[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 156 (Saturday, November 8, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H10384-H10385]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH, EXTENSION, AND EDUCATION REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF
1997
The SPEAKER. The pending business is the question of suspending the
rules and passing the bill, H.R. 2534, as amended.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER. The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman
from Oregon (Mr. Smith) that the House suspend the rules and pass the
bill, H.R. 2534, as amended, on which the yeas and nays are ordered.
This will be a five-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 291,
nays 125, not voting 18, as follows:
[Roll No. 618]
YEAS--291
Aderholt
Allen
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baesler
Baker
Baldacci
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berry
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Bliley
Blunt
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady
Brown (CA)
Bryant
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Cannon
Cardin
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Condit
Cook
Cooksey
Costello
Cox
Coyne
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cunningham
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dooley
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Ensign
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Ewing
Farr
Fawell
Foley
Ford
Fossella
Fowler
Fox
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gilman
Gingrich
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Granger
Green
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Hefner
Herger
Hill
Hilleary
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Hooley
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (WI)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kanjorski
Kasich
Kelly
Kennelly
Kim
Kind (WI)
King (NY)
Kingston
Klink
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaFalce
LaHood
Lampson
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Livingston
LoBiondo
Lucas
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Manzullo
Mascara
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McHugh
McInnis
McIntyre
McKeon
Metcalf
Mica
Miller (FL)
Minge
Mollohan
Moran (KS)
Morella
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Olver
Ortiz
Oxley
Packard
Pappas
Parker
Pastor
Paxon
Pease
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pickett
Pitts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Poshard
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Redmond
Regula
Reyes
Riggs
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roukema
Ryun
Salmon
Sandlin
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer, Dan
Schaffer, Bob
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shimkus
Shuster
Sisisky
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (OR)
Smith (TX)
Smith, Adam
Smith, Linda
Snowbarger
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stabenow
Stearns
Stenholm
Stump
Stupak
Sununu
Talent
Tanner
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Thomas
Thompson
Thornberry
Thune
Thurman
Tiahrt
Traficant
Turner
Upton
Wamp
Watkins
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wise
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NAYS--125
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Andrews
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Berman
Blagojevich
Boehlert
Bonior
Borski
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Campbell
Carson
Clay
Conyers
Cummings
Danner
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dellums
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Engel
Eshoo
Fattah
Fazio
Filner
Flake
Forbes
Frank (MA)
Franks (NJ)
Furse
Gejdenson
Gutierrez
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hilliard
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kleczka
Kucinich
Lantos
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Maloney (NY)
Manton
Markey
Martinez
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McGovern
McHale
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller (CA)
Mink
Moakley
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Paul
Payne
Pelosi
Rangel
Rivers
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sanford
Sawyer
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Shays
Sherman
Skaggs
Slaughter
Snyder
Stark
Stokes
Strickland
Tierney
Torres
Towns
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Wexler
Weygand
Woolsey
Wynn
NOT VOTING--18
Ballenger
Blumenauer
Cubin
Foglietta
Gillmor
Gonzalez
Kennedy (MA)
Klug
McDermott
McIntosh
Myrick
Neumann
Quinn
Riley
Schiff
Taylor (NC)
Walsh
Yates
{time} 1540
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas and Mr. DAVIS of Florida changed
their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mr. GREEN and Mr. LUTHER changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So (two-thirds having voted in favor thereof) the rules were
suspended and the bill, as amended, was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take
from the Speaker's table the Senate bill (S. 1150), to ensure that
federally funded agricultural research, extension, and education
address high-priority concerns with national or multistate
significance, to reform, extend, and eliminate certain agricultural
research programs, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The Clerk read the title of the Senate bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Ewing). Is there objection to the
request of the gentleman from Oregon?
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, I ask the
gentleman from Oregon [Mr. Smith], is
[[Page H10385]]
this on the bill we just passed? I voted for the bill that we just
passed. But there is a lot of concern, as my colleague knows. And I
presume we are going to conference on this bill.
Is that correct, Mr. Chairman?
Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, I cannot hear the gentleman from
Maryland [Mr. Hoyer]. How did he vote?
Mr. HOYER. I voted ``aye'' on the bill.
Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Good.
Mr. HOYER. I know the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. Smith] thinks that
is good. The chairman or the ranking member of the Committee on
Appropriations does not think it is good. The reason he does not think
it is good is because we on the Committee on Appropriations are
concerned that there is already a done deal and the Committee on
Appropriations is going to be in a bad strait as a result.
Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HOYER. I yield to the gentleman from Oregon.
Mr. SMITH of Oregon. I say to the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer]
that there has been no negotiation with the Senate, the other body.
There has been not one word from me or anyone in the House or on the
Committee on Agriculture or by the staff. We have been awaiting the
passage of a clean bill, which all should support. We have heard the
questions raised from some as we debated the bill.
I understand the issues. Both parties will be, of course, represented
in the conference. And I understand the concern of the gentleman from
Maryland [Mr. Hoyer].
Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. Smith].
Under those circumstances, I will not object.
Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Oregon?
Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, I would like
to yield to the chairman, the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. Smith], to ask
a couple of questions with regard to the conference that the committee
would have on this bill.
The question I have is, if we are going to conference, my
understanding is there is a large difference between the Senate version
and the House version in one critical respect, that the Senate version
extracts $1.2 billion in savings from food stamp programs through
administrative accounts, and my understanding from the Senate bill is
that none of that money was put back into food stamps.
On this side, some of my colleagues are concerned that none of the
money, that $1.2 billion, will be used to restore food stamp programs,
$27\1/2\ billion that was cut last year.
Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BECERRA. I yield to the gentleman from Oregon.
Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from California is
correct, the House bill is an authorization of $2.8 billion to various
States regarding agricultural research, which has come unanimously from
the Committee on Agriculture.
{time} 1545
The Senate bill has an additional $1.25 billion, and frankly I am not
exactly sure how they want to distribute it. But I have heard, as I
mentioned, from many people, including the gentleman from California,
regarding his concern. He will have representatives on the conference
committee. So will we. To try to suggest to him what will be finally
decided by the conference committee, I cannot. All I can say to the
gentleman is if this bill does not pass and the gentleman objects, then
he has no possibility of gaining anything that he wants out of the
conference committee.
Mr. BECERRA. Reclaiming my time, my understanding is we are operating
under martial law which allows any bill to come to the floor under a
unanimous-consent request. Most of us who opposed the bill right now on
suspension are not opposed to this House bill. What we are opposed to
is the preconferencing that we are aware of that has already been
undertaken on this bill with the Senate which did not include funding
for food stamps, at least not to any measurable degree. The concern on
the part of a number of us is that the $1.2 billion that will be taken
out of food stamps will not be used to any measurable degree to go back
to food stamps. Otherwise, I think he would find that virtually with a
unanimous vote, this bill would go through if there were some assurance
that there would be money invested in food stamps to restore some of
the $27.5 billion that we cut from food stamps last year.
Mr. SMITH of Oregon. If the gentleman will yield further, I am sorry
the gentleman missed the debate. He could have responded in exactly
that way instead of at this late date. But let me say to the gentleman
as I have responded to the gentleman from Maryland, there has been no
preconferencing of this bill. Beyond that, it is very difficult for me
to predict what will occur in a conference committee. I can tell the
gentleman that his side will be represented and I have heard his
concerns. I reiterate. If the gentleman does not allow this bill to
pass, he will have no chance to increase funding for his concerns at
all. If he allows this bill to go forward, he will have a chance in the
conference, and if he does not like it, he merely defeats the
conference report.
Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BECERRA. I yield to the gentlewoman from North Carolina.
Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Speaker, I want to say that I voted for the bill
but I also support the cause for I know why 125 did not. I voted for
the bill because nothing in the bill itself says it is going to take
any of that money to use it in any way. But because people have the
lack of trust in the conferencing process, they are now expressing
their will now. Not because of the bill. I guess if the chairman and
the ranking member could assure that in that process that those moneys
that have been allocated to food, $1.2 billion, would not be deviated
or given to other things, I think that kind of advocacy or opportunity
for advocacy would reassure people here that what is now clean would
later become convoluted and taking away much needed resources from
people who need it who are hungry.
Mr. SMITH of Oregon. If the gentleman will yield further, just as I
have not preconferenced with the Senate nor do I want to preconference
with this body, the point is that I have listened, as has the ranking
member on the Committee on Agriculture who no doubt will be on the
conference committee. We understand the gentlewoman's concerns and we
will take them to the conference.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BECERRA. Further reserving the right to object, I yield to the
gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I do not want to arbitrarily cut this off, but
at the same time I do not want the House to engage in needless
conversation when this proposition is going to be objected to, and I am
going to object. The fact is that we have been told by a lobbyist on
good authority that he has already been told what number he is going to
get under the conference agreement. It seems to me that there may not
have been a preconference, but it appears to me that there is a pretty
good idea of what is likely to happen once that conference takes place.
I do not want this House to be in a position where Members,
regardless of which side of the issue they are on, find the committee
coming back in the dead of night with a done deal and having this bill
pass with virtually nobody on the floor.
To try to help save Members from that, I do object.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Ewing). Objection is heard.
____________________