem and get the community input as 
necessary.
  May I suggest, Mr. Chairman, there has been much said about the 
preservation of this forest. One of the biggest fears I have and have 
always had is the burning of our forests today and the lack of 
management.

                              {time}  1245

  Fires are natural, yes. We have not been involved with Smokey the 
Bear, but we have put out fires for many, many years. The volatility of 
these acres now is about 100 barrels of gasoline per acre in some of 
our forests. Some of the most magnificent trees today are threatened 
because of the lack of fire control or fire suppression or, in fact, 
the continued growth and undergrowth that makes it impossible to put a 
fire out, and it kills the soil when it burns.
  So we talk about the future generations walking through the forests. 
There will be no forests to walk through if we do not have the proper 
management. Yes, we can leave some trees aside. We can leave the old 
growth where it is in some places. We can also take and have the 
management thinning in the appropriate classification. But we must have 
what I call the appropriate management, and who better can do that than 
those in the area in which it lives? I think it is so crucially 
important that we continue to try this pilot project.
  I want to stress again and again, pilot project, five-year project, 
all environmental laws, all registrations now. But it allows the taking 
of timber. It allows the proper fire suppression. So I urge the 
adoption of my amendment. I think it is crucially important that we 
have the opportunity to continue this.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Calvert], on the legislation itself and not necessarily directed to the 
amendment.
  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Quincy Library 
Group and the manager's amendment. The Quincy Library Group was not 
created in a vacuum. The national urban environmental organizations 
have been involved and aware of the Quincy Library Group since its 
inception in 1993.
  National urban organizations have also been involved and endorsed at 
one time or another each element of the Quincy Library proposal. For 
example, the 5-year pilot program which is established by this 
legislation calls for an annual range of between 40,000 and 60,000 
acres to be treated with strategic fuel breaks. This acreage was 
proposed directly by the national urban organizations.
  The Quincy Library proposal is a positive bill that is good for the 
forest, good for the people, good for the environment, and receives a 
wide range of

[[Page H4941]]

support. Therefore, I ask Members for their support in passage of H.R. 
858 and the manager's amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Miller] may control the time otherwise reserved for an opponent of the 
amendment.
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Miller].
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio].
  Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague, the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Miller], for yielding. I want to thank 
both the gentleman from Alaska [Mr. Young], the chairman, and the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Miller], the ranking member, for coming 
together here on the floor to reach common ground on a very significant 
piece of legislation.
  I think our bipartisan effort, and I am confident this bill will be 
agreed to after this amendment is agreed to by an overwhelming margin, 
has really set the tone for what I hope can be a new era in the way in 
which we resolve our differences on forest practices.
  We have been at war with each other. We have not been able to resolve 
our differences. We have stopped progress. We have not created any new 
initiatives or new incentives to move on. I think this Quincy Library 
Group language, the original premise for it and the amended version 
that will pass today, is evidence that we can lay down our swords and 
actually work together to accomplish something.
  We do not know that this is the solution. But the 5 years that we 
have given ourselves to try to put this local agreement into effect 
without violating national laws, I think is a window of opportunity. 
Should we succeed in these three national forests, dealing with the 
riparian restoration issues and the thinning issues and fire 
suppression, all the other issues that I think are part of contemporary 
management of our national forests, we will have perhaps set for the 
future a standard by which other forests can be managed with all the 
players coming together, environmentalists and local officials and 
local business people, people who work in the forests and people who 
employ them, coming together to find a common approach to getting off 
dead center. For that I am very thankful, as I am sure many of my 
colleagues and many of my constituents are.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  I want to thank the gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio], who has 
been very busy here the last hour and a half on the floor trying to 
help us hammer out this agreement, and for taking part in these 
discussions and serving as a go-between. I want to thank him for that 
effort.
  Both the gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio] and the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Herger] are the closest representatives to this area 
and clearly, as the gentleman from Alaska [Mr. Young] tries to remind 
us all the time, have the concern with the greatest impact. I think 
that this is a balanced approach that the gentleman has worked on, and 
I appreciate and thank him for your efforts.
  Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MILLER of California. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Miller] for his comments, and I simply want to 
congratulate the gentleman from California [Mr. Herger] for his 
initiative and his successful steering of this measure through, I hope, 
to the Senate and to the President.
  It is a breakthrough. I think this would not have been accomplished 
without the willingness of the staff of the Committee on Resources and 
its leadership to resolve their differences here today on the floor so 
that we can offer an united front and, hopefully, see implementation of 
this concept.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from Maryland [Mr. Gilchrest].
  Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Alaska [Mr. 
Young] for yielding me the time. I also want to thank all those people 
on both sides of the aisle that have been involved in working through 
this legislation to reach a compromise that will benefit not only the 
people in the community that are directly involved in this issue, but 
it will have a positive impact on the rest of the country and on 
logging in general.
  Are we smart enough, Mr. Chairman, to sustain logging, mimic nature, 
and protect biological diversity? I think we are, and I think this 
legislation will begin the process for us to understand how to do that.
  Does this Nation need wood? The answer is yes. Must we sustain 
logging, or should we sustain logging? The answer is we must sustain 
logging. Does this Nation need the kind of health that biological 
diversity offers species, including human beings? Biological diversity 
ensures that we are going to sustain the kind of things we need in 
order to survive on this planet. Not only can we protect and sustain 
biological diversity, we must sustain biological diversity.
  So are we smart enough, in this society that we call the United 
States of America, with a democracy, with a free market economy out 
there, with people with varying interests, can we get together and 
resolve these issues? The answer is yes.
  And if we look at the legislation, does it protect the habitat for 
species? This legislation protects habitat for species. Does it protect 
and do further research on riparian areas? The answer is yes.
  On page 8, line 18: ``All environmental laws apply to this pilot 
project.'' On page 10: ``An annual review of the project is ordered by 
the Secretary of Agriculture,'' an annual review.
  If my colleagues look on page 15, line 6, this has something else to 
do with ensuring that we are going to do the right thing: ``The 
Secretary shall compile a science-based assessment of the effectiveness 
of this pilot project.''
  The legislation is sound. Are we smart enough, as people in this 
democracy, to sustain logging, mimic nature, and protect biological 
diversity? Can we do that? The answer is yes. I strongly encourage my 
colleagues to vote for this legislation.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Doolittle].
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, our forests are really in deplorable 
condition. My colleagues can see and anyone who flies over the Sierra 
Nevadas can see just what a terrible state they are in, how years of 
drought and insect infestation have killed in some cases more than one-
third of all the standing trees, a number of brown trees they can see 
flying over the Sierra Nevadas. We have had some devastating forest 
fires. And the prognosis is, unless we manage these forests, we are 
going to have fires on an even greater scale than we have seen so far, 
that will absolutely wreak havoc for years upon the environment and 
destroy the livelihood of all the people that live in timber-based 
communities.
  Mr. Chairman, the Quincy Library Group represents remarkable 
consensus amongst local residents, local timber experts, local 
businessmen, local environmentalists, all local people who have 
produced this consensus to properly manage the forests. The only group 
opposed to this legislation is the arrogant, left wing, taxpayer 
subsidized environmental lobby, because if we have consensus to manage 
our forests at the local level, they might not be necessary.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a good bill. We should approve this bill and 
finally send a message to the world that local people can govern 
themselves, so I urge the approval of this legislation.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Farr].
  Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in favor of this bill 
with the amendment, accept that because it is essentially a bottom-up 
process and we all got here from local government, and this is where 
people who live on the land take care of it, both sides of the issue, 
environmentalists and non-environmentalists, have come to consensus. I 
think it is a good bill and we ought to support it.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Vento].

[[Page H4942]]

  (Mr. VENTO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I came over here to oppose this bill 
initially, and I am now met with the fact that the chairman and ranking 
member have come to an agreement that has been difficult to achieve 
concerning this issue. I commend them, and I intend to support that 
agreement because of the confidence I have in both of my colleagues and 
the staff who are engaged in this issue with me.
  I must say I am somewhat uneasy with it. I am uneasy, Mr. Chairman, 
because it is implied that somehow the National Forest Service or some 
of our other land management planning agencies, the Park Service, BLM 
and the Fish and Wildlife Service, really did not have the information 
they need or did not have the know-how; and the fact is that these land 
management agencies are revered around the world for their knowledge 
with regards to the cutting edge understanding land management and the 
ability to manage the national forests, our temperate rain forests, our 
arboreal forests, the NFS is at the cutting edge of this particular 
study and application on the ground.
  We ought to look at what has happened to the ability of the Forest 
Service and other land management agencies to develop the type of 
rapport that we need with local communities. I believe what has 
happened, as we examine the record, is that there have been significant 
reductions in professional staff throughout the 1980's and into the 
1990's.
  If we look at our budget for the next 5 years, I think we are going 
to find more problems along those lines. As budget are curtailed fewer 
personnel will be available for on the ground communication. And most 
of the plans we have actually go through extensive work, far above the 
Administrative Procedures Act, for example, such land management plans 
go through extensive work to try and share with local communities what 
the plans are for a forest, what the plans are for a park or for other 
public domain lands.
  This modified substitute is a good idea in the sense that if we can 
develop consensus at the local level and it is consistent with 
scientific principles and sound national land management practices, 
that these national lands, which in this case happen to be in 
California and Oregon, would in fact be effectively managed and we will 
with a better rapport have less misunderstandings and less acrimony.
  As new scientific information is developed and new knowledge is 
acquired, we have to bring this to bear in terms of land management 
plans in our forests, parks and other public lands. That is what 
Congress has asked the Forest Service to do in the many laws and 
policies that exist. That is what Congress is requiring the Park 
Service or BLM or other land management agencies to do, and that is a 
tough job, a very tough job, because that new information portends 
changes regards the use of our forests, park and public domain lands.

                              {time}  1300

  However, I think engaging people locally in this formal way may prove 
to be quite expensive. I think we need to look at the total bill in 
dollars. This is more than just a pilot plan. I think it is a 
significant commitment by this Congress in terms of local engagement 
which must be matched with a fiscal commitment. I would just suggest 
that if my colleagues want this, if it is to work, then hopefully the 
same will stand up and start putting the money into the Forest Service 
to do the job in terms of forest health, to do the job in terms of 
developing this type of local input, and the ability to fully carry out 
the process of not just decisionmaking but implementation.
  This is a very difficult task. It is an expensive task. I think it is 
one that is worth the effort if in fact the process accomplishes the 
promised objectives and goals. As I said earlier in my statement when 
we were talking on the rule for this measure's consideration, I do not 
disagree with the Quincy Library Group concept, but I do not think that 
I wanted to see this idea hijacked for other purposes, to get around 
the environmental and other laws that today present a challenge to 
some, the cost of local input should not be dispensing with the body of 
land use environmental laws.
  That is why, Mr. Chairman, I rose in opposition to H.R. 858, the 
Quincy Library Group Forest Recovery and Economic Stability Act of 
1997. As reported to the House the bill is unacceptable. Often in 
Congress we are faced with legislation in its best wrappings that 
attempts to appeal to our most common and good instincts, but unwrapped 
it reveals just another effort to benefit a special interest group. 
What could make more sense than a local group getting together to 
settle its differences in the confines of a library? What could be 
better than an agreement that satisfies everyone involved, preserves a 
community's economic stability, and protects the environment? You would 
think, upon reading the information provided by the supporters of this 
bill, that this was a slice of American pie, the most perfect proposal 
that Congress should rubber stamp.
  Well I say to my colleagues that this bill from the Resources 
Committee is far from perfect. This isn't the Quincy Proposal. This is 
an attempt by these interests to force feed the American taxpayer and 
the U.S. Forest Service a policy path which side steps most major 
environmental laws and scientific principles. This bill could be yet 
just another attempt to cut more trees by sidestepping environmental 
law and existing rules and policy governing our national forests. This 
initial bill, H.R. 858, is a consensus proposal without a consensus on 
this floor. Is it a stalking horse for special exploitive interests? 
This bill takes a positive development and tries to cash it in before 
it becomes fully defined, much less developed. Cash it in for whom?
  This measure which affects over 2.5 million acres of 3 national 
forests and could become a 1997 version of the infamous 1995 salvage 
rider, the risks in the initial measure are just too great.
  I opposed this initial bill because it disregards important 
environmental safeguards. It does not require real compliance with the 
National Environmental Policy Act [NEPA] or the National Forest 
Management Act. Instead, it substitutes a questionable and sloppy 
review process for true environmental stewardship without the 
safeguards. We've had enough trouble with the timber industry already--
and this measure must not be just another special exception from some 
of the most important protected industries in America.
  I want to make it clear that I am not critical of the Quincy Library 
Process. I am objecting to writing into law a half-baked concept and 
excepting it from the professional management practices that have 
helped guide the timber policy. This bill as law would superimpose a 
policy which is in glowing generalities a 22-page document that will 
lend itself to risk.
  I question this bill further because it will cost $83 million over 
the next 5 years. That's $83 million the U.S. Forest Service will not 
be able to spend on creating more recreational opportunities for our 
kids, restoring old roads, or protecting the environment. In a time 
when we are finally tightening our belts, I ask my colleagues: can we 
really afford $83 million to fund an uncertain and incomplete policy?
  I oppose this original bill because it calls itself a pilot program, 
while it in fact deals with 2.5 million acres and 3 national forests. 
This is not characteristic of a pilot program. This could well result 
in a semantic exercise that is being sold with a goal to jettison 
important environmental protections.
  I oppose this bill because it continues the majority's strategy of 
attempting to quietly ram through anti-environmental time bombs. 
Members of the Quincy Library Group themselves have expressed optimism 
that they are nearing an administrative solution with the Department of 
Agriculture. My friend from California, Mr. Fazio, who originally 
supported this bill, contacted the Subcommittee on Forests asking us to 
give the administrative route more time. He was ignored, of course, 
because this bill is no longer about the Quincy Library Agreement--when 
unwrapped in living color this bill is about more logging and fewer 
environmental restrictions.
  Finally, and most importantly, I oppose this bill because it sets a 
dangerous precedent. Clearly, communities have a vital role in 
determining our national forest policies. This bill, however, goes too 
far down that road. Simply because citizens live next to Federal land 
does not entitle them to manage that land. Those who live close to such 
land are important partners, often stewards, who offer real strength 
and accountability. Our national forests and public lands, however, are 
the property of all Americans. Every single American--not just the 
residents and interests of Quincy, CA--has a stake in ensuring that 
they are adequately protected from irresponsible management practices 
now and for future generations.
  Finally, the majority and minority Members are offering the long-
sought changes that have been agreed to. I urge my colleagues to 
support this Young/Miller substitute. It's an improvement over the very 
imperfect measure reported; it limits some of the risks, but is a bill 
really necessary? Couldn't this be done without a new law? It is a 
major concern. This

[[Page H4943]]

measure should be carefully watched in the legislative process and 
close oversight if it is enacted into law the next 5 years to ensure 
that the commitments to sound science and environmental sensitive land 
use planning are effective and achieved.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Oregon [Mr. DeFazio].
  Mr. DeFAZIO. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, the gentleman raised a very serious concern earlier 
about one particular section of the bill which resembled language from 
the infamous timber salvage rider which I opposed. The language in 
concern was that the Secretary concerned shall not rely on salvage 
timber sales as a basis for administrative action limiting other 
multiple use activities, et cetera.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DeFAZIO. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. MILLER of California. As part of the amendment, that language has 
been stricken from the legislation.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. I thank the gentleman.
  The gentleman now feels that this bill fully complies with all 
existing environmental laws, and reserves rights of appeal, litigation, 
and other things to the public and other concerned individuals?
  Mr. MILLER of California. That is my understanding.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this legislation. I appreciate the 
willingness of the proponents on the other side of the aisle to work 
with the minority to address the significant concerns raised by the 
administration. It is my hope now that we will be able to move this 
process forward with some dispatch and, as I said earlier, to begin to 
look at a different way of managing our forests; reserving the roadless 
areas, the few that are left, reserving and preserving the wilderness 
areas that are statutorily defined by Congress, meeting the needs of 
the spotted owl and other endangered species in the area, clean water 
concerns, but also engaging in some forestry activities in what would 
be called a lighter touch, uneven age stand management regime, one that 
came after hours and hours and hours of discussion between traditional 
antagonists in this part of the country. I only hope that a similar 
process can be modeled on the Quincy Library project for my own 
district and other areas where for so long we have been engaged in 
pitched battles.
  Early on in the forest debates I got the carpenters union to go with 
some environmental activists up to look at management similar to what 
is being proposed here today, uneven age stand management, principally 
thinning, along with a forester who works on alternative management. 
There was substantial agreement that that would be something that had 
promise. I got the carpenters to then go to an ancient forest 
conference and say they would look at an alternative that preserved all 
the remaining old growth if we could look at alternative management on 
the remaining lands. Yet the administration out of hand rejected that 
as did Lord Thomas reject that in going through the plan, to develop 
the President's forest plan. I think this is a crack in the armor of 
the old save and sacrifice forestry. This threatens people that are 
polarized at either ends of the debate. I applaud this process to move 
away from save and sacrifice to uneven age stand management, selective 
management and forestry that is sensitive to all environmental laws and 
truly perhaps for the first time to multiple uses.
  Mr. MILLER of California. I thank the gentleman for his remarks in 
support.
  Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back 
the balance of my time.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from California [Mr. Herger], the author of 
this legislation, to speak not only on the amendment but to the bill 
itself.
  Mr. HERGER. Mr. Chairman, I think it is very appropriate that this 
bill just moments before it comes before a vote here on the House floor 
in the U.S. House of Representatives ends, or concludes the way that it 
started. The way that it started was some 4 years ago in a small 
community of a couple of hundred citizens in Quincy, CA, within the 
Plumas National Forest in the Sierra Nevada Mountains, a community 
which for 15 years had been racked with wars of the environmental 
community, warring with those that were trying to support the wood 
products industry. The fact that their economy had come to a 
standstill, the environmental health of the community and of these 
forests had come not just to a standstill but was actually to a state 
that we were seeing these forests burning up through fires. Just last 
year alone some 870,000 acres of forest burned in the State of 
California alone. Other environmental issues were not being addressed. 
And so at that time we saw the environmental community, the wood 
products community, the schools, the locally elected officials come 
together at a place that they felt they would not yell at each other, 
and that was the library. They started a long process of meeting 
together night after night, more than some 46 representatives, leaders 
in all the different areas of the community, working together to 
finally come up with a plan that was using the most recent 
environmental science, science that had been developed in this very 
area itself of the Sierra Nevada Mountains, to come up with a plan 
which was a win-win for everyone: A win for the environment, a win for 
the California spotted owl, a win for riparian problems that we have 
there, a win also for the economy of this community as well, a 
community which throughout that area some 32 mills had closed in just 
the last couple of years.
  And to see at this time all the working together there, working with 
the administration, working with our two U.S. Senators, literally 
thousands of meetings, and then to see it culminate here before our 
very eyes in which we see very much the same type of scenario taking 
place, I really did not think, I have been here six terms, I was not 
sure if I would see the time when my very good friend and distinguished 
leader, the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller] and myself and the 
gentleman from Alaska [Mr. Young] and others, the gentleman from Oregon 
[Mr. DeFazio], the gentleman from California [Mr. Farr] and the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio] and others could come together in 
agreement. I think it is certainly, I feel is either the highlight, or 
certainly one of the highlights of my political career.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HERGER. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, yesterday was luncheon, today 
it is legislation, tomorrow it is frightening to think of what it could 
mean. I appreciate the gentleman's cooperation, and I want to thank him 
for how hard he has worked on this legislation. As he has pointed out, 
more times than I care to count, this is not a new idea with respect to 
Quincy Library. These people have worked very, very hard on this, and 
this is not an idea that somehow does not have a lot of support. It has 
a lot of support, and I think with changes of the gentleman from Alaska 
[Mr. Young], we now have what I would assume is almost going to be 
unanimous support in the House. I thank the gentleman for all of his 
perseverance and his hard work on this.
  Mr. HERGER. I thank the gentleman.
  Then just to conclude, to see it come together is encouraging, is 
something that I feel can be a beginning, hopefully, of a number of 
other very controversial issues that we have, that we have shown, are 
showing, are in the process of showing here this afternoon that both 
sides can come together, Conservatives, Liberals, Democrats, 
Republicans, and make the system work.
  Again, I want to thank everyone involved. I certainly want to thank 
all those from our communities in northern California who never gave 
up, who hung in there. I want to again say that I am very supportive of 
this amendment, our legislation, and I want to emphasize this for those 
people who are watching, that this legislation remains basically, the 
intent is basically exactly the same as it was before. We think that 
this helps improve the bill and it helps for, I believe, the support we 
are going to need in the Senate and I believe the support that we will 
have from the President.
  Again I want to thank everyone. I support this, I urge Members' 
support

[[Page H4944]]

on this amendment, and I urge their overwhelming support on the bill 
itself.


Modification to Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute Offered by Mr. 
                            Young of Alaska

  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the 
pending amendment be modified by the form I have at the desk.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will report the modification.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Modification to amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     offered by Mr. Young of Alaska:
       On page 6, line 11, after ``use'', insert ``, subject to 
     the relevant reprogramming guidelines of the House and Senate 
     Committees on Appropriations''.
       On page 11, line 15, insert before ``excess'', the 
     following: ``subject to the advance approval of the House and 
     Senate Committees on Appropriations reprogramming process,''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute is modified.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I can only urge a ``yes'' on my 
amendment and a ``yes'' on final passage of the legislation.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute offered by the gentleman from Alaska [Mr. Young], as 
modified.
  The amendment in the nature of a substitute, as modified, was agreed 
to.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute, as amended.
  The amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended, was agreed 
to.
  The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Rogan) having assumed the chair, Mr. Pease, Chairman of the Committee 
of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that that 
Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 858) to direct 
the Secretary of Agriculture to conduct a pilot project on designated 
lands within Plumas, Lassen, and Tahoe National Forests in the State of 
California to demonstrate the effectiveness of the resource management 
activities proposed by the Quincy Library Group and to amend current 
land and resource management plans for these national forests to 
consider the incorporation of these resource management activities, 
pursuant to House Resolution 180, he reported the bill back to the 
House with an amendment adopted by the Committee of the Whole.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  Is a separate vote demanded on the amendment to the amendment in the 
nature of a substitute adopted by the Committee of the Whole? If not, 
the question is on the amendment in the nature of a substitute, as 
amended.
  The amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended, was agreed 
to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 429, 
nays 1, not voting 4, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 251]

                               YEAS--429

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Berry
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Bliley
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boyd
     Brady
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Capps
     Cardin
     Carson
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cubin
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fowler
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kim
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pappas
     Parker
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paxon
     Payne
     Pease
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Redmond
     Regula
     Reyes
     Riggs
     Riley
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Ryun
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schaffer, Bob
     Schumer
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Adam
     Smith, Linda
     Snowbarger
     Snyder
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Tierney
     Torres
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watkins
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Weygand
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                                 NAY--1

       
     Paul
       

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Boucher
     Cox
     Edwards
     Schiff

                              {time}  1334

  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

[[Page H4945]]



                          ____________________