[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 144 (Thursday, October 21, 1999)]
[House]
[Pages H10672-H10685]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 2466, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND RELATED 
                   AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2000

  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 337, I call up 
the conference report on the bill (H.R. 2466) making appropriations for 
the Department of the Interior and related agencies for the fiscal year 
ending September 30, 2000, and for other purposes.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus). Pursuant to the rule, the 
conference report is considered as having been read.
  (For conference report and statement, see proceedings of the House of 
October 20, 1999, at page H10517.)
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) and the 
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) each will control 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 on 
the conference report to accompany H.R. 2466, and that I may include 
tabular and extraneous material.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Ohio?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. REGULA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, for the next several minutes, I wish all the 
Members would forget about partisan politics, forget about some of the 
personal things that they might not totally agree with and think what 
is good for the people of the United States of America. Two hundred 
seventy million people are depending on us to ensure that they have a 
park to visit, to ensure that when they go to a national forest they 
will be safe, that the facilities will be good, to ensure when a group 
of children go out in a bus to a fish and wildlife refuge to learn 
about the ecology of this Nation that there will be somebody there to 
tell about it, to ensure when they visit the Smithsonian, it will be 
open, that it will be well cared for, that the people will be there to 
serve them.
  I could go through a whole list of things. Millions of Americans will 
go to our facilities over the next 12 months, and the quality of their 
experience is being decided here. Likewise, think about the generations 
that are here and yet to come, because the legacy we leave them in 
terms of our national lands is being decided not by

[[Page H10673]]

them but by us. Let us forget partisanship for a minute and let us say, 
what kind of a legacy do we want to leave for future generations as 
well as for those of today's world. What kind of opportunities do we 
want them to have.
  For example, in this bill will be funds to do long distance learning 
through the Smithsonian, the National Gallery of Art, the Kennedy 
Center, an opportunity to tell the story of these marvelous 
institutions to all the young people of America, many of whom cannot 
travel to Washington. We have a responsibility to them that should 
transcend our own personal prejudices on this day. We did that on this 
bill earlier this year, by overwhelming majorities on both sides. We 
supported this bill. Sure there have been a few changes, some probably 
better, a little more money being spent, but the basic bill is the 
same. The basic bill provides the kind of services that the American 
people expect us to deliver. That is why we are sent here. And we have 
an opportunity today to reaffirm that judgment that we made several 
months ago.
  To vote yes, we are voting for a lot of positive environmental 
things. We are voting to clean up the streams of America through the 
abandoned mine law. We have increased it. We are voting to spend $77 
million more dollars on the parks as well as allow them to keep the 
$100 plus million that they earn with the fee program. We are voting to 
diminish vandalism because through the fee program we have discovered 
that vandalism in the public facilities, the public lands, is reduced. 
We have in our hands today 30 percent of the land in this Nation, and 
we are responsible, each of us are responsible with our vote as to how 
we treat this wonderful, wonderful asset. It is a legacy that has been 
provided for us.
  Just think about New York City. If Frederick Olmstead had not had the 
vision to save 800 acres called Central Park, there would not be this 
oasis of beauty in that city. Think what that means to the 10 or 11 
million people. Each of us today are going to vote, have an opportunity 
to do the same, to preserve these facilities. As we become more 
urbanized, as our cities become more heavily populated, it becomes even 
more important that we preserve these open spaces.
  This bill provides funds to purchase 95,000 acres called the Baca 
Ranch. I have been there. You walk out in the meadows and there are 
6,000 elk grazing. They are not there with a halter around them tied to 
the ground. They are there as free spirits, free standing, because that 
is the great natural legacy of their existence. We have a chance to 
preserve that opportunity.
  We have an opportunity here to make good on a promise this body made 
several years ago. We said to coal miners who suffered with black lung, 
who suffered with all kinds of physical problems, we are going to help 
you, because this is a compassionate Nation, we care about people. So 
we passed a law to give these people some help. Today, we are providing 
some additional funds. The fund is depleted. Are we going to say to 
these people, ``Sorry, we made a promise but we're not going to keep 
it''?
  Those are just a few items that are embodied in this bill. Sure, I 
know we can talk about the riders. But these are important. It is 
important to the people that live along the shorelines of this Nation, 
be it California or Florida or North Carolina, that their offshore be 
preserved. That is a rider. It says there shall be no drilling 
offshore. It is important that there not be more patents issued to give 
away our public lands. That is in this bill. It is called a rider.
  We have a couple of others in here. They are much less severe than 
was the case in the language that was in the Senate, but in the process 
of a compromise that represents this report today, the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Dicks) and myself, members from both sides of the 
aisle, fought to mitigate those riders, to soften them but be fair to 
the people. We cannot say to a rancher that for 50 years he and his 
family have been running cattle that just suddenly we are going to cut 
you off tomorrow. That is not fair. But we do say, once we have done an 
EIS, if you do not meet the standards, you are going to lose your 
permit. And we give the Secretary of Interior the right to make that 
decision.
  We do not have a lot of time. I am going to stop here. We have others 
that want to speak. Just examine your conscience and say, What do I 
want my legacy to be? What do I want my vote to represent? Do I want it 
to represent enhancing, preserving, taking care of these great assets 
that are our legacies from other generations that served in this body. 
These 378 national parks just did not happen. They happened because 
people had vision, such as Teddy Roosevelt and many others.

                              {time}  1730

  Today, we are shaping the vision that others who serve here in years 
that follow us will say, gee, they really cared about the people of 
this Nation, they cared about preserving their crown jewels, the parks, 
they cared about preserving their forests for recreation. That is the 
challenge that we have to meet when we put the card in the slot this 
afternoon.
  Today, as we take up the conference report making appropriations for 
Interior and Related Agencies for fiscal year 2000, you have the 
opportunity to voice your commitment to America's priceless natural and 
cultural resources. We can leave our children and future generations no 
more valuable legacy than our national parks, wildlife refuges, forests 
and wilderness areas, and our rich cultural heritage which defines who 
we are as a people and nation.
  I urge you to vote in favor of this conference report. Don't let 
politics or a dedication to fiscal austerity cause you to overlook all 
the many very positive things that can be achieved through this bill. 
The American people expect you to be the guardians of their most highly 
prized natural and cultural resources. Don't let them down.
  Getting to this point has been challenging, with many hurdles to 
overcome. The President sent the Congress a budget request for fiscal 
year 2000 that was balanced, only because it relied on budget gimmicks, 
increased taxes and new user fees. In contrast, this conference 
agreement sought to deal with real needs and important issues directly, 
fairly and in a way that best serves the public. This year's 
appropriation amount is $14.5 billion, a very modest increase of 1\1/2\ 
percent over last year's $14.3 billion. This is a very small price to 
pay to protect and preserve the nation's natural and cultural 
resources.
  The House and Senate bills contained numerous differences, large and 
small, reflecting the concerns and priorities of the members of the two 
chambers. Reconciling these differences provoked spirited debate on all 
sides of the issues. Conferees argued their positions with reason and 
passion. But in the end, everyone's willingness to listen and seek 
common ground prevailed over our differences.
  As a result, I am pleased to report that the conference report you 
have before you effectively addresses the priorities Americans care 
most about. These include $1.4 billion for National Park Service 
operations to enhance visitors' safety and their enjoyment of America's 
great natural wonders; $40 million to purchase the Baca Ranch in New 
Mexico, preserving a unique expanse of the Old West; over $500 million 
for the Smithsonian Institution and the National Gallery of Art so that 
visitors from across America and the world can enjoy the thousands of 
marvels of science, history, technology and the animal kingdom and the 
glorious works of art on display here; $68 million for the United Mine 
Workers of America Combined Benefit Fund, which is nearly depleted 
because of several recent court decisions, to ensure that elderly mine 
workers and their dependents continue to receive health care. I urge 
the authorizing committees to take up this issue and develop a long-
term solution to this problem.
  We have continued an important commitment I have made to improve 
management of the agencies funded by this bill. This year we have 
worked with the National Academy of Public Administration (NAPA) in 
examining the management of both the Forest Service and the Bureau of 
Indian Affairs. We are instructing these agencies to take steps to 
implement NAPA's recommendations for more effective and efficient 
management.

  I wish to express my appreciation to Senator Gorton and his 
subcommittee members for their willingness to seek common ground to 
allow us to bridge significant differences in our respective bills. 
They worked diligently with us to achieve compromises on three key 
legislative provisions.
  First, regarding mill sites, the conference report does not prohibit 
the Department of the Interior from enforcing the Solicitor's decision 
that establishes a limit of one mill site per mining claim, as the 
Senate had proposed. Interior may enforce the limitation on new claims, 
but exceptions are made for existing mining plans of operation (already 
agreed to by Secretary Babbitt), plans of operation submitted prior to 
May 21, 1999, and patent applications

[[Page H10674]]

grandfathered pursuant to the current patent application moratorium in 
place since fiscal year 1995.
  Second, the Senate included a provision which would have extended all 
expiring Bureau of Land Management grazing permits based on existing 
terms and conditions. The conference agreement clearly states that the 
authority of the Secretary of the Interior to alter, modify or reject 
permit renewals following completion of all required environmental 
analyses is not altered. The agreement also includes additional funding 
to accelerate the processing of these permits.
  Third, the Senate had included a provision prohibiting the Minerals 
Management Service from implementing a new rule on oil valuation 
through fiscal year 2000. The conference agreement prohibit the rule 
from being implemented for a period not to exceed 6 months, or until 
the Comptroller General reviews the proposed regulation and issues a 
report. There is no prohibition on implementation following the release 
of the report.
  In summary, this conference report is not about politics and 
partisanship. This report reflects our commitments to protecting 
America's most valuable natural resources for future generations and 
promoting culture, science and history for the benefit of communities, 
large and small, throughout this country. Passage of this report means 
meeting our responsibilities to American Indians and Alaska Natives and 
continuing essential research to increase energy efficiency and 
maintain a clean, healthy environment. Again, as strongly as I possibly 
can, I urge you to vote for its passage.
  There are three corrections that need to be made to the conference 
report. The number for the Historic Preservation Fund in the National 
Park Service should be $75,212,000, the number of Forest Service land 
acquisition should be $79,575,000 and in section 310, ``1999'' should 
read ``2000.''
  We will take the necessary steps to ensure these corrections are 
made.
  Also, in the statement of the managers, the first sentence under the 
Historic Preservation Fund in the National Park Service should read, 
``The conference agreement provides $75,212,000 for the Historic 
preservation fund instead of $46,712,000 as proposed by the House and 
$42,412,000 as proposed by the Senate.''
  At this point Mr. Speaker, I insert into the Record a table detailing 
the various accounts in the bill.

[[Page H10675]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH21OC99.001



[[Page H10676]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH21OC99.002



[[Page H10677]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH21OC99.003



[[Page H10678]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH21OC99.004



[[Page H10679]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH21OC99.005



[[Page H10680]]

  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. DICKS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in reluctant opposition to the 
conference report on the Fiscal Year 2000 Interior and related agencies 
appropriations bill. I will explain my reasons for this position in a 
moment, but first I want to state categorically that my opposition to 
this measure does not in any way impugn the job done by the chairman of 
the subcommittee, my good friend the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula). 
As chairman of the conference, he had the virtually impossible task of 
trying to bridge insurmountable differences of opinion between the 
Houses, the parties and the branches of Government, and I also want to 
at this time commend the staff of the subcommittee, Debbie Weatherly 
and the members of the majority staff, Del Davis, and the minority 
staff. These people have worked very hard under very difficult 
circumstances to bring this conference report, and they are highly 
professional people who work for the best interests of the House of 
Representatives.
  In many ways the recommendations of the conferees on this measure 
represent improvements compared to the bill that passed the House in 
July. However, in other important ways, specifically the addition of 
three environmentally damaging legislative riders, this agreement is 
much worse than the House bill and will almost certainly be vetoed by 
the President. The inclusion of the riders is especially troublesome 
given the vote of the full House on the motion to instruct conferees.
  Two hundred eighteen members of this House, a majority, voted to 
instruct conferees to support the Rahall amendment limiting the number 
and size of mill sites on public lands to support the Senate, the other 
body's position increasing funding for the National Endowment for the 
Arts and the Humanities by $5 million each and to reject the Senate's 
anti-environmental riders. Unfortunately the only part of the 
instruction that was followed was to agree with the Senate's funding 
increase for the National Endowment for the Humanities.
  Environmentalists and the administration have roundly criticized the 
Senate bill. While it may be true that the conference agreement has 
marginally improved some of the riders, the resulting provisions are 
still opposed by the administration and have no place in this 
appropriations bill. The provisions relating to mining mill sites, 
delaying hard rock mining regulation, delaying oil royalty evaluation 
regulations, and grazing should not have been accepted by the 
conference.
  The conferees' decisions on funding for the National Endowment for 
the Arts is a major disappointment. Despite the fact that the 
conference agreement provides a total of 600 million more for agencies 
and programs funded in the bill than the amount in the House-passed 
bill and despite the fact that the House had instructed its conferees 
to agree with the slightly higher funding levels for the NEH, the 
conference ended with no increase for the arts. Once again opponents of 
the NEA dredged up outdated information and outright misinformation. 
Once again the views of the ultra-conservative caucus representing a 
minority of one body have been allowed to override the wishes of a 
majority in both Houses.
  Another feature of the bill that causes great concern is the 
inadequate funding provided for the administration's new Land Legacy 
program, one of the major initiatives of the 2000 budget. The 
administration proposal was to fund the Land and Water Conservation 
Fund at the fully authorized level of 900 million, including roughly 
800 million in the Interior appropriations bill.
  The conference agreement, while improving on the 190 million included 
in the House bill, provides only about one-third, or 266 million, of 
the amounts requested. While the conference agreement is 600 million 
higher than the House bill, funding for the administration's top 
priority was only increased by 75 million. The recommendation of the 
conferees does not even match last year's level. It is 62 million less. 
And last year's bill was 500 million less in total than this year.
  Two major parts of the President's Land Legacy initiative, the 200 
million requested for conservation grants and planning assistance and 
the 66 million increase requested for the Cooperative Endangered 
Species Conservation Fund, did not receive any funding. Given the 
threat of development in and around so many of our parks, forests, 
refuges, and other public lands and given the strong support of 
acquiring and conserving these sensitive lands by a substantial 
majority of the American people, the failure of this bill to address 
these needs adequately is a serious flaw.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote no on this conference 
report and avoid the imminent veto by the administration. Passing the 
conference report right now is futile if changes are not made.
  Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman from Ohio that I agree with 
him on the Park Service and on several other areas of this bill. We 
have made some significant progress, and no one doubts the chairman's 
commitment to improving our national parks, and I have appreciated the 
fact that he goes out and he looks at the parks. I think the fact that 
we are keeping these fees to improve the parks is one of the most 
positive things that we have done with the authorizing committee, and 
there are a lot of things that are positive.
  I do not want to paint an entirely negative picture, but 
unfortunately the other body keeps insisting on these riders; and some 
of these riders are things that I understand, being from the West. But 
unfortunately, they get our bill in trouble; and I wish we could 
convince, and I want to commend the gentleman on this, that the bill 
when it left the House did not have these riders. They almost, every 
single one of these riders was added in the other body, and so somehow 
I hope that we can do better in the next go round because there will be 
a next go round in my judgment, and we can come up with a bill that can 
be signed into law.
  I went back and looked at my own record. I have been on this 
committee, this is my 23rd year on the Subcommittee on the Interior. I 
have seldom voted against a bill, I have seldom voted against a 
conference report, and I regret that I have to do it today. But I am 
convinced that we can do better, that we can make this bill stronger, 
and I look forward to working with the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) 
to accomplish this task at a later date.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Tennessee (Mr. Wamp), a very valuable member of our subcommittee.
  (Mr. WAMP asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. WAMP. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for an outstanding job, 
not just this year, but in previous years, outstanding staff on both 
sides of the aisle; and I say to my friend, the ranking member who is 
also an outstanding gentleman, I am reminded today of what Ronald 
Reagan once said, something like this, I am paraphrasing, that somebody 
who votes with me 80 percent of the time is not 80 percent my enemy, he 
is 80 percent my friend, or he is not 20 percent my enemy, he is 80 
percent my friend; and I really think that the opposition to this bill 
is focusing on a few narrow problems that on October 21 we need to get 
beyond.
  It is time to get beyond this October the 21, in this year pass this 
bill, move it out of here; and I hate to see the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Dicks) break his perfect record on supporting this 
because I think it runs counter to the philosophy of the Committee on 
Appropriations where we do work in a bipartisan way, we do build 
consensus, we do work through these conference committees, and my 
colleagues know the old saying that we say in the House from time to 
time, that maybe the Democrats are our opponents, but the Senate is the 
real enemy. That seemed to not have changed regardless of who is in the 
majority. But that is just reality. At the end of the day the Senate 
does not do what we want them to do, but we have got to move the 
process forward. So, please do not hold this bill up.
  I want to focus on a couple of things that have not been talked about 
yet, and that is the energy piece of this bill, a little over a billion 
dollars out of $14

[[Page H10681]]

billion in energy research, fossil energy and energy conservation.
  Let me just say some people may ask why do we fund these programs. 
Energy research really was brought about by the oil problems of the 
1970s and the need for our country at the national level, the Federal 
level, to rely on research, basic research from the Federal Government, 
to pursue alternative energy sources so we are not so dad-blasted 
dependent on Middle Eastern oil. We have got to fund those programs. We 
are increasing the funding on those programs.
  That is at the heart of this bill. We fund the good guys. We fund the 
Park Service, the Forest Service, the Bureau of Land Management, U.S. 
Fish and Wildlife, U.S. Geological Survey; these are the good guys. We 
are trying to fund these good guys; help us fund these good guys. But 
we also have to reduce our reliance on Middle Eastern oil for the peace 
and well-being of our country at large.
  We hear a lot about climate change, does it lead to global warming? I 
do not know what the actual science is. I have great questions about 
it, but I know this. If we can develop better policies through fossil 
energy research to reduce CO2 emissions, it cannot do any 
harm; it can only do good. Why not do it? That is in this bill, strong 
effort, thought through, good science. We studied it; we developed 
these priorities. It is in the bill. Do not hold that up. Move fossil 
energy research forward; we will have cleaner air guaranteed if we fund 
these programs.
  Energy conservation, things like weatherization. We do not want cool 
air to just leak out of our public housing in this country or warm air 
just to leak out. We want to come up with smarter ways to build public 
housing in this country to make sure we reduce the cost for our 
residents and for our Government to take care of the indigent in our 
country through weatherization programs.
  This research is working. It is basic research fully funded in this 
bill, the kind of things that we need.
  This is a good bill. It went through the process, we had the 
hearings, we do travel, we hear from everyone, we vent, we work through 
it. Dad-gummit, it is October 21. Let us pass this bill with bipartisan 
support like we always have before and move this process forward. It is 
not time to obstruct or delay unless my colleagues are being 
excessively partisan, and I am not one that is excessively partisan. I 
jump back and forth depending on what my guts tell me to do, and it is 
time for my colleagues who want to play partisan games at the end of 
the year to do the right thing, move this bill forward, pass the bill.
  Congratulations.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), one of my distinguished classmates who is 
working on umpire reform at this very moment.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, as my colleagues know, the problem with 
being a Red Sox fan is not unlike being in the minority with this 
particular Republican in the majority. We just do not have any chance 
to win. We can, like, script it, as my colleagues know, differently 
each time to make it interesting; but the outcome is always 
predetermined, and we lose. So I am quite used to this, given the way 
in which the umpires stole the American League championship from the 
Red Sox.
  Today, I rise to denounce the assault on America's environmental 
tradition in this Interior appropriations conference report. I am 
honored to have helped shape the tradition in a small way by ensuring 
fair royalties for our oil and gas reserves in a law which I authored 
in 1981 when I was the chairman of the Committee on Oversight and 
Investigations overseeing the Department of Interior by preventing 
corporations from robbing the American people of their natural 
resources.
  How then can I accept this bill in which the Republican leadership 
plays with the Minerals Management Service like a yo-yo? The Minerals 
Management Service proposes rules valuing our oil and gas reserves. The 
Republicans respond with riders, restricting the rule. For 4 years this 
yo-yo has rolled back and forth without resources trapped on the 
string; and, true to form, an additional 6-month delay has been 
attached to this conference report.

                              {time}  1745

  It is time to end this destructive game. Cut the string and give the 
American people reasonable compensation for oil and gas from Federal 
lands.
  Mr. Speaker, I wish that I could say that this was the only threat in 
the Interior Appropriations conference report, but I cannot even say it 
is the worst. Extension of grazing permits and an allowance for 
increased mining waste on Federal lands are just a few of the 
destructive provisions that remain. They buzz around this bill like 
gulls in a trash dump. We cannot accept a conference report with any of 
these provisions. We have a responsibility to our natural resources, to 
our tradition of environmental stewardship.
  As we enter the 21st century, we must not relinquish this 
responsibility. We must protect our resources and we must start by 
defeating this Interior conference report on the floor this evening.
  I thank the gentleman from Washington State for his national 
leadership and for his civility and compassion for Red Sox fans.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Nevada (Mr. Gibbons).
  (Mr. GIBBONS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to extend my great 
congratulations and thanks to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula), the 
chairman of the subcommittee, for the bill that we are about to have. I 
know it is the best we could do with the Senate that we are dealing 
with on the other side, and certainly, it is not a perfect bill, of 
course not. But there have been a great number of mistruths presented 
in this bill that I would like to straighten out in this few minutes 
that I have.
  Over the debate of the last few weeks we have had the so-called 
Rahall mill site rider included. Did I support it? No. Let me tell my 
colleagues why. Because the mistruths that were there need to be 
corrected.
  Current law mandates that mill sites can only be five acres in size, 
but additional mill sites may be used in order to support an economic 
ore body. That is current law. The reason being, this limitation forces 
the mining company to use only the minimal amount of public land 
needed. However, when an additional 5-acre mill site is required, 
mining companies must comply with all State and Federal environmental 
laws.
  It is important to note that what many would characterize as ``mine 
waste'' is nothing more than dirt and rocks covering the ground that is 
similar to any jogging path or driveway that we have in America today.
  Allow me to share with my colleagues on the left who oppose this bill 
the current environmental laws that mining companies must comply with 
every time they seek an additional five-acre mill site.
  They must fully comply with the National Environmental Policy Act. 
This means that all activities on mill sites located on public land 
must be evaluated in an environmental impact statement before they are 
allowed by the BLM or the Forest Service to have additional acreage. 
They must comply with the Federal Surface Management Rules which apply 
to Federal lands and State mining and reclamation programs, which apply 
to Federal, State and private lands. These programs typically require a 
detailed characterization of the dirt and rocks which is called 
overburden; operating controls to prevent or control generation of any 
excess waste or overburden; continuous monitoring of overburden placed 
on sites; containment of any wastes; precautions to maintain stability 
of waste management structures; containment of any chemicals to prevent 
releases to the environment; reclamation of mill sites to return land 
to post-mining productive use.
  They must comply with Air Quality standards on Federal, State and 
private lands. All activities on mill sites are subject to the Federal 
Clean Air Act; State implementation plans and State air quality laws, 
including the National Ambient Air Quality Standards, major source 
permitting, and new source review; Title V operating permits and 
regulation of hazardous air pollutants and control of fugitive dust.

[[Page H10682]]

  Mines must also comply with the Surface Water Quality on Federal, 
State and private lands. All activities on mill sites are subject to 
the Federal Clean Water Act. All discharges of pollutants are subject 
to Federal discharge permits and effluent standards, as well as State 
water quality controls and numeric stream standards. Most mine 
standards are subject to a Federal zero discharge standard.
  Mines must comply with the Ground Water Quality on Federal, State and 
private lands. All activities on mill sites must meet stringent ground 
water protection requirements and standards promulgated by States. Most 
States impose a no-discharge standard on mill site activities. The 
absolute minimum level of protection mandated by any State is the 
drinking water standards from the Federal Safe Drinking Water Act.
  All activities on mill sites must obtain a Federal wetlands 
protection permit before placing fill or waste on a mill site.
  At the end of the mine life, all activities on mill site must be 
closed under State laws to be stable, safe, and to remove the potential 
to degrade the environment.
  Lastly, numerous Federal and State laws require operations on mill 
sites to report spills or environmental incidents and to remediate 
immediately. Again, reclamation of mill sites must be done to return 
the land to post-mining productive land use.
  This measure contains the mill site provision, but it was unnecessary 
because all mines today have to go through a very stringent evaluation 
and environmental protection for mill sites. It was unnecessary to have 
this rider in it and certainly, I could not support that mill site, but 
I think this is the best bill we could get, and I want to thank the 
chairman for his success in getting it to the floor.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee), who has been very concerned 
about environmental issues and one of our outstanding new Members.
  (Mr. INSLEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, I must speak against this bill, and that is 
with due respect to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) who I think 
has been very sincere in his efforts to improve this bill. But one of 
the things the gentleman said struck me in his comments. He mentioned 
Central Park, a beautiful place loved by maybe all Americans, at least 
New Yorkers.
  But the problem with this bill, if we give up, if we put up the white 
flag to the other chamber, it would allow somebody to go into Central 
Park if it was owned by the Federal Government and put in a strip mine, 
a gold mine and put as much as they want over 5, 10, 15 or 20 acres. We 
should not do that in Central Park and we should not do it in the 
forestlands of Washington where, in fact, that is going to go on if we 
accept that.
  The problem with this bill is simple. While America wants us to go 
forward on the environment, this takes step by step backwards. We 
should go forward on mining reform; we go backward. We should go 
forward on forest reform; we go backward. We should go forward on oil 
royalties; we go backward.
  My colleagues are right, we did send this bill over to the other 
chamber, but it came back infested with these antienvironment riders. 
When we sent it over to the other chamber, it was a puppy; and it came 
back full of fleas and now those little fleas have got to be removed 
from this bill.
  I want to tell my colleagues why I think Americans are going to be so 
angry, and I think angry is the right word for it, when they hear about 
this continued giveaway. It is because if you go on Main Street, 
nothing will outrage the American people more than the giveaways to 
special interests, the giveaways that this body has given time after 
time to special interest legislation and antienvironmental riders. That 
should stop.
  If we do not stand for the environment, we ought to stand for this 
House, for ourselves, for each other. When we voted 273 to say to the 
other chamber we will not let you shove this down our throats. We will 
not let you go backwards on mining reform. I do not want to encourage 
anyone to put up the white flag to the other chamber on this subject. 
We ought to stand firm.
  Let me just point out, when I say this is an abject retreat on mining 
reform, it is. I would encourage my colleagues to look at section 
337(b), which has some of the cleverest legal writing I have seen. It 
is a little trick in here that says basically that Congress agrees with 
the mining industry on their interpretation of existing law, existing 
law. There is a little time bomb in here that will entirely ruin our 
efforts.
  Now, there is talk about compromise, and I understand compromise in a 
legislative body. But frankly, compromise in this manner, giving in to 
these special interests is like the guy who steals $10 from your pocket 
and wants to compromise by giving you five back. That is the situation 
with mining reform.
  I am simply saying this: we are going to stand divided, 
unfortunately, on this. Some are going to stand for going forward on 
the environment and vote ``no;'' some are going to stand with going 
backward on the environment and vote ``yes.'' I am going to stand to go 
forward. It does not matter how many more stands as far as I am 
concerned, but the American people desire and are entitled to move 
forward when it comes to the environment.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson), a valued new member of our subcommittee.
  Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me this time.
  It is a pleasure to be a part of this committee. It has been my first 
year in the appropriations process, and I have found it most 
interesting. I found today most interesting. As I said earlier during 
the debate on the rule, this bill received overwhelming support from 
this body, and it should have. A lot of hard work went into it. I have 
listened here during the discussion when the minority Member spoke of 
the many improvements in the conference report. That was the term he 
used. He did not define them, but he listed many improvements. So some 
things are better. But it has been interesting to listen to the 
discussion, and I think the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Gibbons) 
explained the mining issue well.
  I have been dealing with bureaucracies for 25 years at State and now 
at the Federal Government level, and these are debates going on between 
bureaucracies and people they regulate. I have been involved forever in 
trying to bring fairness, because I find government lawyers are not 
always fair and government bureaucrats are not always fair and they 
should not be legislating, and they are legislating. What we are trying 
to do is work out to make sure the appropriate people study these 
issues and come up with the answers. So let us go through them.
  I think the gentleman from Nevada adequately explained the hard rock 
mining regulation. It provides a one-year moratorium. Now, I am not a 
mining expert, but I was told when we had the debate on the floor and 
told by many people who know a lot more about mining than I do that 
that provision would prevent many of our mines from operating that are 
good mines. They could not work on that limitation of land with their 
waste. Impossible regulation to live with. Well, we should deal with 
that. We should make sure that this lawyer is being fair with the 
mining industry. It is a vital part of our future.
  The oil valuation. There is nobody here who wants oil companies to 
get government oil cheaper than the market price. I do not know of 
anybody. I do not think there are members of the government who want to 
take oil out of the public land for less than the value. I do not. I do 
not know of other members that do.
  But if there is a disagreement in how to come to that price, I think 
we have a right to look at and have a GAO study done that will resolve 
that issue. Why should we not do that? We should be fair.
  The grazing issue. Another issue where people have been grazing on 
this land for years. The BLM is way behind in the backlog, not 
appropriately dealing with this issue. Are we going to punish those who 
graze? I do not think we should. We have given the BLM extra money, we 
have taken a 6 month

[[Page H10683]]

moratorium waiting, and then they can go ahead and if the people are 
not appropriately using the land, they can stop their permits. These 
are not environmental riders that are going to devastate the public 
land of America. That is just not a fair statement. These are 
disagreements that have been brought to the table and have been given a 
very limited time to resolve them. That is good government. And those 
who want to demagogue and punch oil companies and punch grazers and 
farmers and shut down mining, that is their tool.
  Mr. Speaker, I think we should be fair. We in Congress should set the 
rules on mining, not some lawyer in a department. And if we do not 
agree with the valuation of the price, then we should legislate what is 
how we sell oil. We should resolve those issues and not let bureaucrats 
arbitrarily do what they feel is appropriate when it is not.
  This is a good bill. It is thoughtful; it has been a well-worked out 
compromise; it is the best we are going to get; and I think we should 
support it and the President should sign it.

                              {time}  1800

  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking Democratic member of the Committee on 
Appropriations, who has worked very tirelessly on all of these bills.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, let me start by stipulating that the chairman 
of the subcommittee is one of the finest Members of this institution. I 
have had the privilege of serving with him for many years, and I think 
he has graced this body with dedicated service. I think he is 
thoughtful. I think he is fair-minded, and I think he is a fine 
chairman of this subcommittee.
  I wish that the bill that he brought to the floor was of the same 
quality as he is, because there would be no dispute if it were.
  Let me simply say that we have heard a number of speeches from our 
friends on the Republican side of the aisle in which they have feigned 
surprise at the fact that there is so much opposition to this bill, 
given the fact that there were so many votes for this bill when it 
originally passed. I think if we want to understand why that is so, all 
we have to do is take a look at the motion to instruct conferees which 
passed this body just a few weeks ago.
  This House, by a margin of over 20 votes, I believe, on a bipartisan 
basis, asked the conference committee to do a number of things. They 
asked us to go to the Senate level on funding for the arts. We did not 
do that in the conference committee. The conference committee made no 
compromise whatsoever with respect to the arts and brought the bill 
back still at the House level.
  The motion to instruct that was adopted by this House on a bipartisan 
basis also asked the conferees to strip out all of the anti-
environmental riders and, in fact, the conference committee did not. In 
fact, a number of these riders were not even in the House bill when the 
House bill passed originally. They were added in the other body.
  So, again, this conference report does not measure up to the 
standards that this House set for it in its motion to instruct 
conferees, and we set those standards on a bipartisan basis with many 
people on that side of the aisle voting with us, urging the stripping 
of those riders.
  That motion to instruct also asked them to drop the provision on 
mining so that mines cannot continue to go beyond the authority given 
to them under the 1872 law, in ruining the environment around them. 
Again, the conference did not drop that provision.
  So I think we should not be surprised that this House is now going to 
find many votes opposed to this bill.
  We are going to be voting against this bill essentially for three 
reasons. First of all, because the bill in many respects, with respect 
to the environmental riders is in worse shape than it was when it left 
the House originally.
  Secondly, it contains a number of the provisions on these riders 
which the House asked the conference to strip and which the conference 
committee did not, in fact, carry out.
  Thirdly, we feel that the conference report does not sufficiently 
take account of the opportunities available to us to save precious 
natural resources by meeting the President's request or something close 
to it for his Lands Legacy Program. That is all that is involved here. 
It should not be a surprise. From the beginning, from the get-go, we 
have known that this bill needed to be improved in order to achieve a 
large number of bipartisan votes, and under those circumstances, since 
the House leadership has chosen to bring that bill to us without the 
improvements that the House itself said it wanted when we first sent 
the conference committee to conference, we have no choice but to stick 
by our convictions and oppose the bill at this point.
  I hope that after it goes down to the White House and is vetoed, the 
conference committee will take seriously the instructions of the House 
and take seriously the requests of the President of the United States. 
And when they do, with the few reasonable compromises, we can have a 
bill which will indeed reflect the same kind of quality that the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) has reflected in all of his years 
service in this House.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I might consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) for his 
comments, and I would say that always in our dealings maybe we 
disagreed but he has been honorable about it, and I think that is a 
great quality in this institution.
  Let me just say to the Members that are here and that are out there 
in TV land that here is an opportunity to enhance the legacy that we 
leave, as legislators, an opportunity to ensure that our public lands 
will be better when we leave than they were when we came here; an 
opportunity to tell the people of America that we care about the 
experience they will have; that we want to ensure that they are well 
maintained and that we enhance them wherever possible and that they can 
enjoy in the future generations the same experience we have had with 
this legacy.
  I saw the smile of the gentleman from Massachusetts who brought up 
the metaphor of baseball. Being from the Cleveland area, I was not in a 
position to say a whole lot, but if I had been from New York it would 
have been a little easier.
  In any event, let me just close by saying to everyone, we have an 
opportunity today, by voting ``yes,'' to hit a home run for America.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to the 
Interior Appropriations Conference Report.
  There are plenty of reasons to vote against this bill, from its anti-
environmental riders to the dramatic cuts in the President's Land 
Legacy Initiative. But most distressing is that once again, in what has 
become an annual event, the Appropriations Committee has short-changed 
the National Endowment for the Arts of much-needed funding.
  The NEA suffered a 40% cut in funding in 1996 to $99.5 million and it 
has been cut even further to $98 million the last two years, the lowest 
appropriation to the NEA since 1977, over 20 years ago. The bill that 
passed the House in July maintained this level once more. As the nation 
is experiencing historic levels of prosperity, it is time to increase 
our commitment to the arts. And it seemed, just a few weeks ago, that 
we had taken a first step toward renewing this commitment. This House 
voted to instruct our conferees to accept the Senate's modest $5 
million increase to bring NEA funding to $103 million. But once again, 
we have fallen short of our promises. Indeed, our own conferees ignored 
the wishes of this House and insisted on level funding for the third 
consecutive year. This is a snub to our colleagues as well as to the 
arts community.
  It is a tiny amount of money that we are talking about. A fraction of 
one percent of our entire federal budget. But these dollars yield 
dividends that far outweigh the investment. Throughout its thirty-year 
history, the National Endowment for the Arts has contributed to the 
tremendous growth of professional orchestras, non-profit theaters, 
dance companies, and opera companies throughout the country. The NEA 
helps support the non-profit arts industry which generates more than 
$36 billion of business annually, 1.3 million full-time jobs, and 
returns $3.4 billion in federal taxes every year.
  The NEA also supports arts education, which is essential in 
developing critical thinking skills such as reading, math, and science. 
It builds important workplace skills such as creative problem solving, 
allocating resources, team building, and exercising individual 
responsibility. Arts education programs also help to discover and train 
the next generation of artists. These programs will all suffer as a 
result of our shortsightedness.
  Let's remember that the NEA has an important impact on the arts 
throughout the country. The NEA stimulates the growth of local arts

[[Page H10684]]

agencies and investment in the arts by state and local governments. 
Before the NEA, only five states had state-funded arts councils. Today, 
all 50 states do. Many of these local agencies have formed partnerships 
with local school districts, law enforcement, parks and recreation 
departments, chambers of commerce, libraries, and neighborhood 
organizations. Innumerable small towns and cities across America have 
benefited tremendously from federal investment in the arts.
  And the NEA has made special efforts to expand its reach into every 
community in this nation. The funding increase was to go to ensure that 
it had the resources to carry out this initiative. So, I hope that none 
of my colleagues will complain next year that their district received 
no grants from the NEA because it is their own fault that its reach 
will be stunted.
  Once more, the Republican leadership has worked to restrict the 
growth of the arts in America. And we cannot rely on private money to 
make up the shortfall when we withhold funding. In fact, since NEA 
funding is often matched by private organizations, when we withhold 
public dollars we stifle efforts to generate private donations.
  Mr. Speaker, the NEA is a crucial tool in building a vibrant arts 
community across the nation. We must do more for our artists and 
cultural institutions. I urge my colleagues to vote against this bill.
  Mr. MALONEY of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I strongly oppose passage of 
H.R. 2466, the Fiscal Year 2000 Interior Appropriations Conference 
Report. Passage of this conference report is not only fiscally 
irresponsible, but it is also environmentally destructive. I urge 
everyone to oppose this bill.
  Again and again, we have seen the majority bring conference reports 
to the floor that we simply cannot afford to pass if we intend to live 
within the budget caps. Anyone who is concerned about saving Social 
Security should vote against this report.
  Just as bad, this bill contains virtually all of the anti-
environmental riders from both the House and Senate versions of this 
legislation plus three new and equally harmful riders. For that reason 
as well I strongly oppose this conference report and will continue to 
oppose any legislation that weakens environmental laws, and infringes 
on public health, public lands, and the public treasury. I urge all of 
my colleagues to exercise fiscal and environmental responsibility, and 
vote `no' on this conference report.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I supported the Department of Interior 
appropriations conference report, and commend Chairman Ralph Regula 
who, despite strict budget restraints and difficult negotiations with 
the Senate, crafted a good bill. However, I do wish to express my 
opposition to the many policy initiatives, or so-called riders, that 
were added by the Senate and included in the report. The legislation 
overwhelmingly passed by the House on July 15 was far superior to the 
product returned by us by the Senate.
  I am concerned that these riders included in the conference report 
will delay the implementation of necessary rules and regulations that 
help protect the environment. Furthermore, I am very concerned that the 
riders single out certain industries and organizations for special 
protection which gives them an unfair advantage over others.
  My biggest concern, however, is that these initiatives will be paid 
for by every hardworking taxpayer. We should not ask the American 
people to pay for the kind of inappropriate, costly measures that have 
not been properly considered or authorized. Major policy decisions, 
such as these, should be considered by the appropriate authorizing 
committee after hearings and debate.
  Mr. Speaker, overall, I believe the conference product is a good one. 
In the future, however, we should resist the temptation to attach 
inapproirate policy intiatives appropriations bills.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member rises today to express his 
great appreciation to the distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Regula), Chairman of the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee, and the 
distinguished gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks), the Ranking Member 
on the Subcommittee, and to all members of the conference committee for 
the inclusion of a $10 million appropriation for the first phase of 
construction for a replacement Indian Health Service (IHS) hospital 
located in Winnebago, Nebraska, to serve the Winnebago and Omaha 
tribes. Of course, the conference committee is already well-aware of 
the ongoing situation with this hospital. Indeed, last year the 
Interior Appropriations Subcommittee kept the process going by 
including funds to complete the design phase of the project for which 
this member and Native Americans in the three state region are very 
grateful. Now, construction dollars are needed.
  Unfortunately, the Office of Management and Budget overruled Indian 
Health Service's FY2000 budget request for the first phase of 
construction, so there was no request by the Administration. Once the 
design is completed, it is important to begin funding for the first 
phase of construction without a delay. If there is a time lapse between 
completion of design and construction, it is very possible that costs 
will increase, making this project more expensive. That is why this 
appropriation action at this time is so critical.
  In closing Mr. Speaker, this Member wishes to acknowledge and express 
his most sincere appreciation for the extraordinary assistance that 
Chairman Regula, the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee, and the 
Subcommittee staff have provided thus far on this important project and 
urges his colleagues to support the bill.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to the 
Interior Appropriations Conference Report. Since the Republicans took 
over the House, they have had the dubious distinction of using this 
spending bill to make substantive, and often controversial, policy 
changes. Most often, these decisions were in direct contrast to public 
interest and sentiment. Thus, it comes as no surprise, that we are on 
the floor debating mischievous attempts by the Republican majority 
today to undermine and roll back sound environmental policy originally 
designed by Congress to protect the land that each and every American 
rightly owns.
  The most egregious example of this is the Majority's attempt to kill 
the oil valuation rule. Although it rolls back no environmental policy, 
it is a slap in the face to the American taxpayer and costs them 
millions of dollars every year. On October 1, 1998, the Department of 
the Interior attempted to correct the underpayment of $68 million a 
year in oil royalties not paid by cash laden oil producers to implement 
a new rule that would raise the royalty fees on oil and gas pumped from 
public lands. Specifically, the new sound royalty rate would tie the 
price of oil to the commodity market instead of murky negotiated deals 
between producers and buyers.
  The effect of this rule was to curtail the practice of using posted 
prices to determine oil royalties. For two, now three straight 
appropriations processes, Congress has barred Interior from finalizing 
this rule in hopes that a compromise could be reached. It seems that 
the only compromise that can be reached regarding this issue is nothing 
short of the status quo, or if the oil industry had its way, they could 
pay the government in crude.
  The oil industry has skillfully underpaid the government more than $3 
billion and now they are complaining that the government is cheating 
them and driving them out of business. These accusations should 
infuriate everyone in this chamber. In the name of profit, big oil has 
cheated the American public, Indian tribes and our school children by 
denying them revenue for programs that rightly should benefit them. 
Delaying implementation of this rule any longer continues to show how 
money talks and the publics' rights walk in halls of Congress.

  The Majority has also engaged in another attempt to weaken what 
little environmental protections that the 1872 Mining Law affords. The 
House's willing acceptance of the Senate's Millsite Rider astounds me. 
This rider, which amends the 1872 Mining Law, is contrary to the 
Administration's legal interpretation of the law and goes against two 
overwhelming House votes against this issue.
  The Administration's interpretation of the millsite provision was an 
important step in promoting environmentally sound mining practices that 
have already cost the taxpayer $32-$72 billion in clean up costs. 
Mining today has wreaked havoc on the environment since the 
introduction of chemical leach technology that made the mining of low 
grade ore economically viable. Although this technology turned once 
profitless mines into profitable ones, it requires significant tracts 
of land on which to dump toxic fluid mining waste. The House broadly 
supported the Administration's decision to reinforce the Millsite 
provision after years of ignoring, but under Senate pressure, the House 
caved to their demands and rolled back one of the last environmental 
protections afforded in the Mining Law.
  There are numerous other unpalatable riders tacked onto this 
legislation including denying millions in funds for the President's 
Lands Legacy Initiative to purchase privately held land located inside 
and adjacent to our national parks and forests, extending the 
moratorium on stronger hard rock mining regulations on mines that 
already exist on federal lands, the automatic renewal of grazing 
leases, waiving Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management 
requirements to conduct wildlife surveys before beginning timber sales 
on national forests and public lands, numerous directives that diminish 
Indian programs, prevent the Park Service from restoring natural quiet 
in the Grand Canyon National Park, the list goes on and on.
  In addition to the anti-environmental riders, the House refused to 
even agree to a modest funding increase for the National Endowment for 
the Arts. As a Member of the Resources

[[Page H10685]]

Committee, I know all too well that the beauty of our national parks 
and public lands are an important part of our national heritage. As 
Members of Congress, we fight for every dollar that we can get to 
preserve and protect those public lands in our districts. In the same 
respect, we cannot afford to not fund the arts. Our nation is just as 
defined by its lands as by its melting pot of different cultures and 
ideas put to canvas, carved from stone, or seen on film. Instead, 
Congress is trying to shift America's cultural foundation to popular 
political tastes. As representatives of the people, we should take no 
part in stifling and sterilizing the creative development of our 
nation. Congress should encourage it--Not thwart such expression.
  As we debate the multitude of riders tacked onto this conference 
report, we cannot forget the overall story this bill tells. This story 
is about the Republican Majority attempting to dictate important policy 
decisions through the appropriations process. The line that divides the 
authorizers from the appropriations is becoming transparent. The 
Committee process is becoming something of a joke. When a Member has a 
controversial issue to discuss, he or she does not bring it before the 
House. He or she sneaks it into a spending bill where it receives 
little or no Congressional scrutiny. Nothing is gained by this process. 
It allows the feelings of mistrust and abuse to fester, and forces 
Members to vote against important legislation. This is not the land of 
special interests and payoffs. It is the land of every American 
citizen. As such, I urge my colleagues to vote no on this legislation 
and work to report a new, clean bill to the President.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker,I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus). Without objection, the 
previous question is ordered on the conference report.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the conference report.
  Pursuant to clause 10 of rule XX, the yeas and nays are ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 225, 
nays 200, not voting 8, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 528]

                               YEAS--225

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boucher
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Canady
     Cannon
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth-Hage
     Coble
     Collins
     Combest
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Crane
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill (IN)
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson, Sam
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuykendall
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     Mascara
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Ose
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pease
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryun (KS)
     Salmon
     Sandlin
     Saxton
     Schaffer
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stump
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Traficant
     Turner
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Young (AK)

                               NAYS--200

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Berman
     Berry
     Bilbray
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Campbell
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Castle
     Chabot
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Forbes
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frost
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hastings (FL)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Hostettler
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Jackson (IL)
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kelly
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Larson
     Lazio
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Martinez
     Matsui
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Phelps
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Ryan (WI)
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shays
     Sherman
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stupak
     Tauscher
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Toomey
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Camp
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     Scarborough
     Vento
     Young (FL)

                              {time}  1831

  Mr. KILDEE and Mr. GREEN of Texas changed their vote from ``yea'' to 
``nay.''
  Messrs. NUSSLE, SESSIONS, SANDLIN, and LAMPSON changed their vote 
from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the conference report was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________