[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 13]
[House]
[Pages 18364-18371]
[From the U.S. 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

[[Page 18365]]

     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. 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.
  Mr. Speaker, former President Theodore Roosevelt, 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

[[Page 18366]]

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 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

[[Page 18367]]

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. 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.
  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.

[[Page 18368]]


  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.
  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

[[Page 18369]]

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.
  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

[[Page 18370]]

     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)
     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.

[[Page 18371]]

  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.''

                          ____________________