[Pages H5636-H5640]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

CORNING NATIONAL FISH HATCHERY CONVEYANCE ACT

The 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.

{time} 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.

[[Page H5637]]

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. [[Page H5638]]
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.

{time} 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 [[Page H5639]] 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) [[Page H5640]]
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)

{time} 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.

____________________