[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 105 (Wednesday, July 16, 2003)]
[House]
[Pages H6941-H6947]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
{time} 1545
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2691, DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR AND
RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2004
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the
Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 319 and ask for its
immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 319
Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this
resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule
XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of
the bill (H.R. 2691) making appropriations for the Department
of the Interior and related agencies for the fiscal year
ending September 30, 2004, and for other purposes. The first
reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of
order against consideration of the bill are waived. General
debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one
hour equally divided and controlled by the chairman and
ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations.
After general debate the bill shall be considered for
amendment under the five-minute rule. Points of order against
provisions in the bill for failure to comply with clause 2 of
rule XXI are waived except as follows: page 84, line 21,
through page 89; page 90, line 4 through line 9. During
consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chairman of the
Committee of the Whole may accord priority in recognition on
the basis of whether the Member offering an amendment has
caused it to be printed in the portion of the Congressional
Record designated for that purpose in clause 8 of rule XVIII.
Amendments so printed shall be considered as read. During
consideration of the bill, points of order against amendments
for failure to comply with clause 2(e) of rule XXI are
waived. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for
amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the
House with such amendments as may have been adopted. The
previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill
and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening
motion except one motion to recommit with or without
instructions.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gilchrest). The gentleman from
Washington (Mr. Hastings) is recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate
only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York
(Ms. Slaughter), pending which I yield myself such time as I may
consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is
for the purpose of debate only.
(Mr. HASTINGS of Washington asked and was given permission to revise
and extend his remarks.)
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 319 is an
open rule providing for the consideration of H.R. 2691, the Department
of Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2004. The rule
provides for 1 hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by
the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on
Appropriations. The rule waives all points of order against
consideration; and under the rules of House, the bill shall be read for
amendment by paragraph.
The rule waives points of order against provisions in the bill for
failure to comply with clause 2 of rule XXI, prohibiting unauthorized
appropriations or legislative provisions in an appropriations bill,
except as specified in the resolution.
The rule further waives points of order against amendments for
failure to comply with clause 2(e) of rule XXI, prohibiting designated
emergencies in reported appropriations bills.
Finally, the rule authorizes the Chair to accord priority in
recognition to Members who have preprinted their amendments in the
Congressional Record and provides one motion to recommit with or
without instructions.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2691 provides funding for the Department of
Interior as well as various agencies and programs and Departments of
Agriculture, Energy, Health and Human Services. H.R. 2691 appropriates
$19.6 billion in new budget authority, which is $186 million less than
last year's enacted level and $110 million more than the President's
request. Almost half of the bill's funding finances the Interior
Department's programs to manage and study the Nation's animal, plant
and mineral resources and support programs benefiting Native Americans.
Among the bill's many provisions are several of special interest to
residents of central Washington and my district, including $2.5 billion
for Wildland Fire Fighting and the National Fire Plan. This funding
will increase firefighting readiness, hazardous fuels reduction, and
forest health restoration activities.
As a Member whose district includes significant Federal land
holdings, I am particularly pleased that payment in lieu of taxes, or
PILT, is funded at $225 million, which is $5 million above the current
enacted level and $25 million above the administration's request.
In the area of fisheries management, the committee is to be commended
for providing $113 million for fisheries, an increase of nearly $10
million over the administration's request, which includes an increase
of $3 million for the Washington State Hatchery Improvement Project.
It should also be noted that the bill includes $4.6 million for the
Partners of Fish and Wildlife Program, of which $1.4 million goes to
the Washington Regional Fisheries Enhancement programs.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I commend the gentleman from North Carolina
(Mr. Taylor) for his efforts to focus attention to the critically
important task of maintaining our national parks.
The bill includes $682 million to attack the enormous backlog of
badly needed maintenance at our national park facilities.
Mr. Speaker, this bill is a bill which carefully balances a number of
important objectives, including natural resources protections and
providing access for the public to our Nation's many significant parks
and refuges. It makes real progress in management of forests,
fisheries. And rangeland; and it does so in a cost-effective way in
these challenging budgetary times.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the rule
and the underlying bill.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume, and I thank the gentleman from Washington for yielding me the
customary 30 minutes.
(Ms. SLAUGHTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend
her remarks.)
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, former President Theodore Roosevelt,
[[Page H6942]]
one of the fathers of American conservation, said, ``In utilizing and
conserving the national resources of the Nation, the one characteristic
more central than any other is foresight.''
Unfortunately, in many areas H.R. 2691 is a myopic bill, lacking this
essential foresight. H.R. 2691 does not protect our natural resources,
America's lands and its native animals. This appropriations bill breaks
promises of funds for conservation, and the bill abandons the
conservation trust agreement reached and enacted into law in response
to the 315 Members of the House who voted for the Conservation and
Reinvestment Act.
The agreement provided for adequate funding for conservation programs
that protect public lands and cultural artifacts and preserve
endangered and threatened species and that assist States in their own
conservation and recreation programs.
Unfortunately, this bill breaks that promise by underfunding the
conservation efforts by approximately $569 million less than funding
levels promised in the conservation trust agreement. Funding levels for
conservation are an even $208 million less than the appropriations for
fiscal year 2003. This seriously jeopardizes conservation programs like
the Federal Land Acquisition, which is funded at its lowest level in 20
years. City parks are the anchors of our neighborhoods. They provide a
variety of activities for youth, and the city of Rochester wrote to me
requesting that Congress fund the Urban Parks Program at $50 million.
The program provides supplemental funding needed by city parks and
recreation departments to strengthen the recreation opportunities. But,
unfortunately, the Urban Parks Program gets no funding, despite the
request by 104 Members that it be restored.
We have heard a lot about the terrible plight of our national parks.
This bill will do nothing to ease that. H.R. 2691 does not protect our
seniors and low-income families with children. The Department of
Energy's Weatherization Assistance Program reduces the energy costs for
low-income families, seniors, and people with disabilities. These
savings are gone and they are critical because low-income households
spend 14 percent of their total income on energy compared with 33.5
percent for other households.
Since the creation of the weatherization program, 395,000 homes in
the State of New York have been weatherized, but 1.5 million more are
eligible and waiting for assistance. I have spent more than a few
winters in New York, and I know the importance of weatherizing your
house against the icy gales of winter. With the weatherization program
funded at $63 million below the level requested by the President,
millions of Americans will literally be left in the cold.
H.R. 2691 does not protect our American culture and history. Back in
1992, funding for the National Endowment for the Humanities and for the
National Endowment for the Arts reached its funding zenith, $176
million for each agency.
Over the years the NEA and NEH budgets have been slashed again and
again, and for several years the body has voted to increase the funding
for the arts and humanities; but, unfortunately, the strong statement
of the will of the body has been ignored. Even the President requested
$152 million for the National Endowment for the Humanities, but the
allocation in this bill is $15 million dollars less than the
President's request.
The funding for NEA is only minimally increased and this
insubstantial sum will pay for administrative overhead costs; no new
grants will be created. The National Endowment for the Arts enriches
our Nation and establishes cultural heritage by supporting the works of
artistic excellence, advancing learning in the arts, and, importantly,
strengthening the arts in communities throughout the country. They
benefit our children and over and over the education given in art has
proven to increase academic performance, regardless of socio-economic
background.
The NEA provides grants for local arts activities in every State and
every congressional district. In Buffalo, New York, the NEA provided a
small $10,000 grant to a community arts group to support a program to
offer weekend classes in visual arts and jazz music for African
American children in Buffalo's low-income inner-city east side. Another
small community grant to a group in Buffalo provided weekly workshops
in media literacy and digital arts for girls ages 9 to 15.
In my colleague's home State of Washington, an 8-week summer
residency program that provided psychiatrically and emotionally
impaired children with instruction in creative writing, mask-making,
and theatrical improvisation received a community arts grant from the
NEA.
Investing in the arts is also smart business. The nonprofit arts
industry alone generates $134 billion annually in economic activity and
$24.4 billion in Federal, State, and local tax revenues. Every dollar
the NEA invests in local theater groups, orchestras, or exhibitions
generates $7 for the arts organization by attracting other grants,
private donations, and ticket sales which in turn help support
communities.
The National Endowment for the Humanities is at the forefront of
preserving the American culture and our history. This database of
knowledge is the lifeblood essential for a living, thriving democracy.
Bruce Cole, the chairman of the National Endowment for the
Humanities, warns us that ``we face a serious challenge to our country
that lies within our borders, and within our schools, and that is the
threat of American amnesia. We are in danger of having our view of the
future obscured by our ignorance of the past. We cannot see clearly
ahead if we are blind to history. And a Nation that does not know why
it exists or what it stands for cannot be expected to long endure.''
Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Obey).
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, in 1964 when this country decided to allow oil
drilling in the offshore oil lands, the decision was made to dedicate
about $900 million a year from those receipts to what was called the
Land and Water Conservation Fund. And the problem is that through the
years Congress then decided not to keep that commitment. And so by
about 3 years ago, we had had about a $13 billion surplus built up in
that fund. So about 3 years ago, 315 Members of this House, over my
objection, 315 Members of this House voted for what was known as CARA.
It was a proposal to take programs for Federal lands acquisition, for
State wildlife grants, forests legacy historic preservation, urban
parks, you name it, and turn those programs into entitlements which
means that regardless of the budget conditions, they would have been
funded at a specific level.
{time} 1600
I opposed that. I thought we ought to be able to make conservation
programs a priority without making them an entitlement. In the end, I
won the argument; and we had an agreement that was entered into by the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula), who then chaired the Subcommittee on
Interior and Related Agencies; by the gentleman from Washington (Mr.
Dicks), who is the ranking Democrat on the Subcommittee on Interior and
Related Agencies; myself and several others which said, okay, we are
not going to make it an entitlement, but over the next 6 years we are
going to first double the amount of money that we were providing for
these activities and then provide regularly scheduled increases until
that program could go up from $1.6 billion to $2.4 billion.
For the first 2 years Congress kept the agreement. In the omnibus
appropriation bill last year, however, the Committee on Appropriations
broke its word; and it walked away from that agreement; and this bill
is now $570 million below where it would be if the committee had kept
its word.
At the time that we established that agreement 3 years ago, I told
the House, I promised the House that if the day ever came that the
Committee on Appropriations welched on the deal that I would then, as a
point of honor, change my position and support making these programs
entitlements because the Committee on Appropriations would have
demonstrated that you could not trust it because they would not keep
their word; and I am sorry to say that that is where I am at today.
So what I am going to ask the House to do today is to turn down this
rule, to vote against the previous question
[[Page H6943]]
on the rule, so that I may be allowed to offer an amendment which will
see to it that Congress keeps its promise and would provide $570
million in additional funds into those programs.
We would pay for it by reducing the size of the tax cuts for people
who have incomes of over $1 million a year. We would reduce the size of
those tax cuts from the $88,000 those folks are supposed to get to
$85,000. So for a $3,000 reduction in the size of the tax cut that
people who are earning more than $1 million a year would get, we could
have Congress keep its promise on this critical national program.
This is more than just a theoretical debate about programs. This
deals with real problems. It deals with the fact, for instance, that
there are nine acres in Valley Forge that will be developed and lost
forever unless we do something to acquire that land this year; and it
means similar problems will be faced in Yellowstone, in Grand Teton,
and in a number of our other national parks. It also means that we will
not be keeping our word in terms of dealing with the maintenance
backlog of our national parks.
So I would ask the House very simply to follow the advice of then
candidate George W. Bush who said in the Presidential debate just a few
months ago, ``We ought to fully fund the Land and Water Conservation
Fund and provide half of that money to the States.'' The President of
the United States recognized the need to do this. The Congress itself
recognized the need to do it when it signed on to the compromise
agreement 3 years ago. We ought to keep our word. We especially ought
to keep our word to each other.
So I would urge the House to vote against the previous question on
the rule so that we can endeavor to do just that.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), a member of the Committee on Rules.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, sadly, this fiscal year 2004 Interior
appropriation bill marks yet another broken promise to the American
people and a further betrayal of our country's environment. In 2000,
this body adopted the historic CARA-Light Agreement, which authorized
$12 million over 6 years for a number of vitally important land
acquisition and conservation programs. That was truly an important day
for this House and an important victory for the environment.
Mr. Speaker, I am proud to have played a part in building the support
for that victory by sponsoring the amendment that restored funding for
the stateside Land and Water Conservation Fund program for the first
time in 5 years, but Mr. Speaker, I am not proud today of this Interior
appropriations bill. In fact, this House should be embarrassed and
ashamed that we would so cavalierly break our promise to the
environment because it is more important to give tax breaks to
millionaires. It is appalling.
The Subcommittee on Interior and Related Agencies of the Committee on
Appropriations is authorized to spend almost $1.6 billion on
conservation programs in fiscal year 2004. This bill, however, only
appropriates $990 million for these programs, which is $570 million
less than the CARA-Light agreement requires. Meanwhile, the demand for
funding of these conservation programs continues to grow and grow.
The National Park Service conducted a survey in 2002 that asked every
State to estimate the total request they have received for land and
water conservation funds over the past 3 fiscal years and then compared
those requests to the funding each State has received. The results of
this survey demonstrated a shocking nationwide unmet need of 92
percent. These are cities and towns in each of our district and in
every one of our States that go wanting year after year for their
neighborhood park to be improved or their open space to be saved from
development.
Since 1964, the Land and Water Conservation Fund has been responsible
for the acquisition of nearly 7 million acres of protected land and
open space and the development of more than 38,000 State and local
parks and recreation areas. The LWCF is a widely popular and very
effective program. This bill does not do this program justice.
The Interior bill provides less than half of the documented need for
the full funding of the stateside Land and Water Conservation Fund,
less than half. In my home State of Massachusetts, the Executive Office
of Environmental Affairs will receive a little more than $2 million in
fiscal year 2004 to help address the open space and recreation needs of
351 cities and towns. It is simply not enough.
Our open space is disappearing every day. If we do not preserve this
land now, we will lose it forever; and the need for safe parks and
recreation areas continues to grow.
Mr. Speaker, this bill continues to systematically dismantle the
structure of the Title VII Conservation Trust Fund piece by piece,
program by program. It reduces the much-celebrated CARA-Light agreement
to a terrible hoax and an empty gesture.
I would urge my colleagues to support the amendments that will
restore funding to these conservation programs. We must live up to our
obligation. We must meet our promises.
The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) had an amendment that would
fix all of this by taking a tiny, tiny amount of the overly generous
Republican tax cut for millionaires and put it toward conservation
programs. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Rules stayed
true to form and said no.
I urge a no vote on the previous question and a no vote on the rule.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. George Miller).
(Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California asked and was given permission to
revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman
for yielding me the time.
I rise in strong opposition to this rule, and I would ask Members to
vote against the previous question so that we could have an opportunity
to vote on the Obey-Dicks amendment which would restore the $570
million that has been cut from conservation spending in this country.
I also rise to say that I would oppose the Boehlert amendment that
would restore $95 million to these programs. The Boehlert amendment
simply is an endorsement of these cuts. It simply is an endorsement of
the cuts. We were spending $450 million on Federal land and water
conservation programs per a bipartisan agreement and the support of
this President of the United States. If my colleagues vote for the
Boehlert amendment, we are down to $130 million on State land and water
conservation, a primary driver of open space and conservation programs
and habitat protection and the protections of the community values,
$450 million after these cuts. Even with the Boehlert amendment, that
is only $118 million.
We are talking about a massive loss of opportunities for local
communities to protect and provide for the conservation of land around
those communities for public use, for the use of their citizens,
because these dollars are matched by private dollars, by local dollars,
and they drive these acquisitions.
The Boehlert amendment is simply an endorsement of a policy that is
now just wreaking havoc with that bipartisan agreement, with that
promise made by this Congress that we would once again start using
those moneys coming into the Land and Water Conservation Fund from
offshore oil drilling to protect the natural assets of this country and
our local communities.
That is why we have got to vote against the previous question and the
rule. Because if we voted for the Obey-Dicks amendment, then we would
keep the promise that we have made. We have made that with business
organizations, we have made that with conservation organizations, we
have made that with restoration organizations, we have made that with
communities, that these were community values where the Federal
Government would help out. All of that is devastated by this
legislation, and we cannot buy into an endorsement of that by buying an
amendment that simply puts just a few dollars back into these accounts
while these accounts initially in this bill get slaughtered by the
appropriations provided in this committee.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
West Virginia (Mr. Rahall).
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me the
time.
[[Page H6944]]
Mr. Speaker, the American people have been misled. Just like the
telephone salesman who interrupts our dinner hour with an offer that is
too good to be true, the Bush administration has sold the American
people a tax cut by withholding some very important facts.
One of those facts is that, in order to subsidize rebate checks for
people who live on estates which cover vast stretches of private land,
the Bush administration now has to slash funding that would have gone
to protect vast stretches of public land.
Spending on Land and Water Conservation Fund programs, which is
authorized at the level of $900 million, totals less than $200 million
in the bill that is currently before us. Funding that would improve and
expand wildlife refuges, national parks and national forests is all
being sacrificed at the altar of tax relief for the rich. What is more,
the Bush administration, along with the majority here in this House,
fails to provide these funds even though half the money goes directly
to States for conservation and recreation purposes.
Gutting these conservation programs shatters an agreement made by
this Congress just 3 short years ago when the Land Conservation,
Preservation and Infrastructure Trust Fund was created as part of the
Interior bill.
It should be noted that there is one exception in this bill to the
majority's desire to slash and burn conservation funding. This
appropriation bill would authorize a new national heritage area. This
new heritage area has not even been studied by the National Park
Service. It would simply be designated, and it is by no means a small
designation as it would stretch over 25 counties in North Carolina and
be authorized to receive $10 million in Federal funding over 10 years.
It had been my understanding that some in the majority, including the
Committee on Resources chairman, opposed creation of any new heritage
areas based on private property concerns; and, indeed, there are scores
of Members, Republicans and Democrats alike, who are asking the
Committee on Resources to consider heritage area legislation.
As such, I can only come to the conclusion, Mr. Speaker, that the
inclusion of this new heritage area in this new Interior appropriations
bill means that those concerns over private property rights have been
addressed, and we look forward to the timely consideration of all of
the heritage proposals that are now pending before this Congress.
Except for this one bright spot, however, the cuts of conservation
spending contained in this bill are unacceptable. The American people
should know that the national park they visit this summer is not being
protected because there will be no funds to conserve park lands, and
the American people should know that the conservation and recreation
programs planned by their governor will have to be abandoned because
the Federal Government would not come through with the matching funds.
I urge a no vote on the rule and a no on the previous question.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4
minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston) a member of the
committee.
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the
time.
I just wanted to point out, Mr. Speaker, that when we hear about the
bill having more money for acquiring more land, it is important to keep
in perspective how much land is actually owned by the United States,
which is approximately one-third. Thirty-three percent of the land in
America is owned by the Federal Government; and that does not include
military bases, it does not include easements for interstate highways,
it does not include State and local parks and recreation areas. So if
we put in all that, it may be as high as 40 percent.
I am not on the Subcommittee on Interior and Related Agencies of the
Committee on Appropriations anymore, but I had the honor of serving on
it for 6 years, and I would often ask the director of the National Park
Service or Fish and Wildlife or the Bureau of Land Management, how much
land is enough?
We know politically 435 Members of Congress can always go home as
heroes, session after session, saying I bought more land, I protected
the environment, and yet nobody knows how much is good. Should the
Federal Government own 90 percent of the land in America? Should it be
a smaller percentage?
I think, if my memory serves correctly, in the East, it is a lot
smaller percentage. In fact, I think in Georgia it is probably less
than 10 percent. Massachusetts, I believe it is 14 percent. California,
it is 60 percent. In Nevada, it is about 90 percent. But we have no
national policy on it whatsoever.
I asked these questions to the Bush administration. I asked these
questions to the Clinton administration. How much land should it be?
Should it be 15 percent? Should it be 75 percent? What is the magic
number?
I want my colleagues to think about this in terms of appropriations
and so forth.
We had this week, most of us were visited by people from the
education community on IDEA, the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act.
{time} 1615
We passed our Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education bill
this week; and we funded IDEA at 18 percent. We should be funding it at
about 40 percent, but we have something to discuss because we have a
specific vision of what funding level is adequate.
Here we are, when it comes to land acquisition, already again up to a
third of the land in America owned by the Federal Government, and we do
not have a top end to it. We do not have a policy. Meanwhile, not only
do we not have a policy, we have a tremendous backlog.
Now, the Republicans, since 1997, have spent $2.1 billion on backlog
for our public lands, maintenance and so forth. But here we still have
billions of dollars in backlog, and we do not seem to be worried about
that.
So I think that this subcommittee has done the right thing by going
very cautiously in terms of not just funding everybody who wants a new
land acquisition reelection plan, but they are trying to go at it with
a little more science, a little more balance; and I think that that is
a far better approach than the so-called CARA approach or some of these
other plans that are out there.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to urge my colleagues on both sides
of the aisle to support the removal of section 137 of the Interior
appropriations bill which seeks to reach a settlement of the Indian
trust reform issue. This section does not belong in this bill, and any
legislation dealing with settlement should be vetted through the
Committee on Resources which has jurisdiction over this issue.
Mr. Speaker, for more than a century, the Federal Government has been
the trustee of funds for Indian tribes and individual Indians. These
funds are generated from rights and leases on lands held in trust by
the Federal Government. Presently, there are approximately 300,000
Native Americans who are supposed to receive funds from the 56 million
acres being held in trust for them by the Federal Government.
Unfortunately, the Department of the Interior has been unable to fully
and accurately account for the trust fund money.
Both Secretaries of Interior for the past two administrations have
been held in contempt of court for failing to fulfill their fiduciary
responsibility to Native Americans. In order to force the government to
account for the money believed to be owed them, a group of Native
Americans filed a class action lawsuit against the Secretary of the
Interior.
Now, recently, Mr. Speaker, the House Subcommittee on Interior of the
Committee on Appropriations offered language in section 137 of its bill
in an attempt to settle this dispute. If this language were allowed to
advance, it would give the Secretary of the Interior the authority to
unilaterally settle any claim related to the balance of the individual
Indian accounts currently held in trust.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. PALLONE. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
[[Page H6945]]
Mr. DICKS. On a voluntary basis in the first year. The gentleman did
not use the word voluntary. In the second year, then they have to work
it out if there has not been a voluntary agreement in the first year.
I just wanted to clarify that point.
Mr. PALLONE. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the
ranking member's comments.
The same Department of Interior that has consistently failed to
manage the trust accounts would have complete authority to end all of
the claims by individual Indian account holders.
Now, while I appreciate, and I want to tell the gentleman from
Washington I do appreciate the attention that is being given to this
issue by my colleagues on the Committee on Appropriations, but I do not
feel that a fair resolution can be reached without having all the major
players at the table. To that end, I urge my colleagues once again to
support the removal of section 137 from the Interior appropriations
bill and allow the Committee on Resources to try to reach a fair and
equitable solution that both tribal leaders and the Department of the
Interior can agree upon.
If I can say to the gentleman from Washington and also the chairman
of the subcommittee, I do appreciate the fact that they have been
willing to allow us to take this section out and have the Committee on
Resources try to come up with a fair and equitable solution; and I
really understand the gentleman's frustration with the fact that, for
several years now, that this issue is still outstanding and has a major
impact in terms of funding and the level of appropriations. But we
really feel on the committee that we can deal with this effectively and
appreciate the opportunity to be allowed to do so.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. Dicks).
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule for the
consideration of the fiscal year 2004 Interior Appropriations Act. I
oppose the rule because it did not allow an important amendment to be
offered by the ranking Democratic member of the full Committee on
Appropriations, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey). The Obey-Dicks
amendment, which I strongly supported, would have added $569 million to
the bill to restore the Conservation Trust Fund.
I regret the Obey amendment was not allowed, because I believe it was
the only real way that we could have addressed the shortfall of over
half a billion dollars in the Interior bill. Obviously, we could never
find the offsets within our allocation to fully fund the trust fund,
and we should not have to. The conservation agreement provided for an
additional allocation to our subcommittee and was never intended to
come at the expense of other programs in the bill.
The bill under consideration today shortchanges the Conservation
Trust Fund by $569 million, providing only $1 billion of the authorized
$1.56 billion. In fact, the fund is $208 million below last year,
despite built-in increases under the program through 2066.
Nobody wants to see increases in this area more than I do, but we
must be honest that we cannot find the money from within our bill. The
Conservation Trust Fund that was established in 2000 called for a
separate allocation to our subcommittee and to the Subcommittee on
Commerce, Justice, State, Judiciary and Related Agencies to be used
specifically for these purposes. It was never intended to come from
within our 302(b) allocation to the Subcommittee on Interior.
The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) should have been allowed to
offer his amendment, and we should have been able to have a real debate
on a real amendment to restore this important program.
And I want to reiterate what was said earlier, that the President,
when he was campaigning for President, said he was going to fully fund
the Land and Water Conservation Fund. That is $450 million Federal and
$450 million for State-side programs. That budget request has not
gotten up here. They tried to change certain things and call them land
and water conservation, but in fact it was not the bill as enacted.
I would also point out that over the years a surplus has accrued
under the title of the Land and Water Conservation Fund of about $13
billion, and that is why the CARA movement was so powerful a few years
ago. I think over 315 or 320 Members of the House voted for CARA, which
would have created mandatory spending of $3 billion for the next 15
years. Some of the most senior and influential Members on conservation
issues in this body strongly supported it and advocated it; and we in
the Committee on Appropriations came up with this alternative, which
the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and I sponsored, along with the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula). That is why there is such concern out
there in the conservation community that we have not kept this
commitment.
So I regretfully urge people to vote against the rule. There are
other issues in this bill, but we will have a chance to discuss them
once we get into general debate.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me
this time, and I would like to speak in opposition to the rule because
the rule would violate the rules of the House. It would allow, for the
fourth time, the authorization of a tax on average Americans who choose
to recreate on our Federal lands.
Now, I have no problem with charging for use of developed sites, I
have no problem with special use areas, and certainly no problem for
the parks. We have already heard how the parks are underfunded. But to
charge Americans who live in remote rural communities in my district
and elsewhere throughout the West in the United States to drive and
park their car for dispersed recreation in an undeveloped area, whether
it is hunting or fishing or just taking the grandkids for a walk, as a
grandma in Oak Ridge might do, they have to pay a large annual fee,
$35, to drive out of this poor community which is completely surrounded
by national forestlands. They have to pay that fee.
Yet the authorizing committee in the House, the committee which
should authorize such a tax, because there is a tax, and this is the
party that does not want new taxes, and this would be a new tax because
it is going to extend it without an authorization, without hearings,
without any appropriate action for another 2 years in this bill, and
that violates the rules of the House. But that is protected under this
rule from my raising a point of order against it. This is not the
proper way to move forward on this issue.
There is a legislation introduced by Senator Thomas of Wyoming that
would make this program permanent for the parks, and I would be happy
to support that, and the House would. We have Members of the majority
party here who are working on legislation, the gentleman from
California (Mr. Pombo) and the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. McInnis),
that would change the program a little bit, because they feel parts of
it are inappropriate and are restricting the public's right to access
their lands without charge in areas where there is no discernible
investment or need for such a barrier charge.
And the program itself is problematic. For the $36 million that were
raised by the Forest Service, $13 million of it got to the ground. So
it is not only an oppressive tax on average Americans, it is an
unbelievably inefficient tax when you begin to look at the collection
costs and all the other problems that arise from this particular
program. I mean, that is about a one-third efficiency rate. I do not
think many of us would support any other tax that would only provide
about a third of the revenues which it assesses against people to the
purpose which it purports to fulfill.
So I urge my colleagues to oppose the rule for this reason and for
others articulated by my friend and colleague from Washington State so
that we can more fairly debate this bill and more fairly and properly
address issues such as this rec fee demo tax on Americans.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, shortly I will ask Members to vote no on the previous
question. If the previous question is defeated, I will offer an
amendment to the rule that will make in order the Obey amendment to
restore funding for the conservation programs that have been
shortchanged in the bill.
[[Page H6946]]
This amendment would add $569 million to the bill's conservation
programs in order to bring them up to their authorized spending levels.
The Obey amendment offsets this spending increase with a 3.21 percent
reduction in the tax breaks received by taxpayers earning more than $1
million a year. This amendment was submitted to the Committee on Rules
last night and rejected by the majority.
The cost of this amendment is fully paid for. The money would come by
slightly reducing the 2004 tax cut for those with incomes in excess of
$1 million. It seems to me these millionaires could easily spare a
small part of their very large tax breaks to help protect our precious
national resources.
So I will urge Members on both sides of the aisle to vote no on the
previous question. A no vote will not stop the House from taking up the
Interior appropriations bill. However, a yes vote will prevent the
House from considering the Obey amendment.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the
amendment immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). Is there objection to the
request of the gentlewoman from New York?
There was no objection.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance
of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote for the previous question
and for the rule.
I just might add that this is an open rule. The subcommittee and the
full committee made some difficult decisions at prioritizing needs to
fund particularly the Department of the Interior. Of course, there are
differences of opinion on how those priorities should be, but this open
rule allows for a restructuring, if this body decides that is the
correct way to go, to restructure those priorities.
So I think it is a good rule. It is an open rule. I urge my
colleagues to vote for the previous question and for the rule.
The material previously referred to by Ms. Slaughter is as follows:
Previous Question for H. Res. 319--Rule on H.R. 2691, Fiscal Year 2004
Interior Appropriations
At the end of the resolution, add the following:
Sec. 2. Notwithstanding any other provision of this
resolution, the amendment printed in section 3 shall be in
order without intervention of any point of order and before
any other amendment if offered by Representative Obey of
Wisconsin or a designee. The amendment is not subject to
amendment except for pro forma amendments or to a demand for
a division of the question in the committee of the whole or
in the House.
Sec. 3. The amendment referred to in section 2 is as
follows:
Amendment No. 2 by Representative Obey
Amendment to H.R. 2691, as Reported
Offered By: Mr. Obey of Wisconsin
On page 7, line 13, strike ``$14,000,000'' and insert
``$49,920,000''.
On page 14, line 8, strike ``$23,058,000'' and insert
``$99,135,000''.
On page 25, line 24, strike ``$131,154,000'' and insert
``$330,117,000''.
On page 97, line 17, strike ``$29,288,000'' and insert
``$149,742,000''.
On page 17, line 12, strike ``$75,000,000'' and insert
``$100,000,000''.
On page 16, line 11, strike ``$24,560,000'' and insert
``$43,500,000''.
On page 91, line 3, strike ``$290,758,000'' and insert
``$335,272,000''.
On page 22, line 23, strike ``$71,000,000'' and insert
``$90,000,000''.
On page 23, line 1, strike ``$30,000,000'' and insert
``$34,000,000''.
On page 22, line 17, strike ``$305,000'' and insert
``$30,000,000''.
On page 154, after line 13, add the following:
Sec. ____. In the case of taxpayers with adjusted gross
income in excess of $1,000,000 for the tax year beginning in
2003, the amount of tax reduction resulting from enactment of
the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003
(Public Law 108-27) shall be reduced by 3.21 percent.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of
my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. 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.
Pursuant to clauses 8 and 9 of rule XX, this 15-minute vote on
ordering the previous question will be followed by 5-minute votes on
adopting the resolution, if ordered; on passage of H.R. 2122; on
suspending the rules and adopting H. Con. Res. 6; and, without
objection, on authorizing closed meetings of the conferees on H.R.
1588, if a motion to that end is offered immediately after the vote on
H. Con. Res. 6.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 219,
nays 199, not voting 16, as follows:
[Roll No. 371]
YEAS--219
Aderholt
Akin
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Bereuter
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burns
Burr
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Chocola
Coble
Collins
Cox
Crane
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Emerson
English
Everett
Feeney
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Goode
Goodlatte
Goss
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Isakson
Issa
Istook
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
LaHood
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
McCotter
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McKeon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Musgrave
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Oxley
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Saxton
Schrock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Tancredo
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Toomey
Turner (OH)
Upton
Vitter
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NAYS--199
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Alexander
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Ballance
Becerra
Bell
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carson (IN)
Carson (OK)
Case
Clay
Clyburn
Conyers
Cooper
Costello
Cramer
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley (CA)
Doyle
Edwards
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green (TX)
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley (OR)
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
John
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Kleczka
Kucinich
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lucas (KY)
Lynch
Majette
Maloney
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
[[Page H6947]]
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sabo
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Sandlin
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sherman
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Turner (TX)
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NOT VOTING--16
Berkley
Brown, Corrine
Cole
Deal (GA)
Ferguson
Fletcher
Gephardt
Janklow
Jefferson
Johnson (IL)
Kolbe
Lowey
Millender-McDonald
Payne
Royce
Sweeney
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson) (during the vote). Members are
advised that 2 minutes remain in this vote.
{time} 1650
Ms. WATSON, Mr. LARSON of Connecticut and Mr. ISRAEL changed their
vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 371 I was in a meeting at the
White House with the President. Had I been present, I would have voted
``yea.''
Mr. JOHNSON of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 371 I was
unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 232,
noes 189, not voting 13, as follows:
[Roll No. 372]
AYES--232
Aderholt
Akin
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Bereuter
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Bradley (NH)
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burns
Burr
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Chocola
Coble
Cole
Collins
Crane
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Emerson
English
Everett
Fattah
Feeney
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Goss
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hall
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoeffel
Hoekstra
Holden
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Isakson
Issa
Istook
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kanjorski
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
McCotter
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McKeon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Murtha
Musgrave
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Oxley
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Saxton
Schrock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Stupak
Sullivan
Tancredo
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Toomey
Turner (OH)
Upton
Vitter
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOES--189
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Alexander
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Ballance
Becerra
Bell
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brown (OH)
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carson (IN)
Carson (OK)
Case
Clay
Clyburn
Conyers
Cooper
Costello
Cramer
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley (CA)
Edwards
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Filner
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Gonzalez
Green (TX)
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Holt
Honda
Hooley (OR)
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
John
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Kleczka
Kucinich
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lynch
Majette
Maloney
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (VA)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sabo
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Sandlin
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sherman
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Stenholm
Strickland
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Turner (TX)
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NOT VOTING--13
Berkley
Brown, Corrine
Cox
Deal (GA)
Ferguson
Fletcher
Gephardt
Janklow
Jefferson
Millender-McDonald
Payne
Royce
Sweeney
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Members are advised that 2
minutes remain in this vote.
{time} 1700
Mr. CRAMER and Mr. MOLLOHAN changed their vote from ``aye'' to
``no.''
So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated for:
Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 372, I was in a meeting at
the White House with the President. Had I been present, I would have
voted ``aye.''
Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 372, had I been present, I
would have voted ``aye.''
____________________