H 5636 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE June 7, 1995

U.S. Government, it is a step backwards, with substantial cuts in areas

that for the most part are going to

hurt a lot of women and children in

poor nations, and it is not something

that our Government, our Congress,

ought to be behind.

For that reason, I hope that the Congress votes the rule down and votes the

bill down.

b 1330

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I have no further requests for time.

Before yielding back the balance of my

time, I would just simply like to say

that this act is called the American

Overseas Interests Act. Usually the labels that we have on a lot of our legislation around here are somewhat grandiose. I think this label actually means

something.

I think we are making a shift from

what we used to call foreign aid to put

the emphasis on something that is

truly what are America’s interests

overseas. I think that is a major departure from some of the direction that we

have been struggling with in the past

10 years or so here. It is one of the reasons why we have not gotten the bill

through.

I think this is a new time, and I

think that justifies in part this extra

debate time which is really an extraordinary amount of time, almost 20 hours

when we count the rules and general

debate, that is an awful lot of time.

With regard to the observation of the

gentleman from Maryland that there

probably is no greater time or no more

important thing right now than discussing Bosnia, there, of course is another avenue, as the distinguished

chairman of the Committee on International Relations has pointed out.

And the thing about what goes on in

the world is that every day there is always something new anyway that is

very important for us, not that Bosnia

is not critically important, but there

will be other things that are critically

important.

We have to make sure we have a

process to bring those things forward.

But the basis, the structure, the foundation of what we are trying to signal

here in this legislation are American

overseas interests and to provide for

them appropriately, well aware of the

message that we have had from our

American constituency that says we

have got to be a little bit more careful

about how we spend our money, make

sure it really counts for national security and true interests overseas and we

are not in the business of being the

world’s policemen or the world’s welfare source.

I think that this bill goes a long way

in dealing with that.

The ranking Member and distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts

[Mr. MOAKLEY], a wonderful man and a

good friend, has said we need more

time, more debate, and that we might

not even have enough after this 20

hours. I do not know how much debate

is enough debate on any particular bill,

but it seems to me this is an extraordinary amount of time for a very important subject, where we are having a

change of direction which is part of the

change that was promised in the November 8 elections. I believe that we

have got it pretty well covered now. I

urge my colleagues to support this

rule.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance

of my time, and I move the previous

question on the resolution.

The previous question was ordered.

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr.

HASTINGS of Washington). The question

is on the resolution.

The question was taken; and the

Speaker pro tempore announced that

the ayes appeared to have it.

Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, on

that I demand the yeas and nays.

The yeas and nays were ordered.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 5 of rule I, further proceedings on this question will be postponed until later today.

PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state it.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, will that

vote be automatically called by the

Chair?

The SPEAKER pro tempore. That is

correct; the yeas and nays have been

ordered, and it will automatically be

called later today.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I did not

hear, but was a time certain set for

that?

The SPEAKER pro tempore. It will

be after the three fish hatchery bills,

which are next on the calendar.

Mr. GOSS. I thank the Chair.

HATCHERY CONVEYANCE ACT

CORNING NATIONAL FISH

fThe SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 144 and rule

XXIII, the Chair declares the House in

the Committee of the Whole House on

the State of the Union for consideration of the bill, H.R. 535.

b 1338

IN THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE

Accordingly the House resolved itself

into the Committee of the Whole House

on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill (H.R. 535) to direct the Secretary of the Interior to

convey the Corning National Fish

Hatchery to the State of Arkansas,

with Mr. CAMP in the chair.

The Clerk read the title of the bill.

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the

rule, the bill is considered as having

been read the first time.

Under the rule, the gentleman from

New Jersey [Mr. SAXTON] will be recognized for 30 minutes and the gentleman

from Massachusetts [Mr. STUDDS] will

be recognized for 30 minutes.

The Chair recognizes the gentleman

from New Jersey [Mr. SAXTON].

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield

myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of

this noncontroversial legislation.

H.R. 535 seeks to convey the Corning

National Fish Hatchery to the State of

Arkansas. Mrs. LINCOLN, the sponsor of

the bill, will fully explain the need for

this legislation. Briefly, the State of

Arkansas has been operating and maintaining the Corning hatchery since

1983. Arkansas has recognized the need

to modernize the facility, but cannot

obtain the necessary funding to do so

because the State does not hold title to

the hatchery. The Fish and Wildlife

Service, which does hold title, fully

supports the conveyance of the title to

the State of Arkansas.

During our subcommittee markup, I

offered an amendment—which was

adopted unanimously—to expand the

mission of the hatchery. In that way,

the Corning facility would not be limited to fish cultures only and would be

able to perform a broader range of fishery-related activities. In addition, the

amendment ensures that if this property ever reverts to the Federal Government, it will be in the same or better condition as the time of the transfer. These changes are reflected in the

bill pending before the House today.

I am confident that H.R. 535 as written will satisfy the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the State of Arkansas.

I urge you to support H.R. 535 without

amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance

of my time.

Mr. STUDDS. Mr. Chairman, I yield

myself such time as I may consume.

(Mr. STUDDS asked and was given

permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. STUDDS. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from New Jersey has said it all.

This is a bill without controversy. It is

very much like many others we have

passed in years gone by. I must say for

the life of me I cannot figure out what

it is doing under a rule. If there was

ever a bill that was ready for suspension, it would be these three. They are

routine. They are without controversy.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 535,

a bill to transfer title of the Corning National

Fish Hatchery to the State of Arkansas.

The Corning hatchery, which has been operated by the State of Arkansas under a

memorandum of understanding with the Fish

and Wildlife Service since 1983, produces

bass, bluegill, sunfish, crappies, and catfish for

State fishery programs.

While the State has made minor improvements to the facility, it is now interested in

making more significant capital investments

and would like title to the property before

doing so. This bill would give title to the State,

while protecting the interests of the Federal

Government by requiring that title revert to the

Fish and Wildlife Service in the event that Arkansas no longer wants to operate the facility

as a fish hatchery.

This is standard language we have used to

transfer many facilities in the past. It is supported by both the State and the administration, and I urge Members to support it today.
June 7, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H 5637

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to

the gentlewoman from Arkansas [Mrs.

LINCOLN], the author of the bill.

(Mrs. LINCOLN asked and was given

permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. Chairman, today

I rise to urge my colleagues to support

H.R. 535. Before I list all the reasons

why my colleagues should support this

bill, I first want to extend my deepest

thanks to the chairman of the full

committee, Mr. YOUNG, the chairman

of the subcommittee, Mr. SAXTON, and

the ranking minority member of the

Fisheries Subcommittee, Mr. STUDDS,

for taking action on this bill in such a

prompt manner. I worked with all

these distinguished gentlemen last

year on the Merchant Marine Committee, and I certainly must say that I

miss working with them on a more regular basis.

I urge my colleagues to support this

non-controversial bill. H.R. 535 would

transfer property rights in the Corning

National Fish Hatchery from the Federal Government to the State of Arkansas. Due to previous Federal budget

cuts, the fish hatchery was closed in

early 1983. However, the Arkansas

Game and Fish Commission resumed

hatchery fish production in May 1983

after entering into an agreement with

the fish and wildlife service. The fish

hatchery has been operating since 1983

as William H. Donham State Fish

Hatchery. With funds provided by the

State of Arkansas

This fish hatchery has become an important part of the Arkansas Fisheries

Division Fish Culture Program and I

believe that this transfer will greatly

benefit the sportsmen and women of

Arkansas and the Nation. This warm

water hatchery is very active and successful, producing up to 1,000,000 fish

annually.

Currently, and since 1983 no Federal

funds are used to operate or maintain

the Corning National Fish Hatchery.

Let me repeat, this fish hatchery does

not cost Federal taxpayers a red cent.

It is financed solely by funds derived

from resident and non-resident fishing

licenses sales. This transfer of ownership has the support from both the Arkansas Game and Fish Commission and

the Fish and Wildlife Service.

It is appropriate to transfer the property to the State of Arkansas since the

funds used to finance the hatchery’s

programs are raised within the borders

of Arkansas. In addition, without this

transfer, Arkansas would be unable to

make long-term commitments as to

the direction the hatchery will take in

its operations or risk of abandonment.

Identical legislation passed both the

House and the Senate last Congress

only to be stymied in the Senate during the last minutes of the 103d. I urge

my colleagues to support H.R. 535 and

to oppose any amendments.

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I have

no further requests for time, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. STUDDS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3

minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. MILLER].

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me.

Mr. Chairman, those who have spoken already quite properly represent

the presentation of this legislation and

they, in fact, are not controversial. I

do have an amendment to the legislation that would require that prior to

the transfer of these facilities, prior to

the transfer of title from the Federal

Government to the State government

that the Federal Government would

get an appraisal as to the fair market

value and the State would in fact pay

the Federal Government in the fair

market value for these assets.

The fact is that we have been transferring these assets historically for

many, many years from the Federal

Government to the states without

questioning the value of the property

being transferred or the Federal taxpayer investment in these properties.

But today is not the same as it has

been in the last 20 years. That is, this

is the first Congress that is operating

under a firm target of balancing the

Federal budget in the next 7 years.

We see a whole hose of programs that

are being cut, some much smaller in

value than the value of these hatcheries, but the point is this, that no

longer are we in a position simply to

transfer assets of the Federal Government and receive nothing in return at

a time when we are trying to balance

the budget. So the amendment that I

will offer to all three of these bills

later on is an amendment to require an

appraisal and a fair market value assessment, crediting the State with the

cost of some of their improvements

that they have made and then making

sure that the State either pay the Federal Government in cash or in in-kind

contribution for that fair market

value.

I think this is fair to the taxpayers of

the country. I think it is fair to other

committees that are making cuts in

very vital programs and that we ought

to do our share. The value of these assets, of these hatcheries, we really do

not known. There are no current appraisals of these. Appraisals were done

in 1983, back in 1979. We have comparable sales in some cases for much

smaller parcels adjacent to these lands

that were transferred earlier that have

been sold in some cases for higher

value than the appraised value of the

hatcheries.

Let us remember that in fact when

the hatcheries are, they have been run

for the benefit of the States, so the fact

that the State has been running this at

their cost should be no mystery to us

or surprise us because in fact the State

has been the beneficiary of the programs being run there and the State

will continue to do so.

If the Federal Government is going

to back out of this and we are going to

turn these assets over, I think the least

that we can do is ask that we return to

the Treasury some ability to recapture

the cost that the Federal Government

has spent on these assets.

Finally, let me make this point, Mr.

Chairman: This is only the beginning

of a whole series of assets that will be

coming to the floor seeking transfer

from the Federal Government either to

the private sector and/or to other segments of the Government. I think it is

very important that we understand

that when we do make these transfers

to these other entities, that we ought

to make some effort to try and recapture the fair market value of those assets.

There will be assets developed in the

energy area, in the mineral area, in the

timber area, in a whole range of programs that the Federal Government is

currently engaged in, mainly throughout the western United States, but in

some cases, as we see with these hatcheries, in other areas of the Federal

Government. I would hope that Members would support these very commonsense and very-fair-to-the-taxpayer

amendments asking for fair maket

value.

Mr. YOUNG. Mr. Chairman, I support H.R.

535, a bill to transfer title of the Corning National Fish Hatchery to the State of Arkansas

for use by the Arkansas Game and Fish Commission.

The Corning National Fish Hatchery includes approximately 137 acres, buildings,

structures, and related equipment. It is a warm

water hatchery that produces between

250,000 to 1,000,000 fish each year. About 95

percent of these hatchery-reared fish are

stocked in new or renovated public lakes, providing recreational opportunities for thousands

of Americans.

It is my understanding that the State of Arkansas has been effectively operating this

hatchery facility since 1983, under an agreement with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

The State has spent in excess of $1.5 million

to maintain it. H.R. 535 would simply convey

all right, title, and interest of the United States

to the State of Arkansas.

Finally, this legislation contains language

providing that the property revert back to the

Federal Government if the State of Arkansas

no longer wishes to use the facility as part of

its fisheries resources management program.

It also stipulates that the property be returned

in substantially the same or better condition

than it was in at the time it was transferred to

the State.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service supports

this transfer and I compliment the gentlelady

from Arkansas [Mrs. LINCOLN] for bringing this

matter to our attention.

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the bill.

Mr. STUDDS. Mr. Chairman, I have

no further requests for time, and I

yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield

back the balance of my time.

The CHAIRMAN. All time for general

debate has expired.

Pursuant to the rule, the bill and the

amendment printed in the bill are considered as having been read for amendment under the 5-minute rule.
H 5638 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE June 7, 1995

The text of H.R. 535 is as follows:

H.R. 535

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in

Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Corning National Fish Hatchery Conveyance Act’’.

SEC. 2. CONVEYANCE OF CORNING NATIONAL

FISH HATCHERY TO THE STATE OF

ARKANSAS.

(a) CONVEYANCE REQUIREMENT.—Within 180

days after the date of the enactment of this

Act, the Secretary of the Interior shall convey to the State of Arkansas without reimbursement all right, title, and interest of the

United States in and to the property described in subsection (b), for use by the Arkansas Game and Fish Commission as part of

the State of Arkansas culture program.

(b) PROPERTY DESCRIBED.—The property referred to in subsection (a) is the property

known as the Corning National Fish Hatchery (popularly known as the William H.

Donham State Fish Hatchery), located one

mile west of Corning, Arkansas, on Arkansas

State Highway 67 in Clay County, Arkansas,

consisting of 137.34 acres (more or less), and

all improvements and related personal property under the control of the Secretary that

is located on that property, including buildings, structures, and equipment.

(c) REVERSIONARY INTEREST OF UNITED

STATES.—All right, title, and interest in

property described in subsection (b) shall revert to the United States if the property

ceases to be used as part of the State of Arkansas fish culture program. The State of

Arkansas shall ensure that the property reverting to the United States is in substantially the same or better condition as at the

time of transfer.

The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the committee amendment.

The text of the committee amendment is as follows:

Committee amendment: Page 2, line 21,

strike subsection (c) and insert the following:

(c) USE AND REVERSIONARY INTEREST.—The

property conveyed to the State of Arkansas

pursuant to this section shall be used by the

State for purposes of fishery resources management, and if it is used for any other purposes all right, title, and interest in an to all

property conveyed pursuant to this section

shall revert to the United States. The State

of Arkansas shall ensure that the property

reverting to the United States is in substantially the same or better condition as at the

time of transfer.

The CHAIRMAN. The question is on

the committee amendment.

The committee amendment was

agreed to.

b 1345

The CHAIRMAN. Are there other

amendments?

AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. MILLER OF

CALIFORNIA

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. MILLER of California: In section 2(a) (page 2, beginning at

line 3), strike ‘‘Within’’ and all that follows

through ‘‘without reimbursement’’, and insert ‘‘Upon the provision of consideration by

the State of Arkansas in accordance with

subsection (c) within 180 days after the date

of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary

of the Interior shall convey to the State of

Arkansas’’.

Amend section 2(c) (page 3, beginning at

line 3) to read as follows:

(c) CONSIDERATION.—

(1) CONSIDERATION REQUIRED.—The Secretary of the Interior shall require that, as

consideration for any property conveyed by

the Secretary under subsection (a), the State

of Arkansas shall—

(A) pay to the United States an amount

equal to the fair market value of the property conveyed by the Secretary under subsection (a), reduced in accordance with paragraph (3); or

(B) convey to the United States real property that the Secretary deterimes—

(i) has a fair market value not less than an

amount equal to the fair market value of the

property conveyed by the Secretary under

subsection (a), reduced in accordance with

paragraph (3); and

(ii) is useful for promoting fish restoration

and management.

(2) APPRAISAL REQUIRED.—The Secretary

shall determine fair market value of property for purposes of this subsection after

considering an appraisal of the property prepared for the Secretary after the date of the

enactment of this Act.

(3) REDUCTION OF FAIR MARKET VALUE OF

PROPERTY CONVEYED.—For purposes of subparagraphs (A) and (B)(i) of paragraph (1),

the fair market value of property conveyed

under subsection (a) shall be reduced by the

value of any capital improvements to the

property that were made by the State of Arkansas before the date of the enactment of

this Act.

(4) DEPOSIT OF PAYMENT.—

(A) DEPOSIT.—Amounts received by the

United States as payment under this subsection shall be deposited into the Sport

Fish Restoration Account of the Aquatic Resources Trust Fund established by section

9504 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (26

U.S.C. 9504), commonly referred to as the

Wallop-Breaux Fund.

(B) LIMITATION ON USE OF DEPOSITS FOR

PURPOSES NOT RELATED TO FISH RESTORATION

AND MANAGEMENT.—Section 9504(b)(2)(B) of

the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (26 U.S.C.

9504(b)(2)(B)) does not apply to amounts deposited under this paragraph.

Mr. MILLER of California (during

the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask

unanimous consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed

in the RECORD.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection

to the request of the gentleman from

California?

There was no objection.

(Mr. MILLER of California asked and

was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, this amendment requires that as

consideration for the fish hatchery

conveyed to the State of Arkansas,

that the State pay the Federal Government the fair market value based on an

updated appraisal.

That payment shall not include the

value of any capital improvements

made by the State. The amendment

also strikes the clause in the bill which

would have the property revert to the

Federal Government if not used by the

State as a hatchery. In other words,

the State would receive clear title.

The amendment gives the State the

option to pay cash equivalent to fair

market value or to exchange property

with the Fish and Wildlife Service

which must be useful for promoting

fish restoration and management.

If the State pays cash, the amendment provides that the proceeds would

be deposited in the sport fish restoration account which is better known as

the Wallop-Breaux Fund. Every State

receives Wallop-Breaux funds which

are dedicated to improving sport fishing opportunities. The amounts devoted to fish restoration are decreasing, so this amendment will help assure

that all of our constituents continue to

benefit from this fund.

Mr. Chairman, as I said earlier in the

general debate on this legislation, I

think this is simply a matter of equity

for the taxpayers, that they receive

some semblance, and hopefully will receive, in fact, fair market value for

these Federal assets that the Federal

Government has built and developed,

when they transfer them to the State.

It also provides the additional benefit

that the funds received not only will

return to the Federal Treasury, but

they will help fund those portions of

the Federal programs and cooperative

programs between the States and the

Federal Government that come under

the Wallop-Breaux funds for the improvement of this Nation’s sport fisheries.

Again, the amounts of money are not

large, but I think the principle is

sound. I think the principle is fundamental as we continue upon our legislative journey, living under the hard

cap of going to a balanced budget in

the next 7 years. Every committee,

every Member of Congress, and all of

our constituencies are going to have to

make sacrifices to deal with that.

Quite clearly, we have been transferring these assets for the past 20 years.

That has become what we believe is

normal. These are not normal times.

We believed that highway demonstration projects were normal up until this

year. They no longer are normal, because we cannot justify the expenditure of those moneys and the need to

balance the budget and to meet higher

priorities of this Nation.

Mr. Chairman, I would hope, again,

that the Members of Congress would

support this amendment to provide for

a return of fair market value to the

taxpayers of the Nation.

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in

opposition to the gentleman’s amendment.

Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman well

knows, we have discussed this amendment at length at the subcommittee

level, and I believe at the full committee level as well. While I would generally tend to agree with the gentleman, that certainly if this is an

early version of many transfers that

will occur as part of the budget-balancing process that we will go through

during the months and years ahead,

certainly it would be good to start this

in a way that is the most fiscally prudent. That is exactly the reason that I

oppose the gentleman’s amendment.

It is noteworthy, I believe, to point

out here that it was in 1983 that the

Federal Government decided that we
June 7, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H 5639

no longer had the resources to justify

the implementation of a Federal program at this hatchery. In that year,

the State of Arkansas decided that

since it was a very important program

to that region of the country, that the

State of Arkansas would supplement

what the Federal Government had previously spent, and continue the program on forward.

To the extent that this bill changes

that situation, it does so for one very

good reason. That is that the hatchery

is in dire need of upgrading and renovation, and perhaps some additional facilities to be built on the premises

which require financial considerations.

Those considerations can be forthcoming only when the State of Arkansas

has title to the property.

Therefore, Mr. Chairman, this bill becomes very necessary. In order to ensure the Federal equity position, however, it is noted in the bill that there is

a clause which ensures that if the

hatcheries would ever revert to the

Federal Government, that they would

be in as good or better condition than

they are at the time of transfer.

Mr. Chairman, there are a number of

other reasons that I could go on and

explain at some length, but certainly

the gentleman will have ample opportunity to help Members on both sides

of the aisle find savings as we make

our way through this budget process.

This, in my opinion, Mr. Chairman, is

not the place to be penny-wise and dollar foolish, and risk the very existance

of this very vital hatchery facility.

Mr. STUDDS. Mr. Chairman, will the

gentleman yield?

Mr. SAXTON. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Mr. STUDDS. Mr. Chairman, I thank

the gentleman for yielding to me.

Mr. Chairman, it is not very often

that I find myself differing from the

gentleman from California [Mr. MILLER]. We did, as the gentleman has indicated, go through this in subcommittee and in full. I am the first to concede that this is not one of the more

cosmic issues of our day, and really

ought not to be taking up a great deal

of time, with all due respect to the

State and the gentlewoman who represents it.

However, let me just say that I think

I know what the gentleman from California is concerned about as he looks

down in the future here. I share his

concern of what may be coming. There

may be attempts for the Federal Government to divest itself of some of our

great national parks and forests and

resources, and God knows to whom and

when. However, I will be at this side if

and when that battle occurs.

However, there is nothing devious

here. This is a State that is willing to

assume the purpose for which the Federal Government acquired these facilities in the first place. It is perfectly

consistent with the normal process of

excessing Federal property. We do not,

as I understand it, normally charge the

States if they bid on and receive land

which has been excessed by the Federal

Government.

There is ample precedent for this in

the past. There are any number of facilities in different States that I think

we will be dealing with in the future. I

do not think that we risk setting some

kind of precedent for the very real concerns of the gentleman from California.

For that reason, I associate myself

with the remarks of the gentleman

from New Jersey.

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, if I may

reclaim my time, I would point out to

all here on the floor and other interested parties that, as a matter of fact,

it could well be the case that the State

of Arkansas could well not afford to be

able to purchase the facility, in which

case the entire program would be jeopardized.

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. Chairman, will

the gentleman yield?

Mr. SAXTON. I yield to the gentlewoman from Arkansas.

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. Chairman, I

thank the gentleman for yielding to

me.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the amendment offered by the

gentleman from California [Mr. MILLER].

I think there are many issues here to

be debated. One point that was just

brought up, in terms of preservation, if

what we want to do is preserve some of

the wonderful natural resources we

have in this Nation, we do have to give

the States the capability. The fact is

most States, and I think we have heard

from many of our fish and wildlife

agency representatives, the States cannot afford it.

The other point that I would make is

the value of the property has changed

considerably since 1983. If you are

going to talk about the fair market

value, since 1983 the State of Arkansas

has put well over $2 million, almost

$2.5 million into the property, which

has enhanced its value. If it had been

abandoned in 1983 by the Federal Government, it would be worth next to

nothing at this point right now anyway.

In terms of the justification given by

the gentleman from California [Mr.

MILLER], in terms of what he is trying

to do, I do not disagree. I tend to find

myself very fiscally responsible as well

and wanting desperately to balance the

budget, but I do feel he has chosen a

poor target in this area.

This is an industry, quite frankly,

where we are producing fish for an industry of tourism and sport fishing. It

is one of the largest in our State. It is

one across the Nation that does have a

tremendous amount of return on the

dollars that are invested. I do think it

is a poor target.

The property is the Federal Government’s, but they did give it up an awful

long time ago. We are simply legalizing

this situation to make sure that the

State of Arkansas can adequately prepare and make the necessary decisions

that they need to keep it a productive

industry. Again, I would certainly

focus that that is exactly what it is.

Mr. Chairman, I would just ask my

colleagues to reason in terms of fiscal

responsibility. This is a good industry

for us across the Nation, and the fish

hatcheries are a big part of that. We

have invested a great deal in the State

of Arkansas.

The CHAIRMAN. The time of the

gentleman from New Jersey [Mr.

SAXTON] has expired.

(By unanimous consent, Mr. SAXTON

was allowed to proceed for 1 additional

minute.)

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. Chairman, will

the gentleman yield?

Mr. SAXTON. I yield to the gentlewoman from Arkansas.

Mrs. LINCOLN. Again, Mr. Chairman, the proceeds from the industry in

sport fishing far exceed the cost of

what we are talking here. I do think it

is important in terms of making sure

we are able to preserve these wonderful

facilities that we have in the Federal

Government to allow the States to do

that.

The chairman of the subcommittee

did point out there is a reversion

clause. If by any chance the States do

not use these facilities for what they

were intended, they do revert back to

the Federal Government.

As I said before, I think in all good

intentions that my colleague, the gentleman from California, may have had,

I do think that this is a poor target in

terms of trying to make a point of saving money and in terms of billing the

States, who cannot afford it, in losing

the preservation of these natural resources that we have.

I just urge my colleagues to oppose

the amendment and pass this bill and

the other two, which are really noncontroversial bills.

The CHAIRMAN. The question is on

the amendment offered by the gentleman from California [Mr. MILLER].

The question was taken; and the

Chairman announced that the noes appeared to have it.

RECORDED VOTE

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

A recorded vote was ordered.

The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were—ayes 96, noes 315,

not voting 23, as follows:

[Roll No. 356]

AYES—96

Ackerman

Andrews

Barrett (WI)

Becerra

Beilenson

Berman

Bonior

Brown (CA)

Brown (OH)

Bryant (TX)

Clay

Clayton

Coble

Coleman

Collins (IL)

Conyers

Costello

Coyne

Danner

DeFazio

DeLauro

Dellums

Deutsch

Dixon

Doggett

Durbin

Ehlers

Eshoo

Fattah

Flake

Ford

Franks (NJ)

Furse

Gejdenson

Gutierrez

Harman

Hastings (FL)

Hinchey

Jacobs

Johnson (SD)

Kaptur

Kennelly

Kildee

Klug

Lantos

Lewis (GA)

LoBiondo

Lowey

Maloney

Martinez

Martini

McDermott

McKinney

Meehan

Meek

Mfume

Miller (CA)
H 5640 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE June 7, 1995

Mineta

Mink

Nadler

Neal

Neumann

Owens

Pastor

Payne (NJ)

Petri

Poshard

Reynolds

Rohrabacher

Roth

Roybal-Allard

Royce

Rush

Sanders

Sanford

Scarborough

Schroeder

Schumer

Sensenbrenner

Serrano

Shays

Slaughter

Stark

Stokes

Torres

Upton

Velazquez

Visclosky

Waters

Watt (NC)

Waxman

Woolsey

Wyden

Wynn

Yates

Zimmer

NOES—315

Abercrombie

Allard

Archer

Armey

Bachus

Baesler

Baker (CA)

Baker (LA)

Baldacci

Ballenger

Barcia

Barrett (NE)

Bartlett

Barton

Bass

Bateman

Bentsen

Bereuter

Bevill

Bilbray

Bilirakis

Bishop

Bliley

Blute

Boehlert

Boehner

Bono

Borski

Boucher

Brewster

Browder

Brown (FL)

Brownback

Bryant (TN)

Bunn

Bunning

Burr

Burton

Buyer

Callahan

Calvert

Camp

Canady

Cardin

Castle

Chabot

Chambliss

Chenoweth

Christensen

Chrysler

Clement

Clinger

Coburn

Collins (GA)

Collins (MI)

Combest

Condit

Cooley

Cox

Cramer

Crane

Crapo

Cremeans

Cunningham

Davis

de la Garza

Deal

DeLay

Diaz-Balart

Dickey

Dicks

Dingell

Dooley

Doolittle

Dornan

Doyle

Dreier

Duncan

Dunn

Edwards

Ehrlich

Emerson

Engel

English

Ensign

Evans

Everett

Ewing

Farr

Fawell

Fazio

Fields (TX)

Filner

Flanagan

Foglietta

Foley

Forbes

Fowler

Fox

Frank (MA)

Franks (CT)

Frelinghuysen

Frisa

Frost

Funderburk

Gallegly

Ganske

Gekas

Geren

Gibbons

Gillmor

Gilman

Gonzalez

Goodlatte

Goodling

Gordon

Goss

Graham

Greenwood

Gunderson

Gutknecht

Hall (OH)

Hall (TX)

Hamilton

Hancock

Hansen

Hastert

Hastings (WA)

Hayes

Hayworth

Hefley

Heineman

Herger

Hilleary

Hilliard

Hobson

Hoekstra

Hoke

Holden

Horn

Hostettler

Houghton

Hoyer

Hunter

Hutchinson

Hyde

Inglis

Istook

Jackson-Lee

Jefferson

Johnson (CT)

Johnson, E.B.

Johnson, Sam

Johnston

Jones

Kasich

Kelly

Kennedy (MA)

Kim

King

Kingston

Klink

Knollenberg

Kolbe

LaFalce

LaHood

Largent

Latham

LaTourette

Laughlin

Lazio

Leach

Levin

Lewis (CA)

Lewis (KY)

Lightfoot

Lincoln

Linder

Lipinski

Livingston

Longley

Luther

Manton

Manzullo

Markey

Mascara

Matsui

McCarthy

McCollum

McCrery

McDade

McHale

McHugh

McInnis

McIntosh

McKeon

McNulty

Menendez

Metcalf

Meyers

Mica

Miller (FL)

Minge

Moakley

Molinari

Mollohan

Montgomery

Moorhead

Moran

Morella

Murtha

Myers

Myrick

Nethercutt

Ney

Norwood

Nussle

Oberstar

Obey

Olver

Ortiz

Orton

Oxley

Packard

Pallone

Parker

Payne (VA)

Peterson (MN)

Pickett

Pombo

Pomeroy

Portman

Pryce

Quillen

Quinn

Radanovich

Rahall

Ramstad

Rangel

Reed

Regula

Riggs

Rivers

Roberts

Roemer

Rogers

Ros-Lehtinen

Rose

Roukema

Sabo

Salmon

Sawyer

Saxton

Schaefer

Schiff

Scott

Seastrand

Shadegg

Shuster

Sisisky

Skaggs

Skeen

Skelton

Smith (MI)

Smith (NJ)

Smith (TX)

Smith (WA)

Solomon

Souder

Spence

Spratt

Stearns

Stenholm

Stockman

Studds

Stump

Stupak

Talent

Tanner

Tate

Tauzin

Taylor (MS)

Taylor (NC)

Tejeda

Thomas

Thompson

Thornberry

Thornton

Thurman

Tiahrt

Torkildsen

Torricelli

Towns

Traficant

Tucker

Vento

Volkmer

Vucanovich

Walker

Walsh

Wamp

Ward

Weldon (FL)

Weldon (PA)

Weller

White

Whitfield

Wicker

Williams

Wilson

Wise

Wolf

Young (AK)

Young (FL)

Zeliff

NOT VOTING—23

Barr

Bonilla

Chapman

Clyburn

Cubin

Fields (LA)

Gephardt

Gilchrest

Green

Hefner

Kanjorski

Kennedy (RI)

Kleczka

Lofgren

Lucas

Paxon

Pelosi

Peterson (FL)

Porter

Richardson

Shaw

Waldholtz

Watts (OK)

b 1419

The Clerk announced the following

pairs:

On this vote:

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas for, with Mr.

WATTS against.

Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana for, with Mrs.

WALDHOLTZ against.

Messrs. HOLDEN FAWELL, and

HORN changed their vote from ‘‘aye’’

to ‘‘no.’’

Mrs. LOWEY and Messrs. NADLER,

ROHRABACHER, STOKES, and NEAL

of Massachusetts changed their vote

from ‘‘no’’ to ‘‘aye.’’

So the amendment was rejected.

The result of the vote was announced

as above recorded.

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, I was attending a drug-free

schools and communities event at the

White House and was not able to make

rollcall vote 356. Had I been present I

would have voted ‘‘aye.’’

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr.

Chairman, I also missed rollcall vote

356. I was attending a drug free schools

event at the White House. If I had been

present, I would have voted ‘‘yes.’’

The CHAIRMAN. There being no further amendments, under the rule the

Committee rises.

Accordingly, the Committee rose;

and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.

LAHOOD) having assumed the chair, Mr.

CAMP, Chairman of the Committee of

the Whole House on the State of the

Union, reported that that Committee,

having had under consideration the bill

(H.R. 535) to direct the Secretary of the

Interior to convey the Corning National Fish Hatchery to the State of

Arkansas, pursuant to House Resolution 144, he reported the bill back to

the House with an amendment adopted

by the Committee of the Whole.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under

the rule, the previous question is ordered.

The question is on the amendment.

The amendment was agreed to.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The

question is on the engrossment and

third reading of the bill.

The bill was ordered to be engrossed

and read a third time, was read the

third time, and passed, and a motion to

reconsider was laid on the table.

CONVEYANCE OF THE FAIRPORT

NATIONAL FISH HATCHERY TO

fTHE STATE OF IOWA

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 145 and rule

XXIII, the Chair declares the House in

the Committee of the Whole House on

the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 584.

b 1421

IN THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE

Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole

House on the State of the Union for the

consideration of the bill (H.R. 584) to

direct the Secretary of the Interior to

convey a fish hatchery to the State of

Iowa, with Mr. CAMP in the chair.

The Clerk read the title of the bill.

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the

rule, the bill is considered as having

been read the first time.

Under the rule, the gentleman from

New Jersey [Mr. SAXTON] and the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr.

STUDDS] will each be recognized for 30

minutes.

The Chair recognizes the gentleman

from New Jersey [Mr. SAXTON].

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield

myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong

support of this noncontroversial legislation.

H.R. 584 was introduced by Mr.

LEACH. It would convey the Fairport

National Fish Hatchery from the U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service to the State

of Iowa. It is my understanding that

this facility was built in the 1930’s, and

as you can imagine, it is in need of improvement. Due to Federal budget constraints, the State of Iowa agreed to

assume operational control of the facility in 1973. The State of Iowa has managed, maintained, and staffed the

Fairport Fish Hatchery for the past 22

years, and has made some cosmetic

changes. If the State of Iowa had not

stepped in when the Federal Government found its management too costly,

this hatchery would have closed and its

fishery resources would have ceased to

exist.

Now the State of Iowa would like the

authority to modernize the facility,

which would be accomplished by this

legislation. H.R. 584 will formalize a

permanent transfer of title between the

Federal and State Government. The

State of Iowa has committed over $2

million to the operation of this facility

over the past 22 years. Further, it has

spent $220,000 on necessary improvements to the hatchery.

This is a noncontroversial bill and

will accomplish its goal without