June 7, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H 5645

Mr. Chairman, I just want to say to

my good friend from California that

God loves a repentant sinner, and I remember in the Bible when Paul is on

the road to Damascus, then called

Saul, and Christ appeared to him,and

he had a miraculous conversion and became, instead of a zealot against

Christ, he became a supporter and became one of the greatest apostles of

all, and the gentleman from California

has been, at least to my recollection,

one of the bigger spenders in the body,

and apparently he has some new found

fiscal conservatism, and I just like to

say, I really appreciate that conversion, and I hope that conversion continues when we get to the appropriations bills later in the year, because

later in the year we’ll have the opportunity to make some major cuts in

spending, and since this new found conservatism has risen in this gentleman’s

psyche, I hope it continues, and I would

congratulate him on becoming a fiscal

conservative.

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. I yield to

the gentleman from California.

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman’s remarks, but they are somewhat off target. The fact of the matter is that in

these issues before the committee,

which I have now sat on for 20 years,

my position has always been that the

Federal Treasury and the Federal taxpayer, whether it is in my district in

California, in the Western United

States or anywhere else, is entitled to

fair market value for the resources.

Most of these pieces of legislation that

have made it to the floor the gentleman from the well has voted against

for, I am sure, other reasons than those

reasons, but the fact is we have voted,

whether it is in water subsidies, mining

subsidies, timber subsidies, and tried to

regain for the people some control over

those, that has been my historical

record, and it has happened no matter

without question where the project existed or elsewhere, and so the gentleman’s arrow is somewhat misplaced at

this point, but I appreciate his support

for the concept that I am expressing

here and expect his vote on this amendment because that road to Damascus

was started with one small step, and

the gentleman can take it here today.

I am sure the gentleman from Iowa

[Mr. LEACH] will have some other literary reference at some point——

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Reclaiming

my time, let me just say that I am

happy to see that the gentleman is

moving in the right direction, and I

hope, when we get to the appropriations bills later this year, that he will

continue to be fiscally conservative.

Mr. MINGE. Mr. Chairman, I move to

strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. Chairman, I am concerned that

we try to maintain a certain level of

consistency, and I would point out to

the gentleman from California that in

November of 1993 he did vote for legislation that included the nonreimbursed

advance of the hatchery in Senecaville,

OH, and I am curious that now he has

seen that this is no longer a good policy, he would like to depart from that.

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. Chairman, I

move to strike the requisite number of

words.

Mr. Chairman, I heard somebody a

minute ago from the other side of the

aisle mention the National Taxpayers

Union, and I think it is appropriate to

point out the lack of credibility that

that organization has with most Members of this House and certainly with

most Members of the other body. Some

may wonder why that is. Let me remind Members that when the Senate

was controlled by the Republican

Party, and the House was controlled by

the Democratic Party, the National

Taxpayers Union used double standards

in order to rank and rate Members’

votes about whether they were conservative enough or liberal enough.

Whatever it was, they were going to

make the report. So, when you pass an

appropriations on this side of the

House and voted for it, it was a bad

vote for the National Taxpayers Union.

That same bill passing the Senate,

however, was not counted as a bad vote

against a Senator.

So, I think it is appropriate, Mr.

Chairman, that any time somebody

gets up and touts that particular organization, that those of us who understand that they use a double standard

ought to stand up and say so.

The CHAIRMAN. The question is on

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

The amendment was rejected.

b 1500

The CHAIRMAN. If there are 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. 584) to direct the Secretary

of the Interior to convey a fish hatchery to the State of Iowa, he reported

the bill back to the House.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under

the rule, the previous question is ordered.

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.

MESSAGE FROM THE PRESIDENT

A message in writing from the Presifdent of the United States was communicated to the House by Mrs. Sara

Emery, one of his secretaries.

NEW LONDON NATIONAL FISH

HATCHERY CONVEYANCE ACT

fThe SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 146 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. 614.

b 1502

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. 614) to

direct the Secretary of the Interior to

convey to the State of Minnesota the

New London National Fish Hatchery

production facility, 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 suspect this debate

will be somewhat shorter than the last

one. I cannot think of anything that

can be said that has not already been

said, including references to outside organizations and other such debate. But

this bill, which is brought to us by the

gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. MINGE]

with reference to the New London National Fish Hatchery in Minnesota, is

substantively the same as the previous

two bills. It is of the same level of importance as the previous two bills. I

would hope that, once again, this bill

would proceed to be passed 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, ditto. I

really join the gentleman from New

Jersey in being utterly unable to conjure anything that has not been said at

least three times before.

I take that back, I can think of one

thing. I understand the desire of the

new majority to tote up on the scoreboard the number of open rules that

they have successfully adopted, but I

would enter just one personal plea to

go back to the old system of suspensions.

The gentleman from New Jersey and

I and the gentleman from Alaska and I

and others in the old days would have

been finished these three bills approximately 11⁄2 hours ago. We could be well

on our way toward dinner. There are

matters that require the time of the

House, but with all due respect, these

three bills, which are very good and

should be passed, do not require that

much time. We should proceed.
H 5646 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE June 7, 1995

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 614,

a bill to transfer title of the New London National Fish Hatchery to the State of Minnesota.

The New London hatchery has been operated by the State of Minnesota under a

memorandum of understanding with the fish

and Wildlife Service since the early 1980’s. It

produces walleye and muskies for a wide

range of State fishery programs.

The State of Minnesota has made some

minor improvements to the facility, and it is

now interested in making more significant capital investments. In order to do so, the State

first needs title to the property. This bill would

give title to the State and protect the interests

of the Federal Government by requiring that

title revert to the Fish and Wildlife Service in

the event that Minnesota 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 and two

more hatcheries we are transferring today. It is

supported by both the State and the administration, and I urge Members support.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to

the distinguished gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. MINGE].

(Mr. MINGE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. MINGE. Mr. Chairman, the previous speakers are indeed correct. Virtually everything has been said about

fish hatchery bills today that needs to

be said. There are two things, however,

I would like to add, two comments.

The first is that you need to recognize that we have had extended discussion this afternoon about the importance of the Federal Government being

compensated for assets that transfer to

State and local governments and to

other parties. I wholeheartedly embrace that principle, and I applaud the

gentleman from California for having

raised our sensitivity to that important concept. I will not applaud out

loud, but I will just do so figuratively.

I do think it is important, however,

to recognize the context in which these

transfers are occurring. The gentleman

from Iowa has certainly laid out a fivepart test for whether or not we ought

to go through the exercise of appraisal.

If all five parts of his test are met, I

would suggest that it is a futile expenditure of taxpayer funds to go

through that appraisal process.

In the context of the Minnesota facility, I would like to mention two considerations which I think are important and also indicate that this property is of de minimis value to the Federal Government.

First, all of the land that is included

in the Minnesota situation has been

classified as wetlands. The Minnesota

Department of Natural Resources has

advised me of this. This means that

this land is not suitable for development. Indeed, it cannot be developed

under State and Federal law. The Federal Government and the policies that

we have developed in the Clean Water

Act, swampbuster, as a part of the

farm bill, and other legislation, all indicate that it is inconsistent with Federal policy to so develop land.

The other point that I wish to make

with respect to the Minnesota property

is that the Federal law already authorizes the transfer of this property by the

Secretary of the Interior to the States

without compensation so long as it is

used for the designated purpose.

The difficulty that we would face in

using this Federal procedure is that we

would have to shut down the operation

of the fish hatchery to confirm that it

indeed is surplus property. To shut

down the operation of the fish hatchery, go through the exercise of determining that it is a surplus property,

and then in turn conveying it to the

States, simply adds to the complexity

and the cost of the process. Historically we have operated in a very informal and expeditious fashion with these

assets in Congress, and I see no reason

to go back to the ad hoc disposal of

this by the Secretary of the Interior in

a more complex fashion. Therefore, I

urge that this bill be approved.

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield

myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I hate to burn up the

time, but I just feel as if I have to just

say a word. When the gentleman from

Massachusetts [Mr. STUDDS] made note

that these bills were being considered

under an open rule, which for people

who are not familiar with that gives

any Member of the House the opportunity to stand, as the gentleman from

California [Mr. MILLER] has on two occasions so far, and undoubtedly will

again on this bill, to offer an amendment of his or her choice, this has

come about because as I experienced

during the time that I was here as a

Member of the minority for 10 years,

we did not enjoy, as Members of the

minority, the opportunity to offer

amendments very often under an open

rule.

Some here may remember a few

months ago there was a document that

became quite the talk of the town

called the Contract With America. Part

of the Contract With America was a

provision or statement or series of

statements that promised that we

would open the process.

This is an example of, where possible,

we are trying to open the process. If it

were not for this open process, it is

true that we would have consumed perhaps an hour total on these three bills,

and the gentleman from California [Mr.

MILLER] would have been precluded his

opportunity to make his statement in

the form of amendments on these bills.

So there has been a great deal said in

this session about promises made and

promises kept. It is not always comfortable on either side to spend the

time or the effort to keep promises.

But today is a part of the promises

that were made during the 1994 campaign, and once again a promise kept.

So I hope the gentleman will appreciate the opportunity that the new majority has provided for the purposes of

these types of discussions and these

types of amendment procedures, which

are a relatively new phenomenon

around here. We are quite proud to say

we are keeping our promise.

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

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

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I guess like my budget cutting

tendencies, they were well kept secrets

around here, but I just wanted the gentleman to know as the staff on your

side knows, I never both brought a bill

to the floor from this committee under

a closed rule. They were always open

rules. As the gentleman from California [Mr. LEWIS], who sits behind you

can testify, we had the most open rule

and the longest debate in the history of

the Congress.

I want to commend the minority for,

hopefully, what will be an increasing

commitment to open rules because I

think it is the only way to do business.

But I knew it was a well-kept secret.

Mr. SAXTON. I believe you the gentleman meant to say ‘‘commend the

majority.’’

Mr. MILLER of California. Majority,

soon to be minority.

Mr. STUDDS. Mr. Chairman, I yield

myself 2 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, I am not going to prolong this, God help us all. But I cannot

help but help observing that the debate

on this bill under this rule could go on

all night and tomorrow and for the rest

of next week and into next month. For

that degree of breathtaking openness,

we are indebted to the new majority.

I must also observe the $16-billionplus bill we are going to take up in 10

minutes teminates in 61⁄2 hours. This

might be called selective openness, not

where we need it, but do not need it.

I would also observe in a personal

matter that in my first term here, I

thought open rules were a very good

idea. Since then I have come to reconsider. The function of the Committee

on Rules, it seems to me, ought to be

to look at those major propositions

that are before the House and to allow

them to be voted on. But to let us go

on indefinitely I think is a mistake. In

any event, I shall cease going on indefinitely, and with great relief I will yield

back the balance of my time.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I support H.R. 614, which was introduced by the

gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. MINGE].

This legislation would transfer the ownership

of the New London Fish Hatchery facility from

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to the State

of Minnesota’s Department of Natural Resources. H.R. 614 would convey all rights,

title, and interest of the United States to the

State of Minnesota. This includes all property,

buildings, water rights, and easements of the

New London facility.

It is my understanding that the hatchery has

been operated by the Minnesota Department

of Natural Resources for the Fish and Wildlife

Service under a memorandum of agreement

[MOA] since 1983. This MOA, which was extended in 1993, expires in 1998.

The hatchery facility is actually located on

two separate pieces of land. One is located

outside the town of New London and is owned
June 7, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H 5647

by the Fish and Wildlife Service. The other is

located within the town of New London; the

State had owned the property but transferred

it to the Fish and Wildlife Service in 1939.

Finally, the bill stipulates that this property

revert back to the Federal Government if the

State of Minnesota decides it no longer wishes

to operate the hatchery as a fishery resources

management facility.

The Fish and Wildlife Service supports this

transfer and I urge my colleagues to vote

‘‘aye’’ on this measure.

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I have

no further requests for time, and 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.

The text of H.R. 614 is as follows:

H.R. 614

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

Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. CONVEYANCE OF NEW LONDON NATIONAL FISH HATCHERY PRODUCTION FACILITY.

(a) CONVEYANCE AUTHORIZED.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law and

within 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Interior shall convey to the State of Minnesota

without reimbursement all right, title, and

interest of the United States in and to the

property comprising the New London National Fish Hatchery production facility, located outside of downtown New London,

Minnesota, including—

(1) all easements and water rights relating

to that property, and

(2) all land, improvements, and related personal property comprising that production

facility.

(b) USE OF PROPERTY.—All property and interests conveyed under this section shall be

used by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources for the Minnesota fishery resources management program.

(c) REVERSIONARY INTEREST.—All right,

title, and interest in and to all property and

interests conveyed under this section shall

revert to the United States on any date on

which any of the property or interests are

used other than for the Minnesota fishery resources management program.

The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the committee amendment.

The text of the committee amendment is as follows:

Committee amendment: Page 2, line 19,

strike lines 19 through 24 and insert:

(c) USE AND REVERSIONARY INTEREST.—The

property conveyed to the State of Minnesota

pursuant to this section shall be used by the

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

property conveyed pursuant to this section

shall revert to the United States. The State

of Minnesota 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.

The CHAIRMAN. If there are 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. 614) to direct the Secretary of the

Interior to convey to the State of Minnesota the New London National Fish

Hatchery production facility, pursuant

to House Resolution 146, 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 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.

fb 1515

PROVIDING FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1561, AMERICAN

OVERSEAS INTERESTS ACT OF

1995

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr.

LAHOOD). The pending business is the

question of agreeing to the resolution

(H. Res. 156) providing for further consideration of the bill (H.R. 1561) to consolidate the foreign affairs agencies of

the United States; to authorize appropriations for the Department of State

and related agencies for fiscal years

1996 and 1997; to responsibly reduce the

authorizations of appropriations for

United States foreign assistance programs for fiscal years 1996 and 1997, and

for other purposes, on which the yeas

and nays are ordered.

The Clerk read the title of the resolution.

The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were—yeas 252, nays

168, not voting 14, as follows:

[Roll No. 357]

YEAS—252

Allard

Archer

Armey

Bachus

Baesler

Baker (CA)

Baker (LA)

Ballenger

Barr

Barrett (NE)

Bartlett

Barton

Bass

Bateman

Bereuter

Bevill

Bilbray

Bilirakis

Bliley

Blute

Boehlert

Boehner

Bono

Boucher

Brewster

Browder

Brownback

Bryant (TN)

Bunn

Bunning

Burr

Burton

Buyer

Callahan

Calvert

Camp

Canady

Castle

Chabot

Chambliss

Chenoweth

Christensen

Chrysler

Clinger

Coble

Coburn

Collins (GA)

Combest

Condit

Cooley

Cox

Cramer

Crane

Crapo

Cremeans

Cunningham

Davis

de la Garza

Deal

DeLay

Diaz-Balart

Dickey

Dingell

Dooley

Doolittle

Dornan

Dreier

Duncan

Dunn

Ehlers

Ehrlich

Emerson

English

Ensign

Everett

Ewing

Fawell

Fields (TX)

Flanagan

Foley

Forbes

Ford

Fowler

Fox

Franks (CT)

Franks (NJ)

Frelinghuysen

Frisa

Frost

Funderburk

Gallegly

Ganske

Gekas

Gilchrest

Gillmor

Gilman

Goodlatte

Goodling

Goss

Graham

Greenwood

Gunderson

Gutknecht

Hall (TX)

Hancock

Hansen

Hastert

Hastings (WA)

Hayworth

Hefley

Heineman

Herger

Hilleary

Hobson

Hoekstra

Hoke

Horn

Hostettler

Hunter

Hutchinson

Hyde

Inglis

Istook

Jacobs

Johnson (CT)

Johnson, Sam

Jones

Kasich

Kelly

Kim

King

Kingston

Klug

Knollenberg

Kolbe

LaHood

Largent

Latham

LaTourette

Laughlin

Lazio

Leach

Lewis (CA)

Lewis (KY)

Lightfoot

Linder

Livingston

LoBiondo

Longley

Manton

Manzullo

Martini

McCollum

McCrery

McDade

McHale

McHugh

McInnis

McIntosh

McKeon

Meek

Metcalf

Meyers

Mica

Miller (FL)

Molinari

Montgomery

Moorhead

Moran

Morella

Murtha

Myers

Myrick

Nethercutt

Neumann

Ney

Norwood

Nussle

Ortiz

Oxley

Packard

Parker

Payne (VA)

Peterson (MN)

Petri

Pombo

Porter

Portman

Pryce

Quillen

Quinn

Radanovich

Ramstad

Regula

Roberts

Rogers

Rohrabacher

Ros-Lehtinen

Roth

Roukema

Royce

Salmon

Sanford

Saxton

Scarborough

Schaefer

Schiff

Seastrand

Sensenbrenner

Shadegg

Shaw

Shays

Shuster

Sisisky

Skeen

Skelton

Smith (MI)

Smith (NJ)

Smith (TX)

Smith (WA)

Solomon

Souder

Spence

Stearns

Stockman

Stump

Talent

Tate

Taylor (NC)

Thomas

Thornberry

Thurman

Tiahrt

Torkildsen

Traficant

Upton

Vucanovich

Walker

Walsh

Wamp

Ward

Weldon (FL)

Weldon (PA)

Weller

White

Whitfield

Wicker

Wilson

Wolf

Young (FL)

Zeliff

Zimmer

NAYS—168

Abercrombie

Ackerman

Andrews

Baldacci

Barcia

Barrett (WI)

Becerra

Beilenson

Bentsen

Berman

Bishop

Bonior

Borski

Brown (CA)

Brown (FL)

Brown (OH)

Bryant (TX)

Cardin

Chapman

Clay

Clayton

Clement

Clyburn

Coleman

Collins (IL)

Collins (MI)

Conyers

Costello

Coyne

Danner

DeFazio

DeLauro

Dellums

Deutsch

Dicks

Dixon

Doggett

Doyle

Durbin

Edwards

Engel

Eshoo

Evans

Farr

Fattah

Fazio

Fields (LA)

Filner

Flake

Foglietta

Frank (MA)

Furse

Gejdenson

Gephardt

Geren

Gibbons

Gonzalez

Gordon

Green

Gutierrez

Hall (OH)

Hamilton

Harman

Hastings (FL)

Hefner

Hilliard

Hinchey

Holden

Hoyer

Jackson-Lee

Jefferson

Johnson (SD)

Johnson, E. B.

Johnston

Kanjorski

Kaptur

Kennedy (MA)

Kennedy (RI)

Kennelly

Kildee

Klink

LaFalce

Lantos

Levin

Lewis (GA)

Lincoln

Lipinski

Lowey

Luther

Maloney

Markey

Martinez

Mascara

Matsui

McCarthy

McDermott

McKinney

McNulty

Meehan

Menendez

Mfume

Miller (CA)

Mineta

Minge

Mink

Moakley

Mollohan

Nadler

Neal

Oberstar

Obey

Olver

Orton

Owens

Pallone

Pastor

Payne (NJ)

Pickett

Pomeroy

Poshard

Rahall

Rangel

Reed

Reynolds

Richardson

Rivers