[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 67 (Friday, May 22, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H3761-H3773]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




   DISPOSING OF CONFERENCE REPORT ON S. 1150, AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH, 
              EXTENSION, AND EDUCATION REFORM ACT OF 1998

  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 446 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 446

         Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall 
     be in order to consider the conference report to accompany 
     the 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. All points of 
     order against the conference report (except those arising 
     under clause 3 of rule XXVIII and predicated on provisions in 
     subtitle A of title V) and against its consideration (except 
     those arising under section 425 of the Congressional Budget 
     Act of 1974) are waived. If a point of order against the 
     conference report for failure to comply with clause 3 of rule 
     XXVIII is sustained, the conference report shall be 
     considered as rejected and the pending question shall be, 
     without intervention of any point of order, whether the House 
     shall recede from its amendment and agree to an amendment to 
     the Senate bill consisting of the text of the conference 
     report, modified by striking subtitle A of title V. The 
     previous question shall be considered as ordered on the 
     motion to final adoption without intervening motion or demand 
     for division of the question.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Calvert). The gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Solomon) is recognized for one hour.

                              {time}  1000

  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of the of debate only, I 
yield 30 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall), pending which I 
yield myself such time as I might consume. All time yielded is for 
purposes of debate only.
  This rule waives all points of order against the conference report, 
except for two. First, the rule will allow points of order for 
violations of the Unfunded Mandate Reform Act. The Congressional Budget 
Office has already determined that the conference report contains 
unfunded mandates to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars; in my 
own State of New York, in this letter from Governor George Pataki, 
several hundred million dollars alone which will have to be passed on 
to local property taxpayers in the State of New York.
  Now, before consideration of the conference report, any Member may 
make a point of order that it contains an unfunded mandate, and at some 
point in a few minutes I will move to put back in the unfunded mandate 
that was inadvertently removed from the bill, even though I oppose it 
and I will raise a point of order to strike out the unfunded mandate 
that we have just put back in. However, that would require a 20 minute 
debate and a vote, so that everybody understands they will have that 
opportunity to vote on whether to proceed with an unfunded mandate. 
That will be the pay-for for crop insurance and food stamps for legal 
aliens and other categories.
  The second point of order against the conference report permitted by 
this rule is for the violation of scope of conference rule. This rule 
prohibits the conferees from adding material in the conference which 
was not considered in either the House or the Senate, and here we are 
talking about an $800 million expenditure for food stamps for legal 
aliens, for refugees, for a group of Indians, for a group of people 
coming out of Laos and Cambodia, and a number of other people. In this 
case, the conference report contains several provisions which are 
beyond the scope of the conference.
  Under the rule, the point of order is specifically allowed against 
the part of the conference report, again, which provides $800 million 
for food stamps for certain noncitizens, in subtitle A of Title V.
  Mr. Speaker, the conference report is available on both sides of the 
aisle, and if my colleagues want to know what they are voting on as far 
as the food stamps are concerned, they need to look up subtitle A of 
Title V, and it is a very brief description of who is qualified in this 
bill.
  If this point of order is sustained by the Chair, technically the 
conference report falls, and the rule then provides that the pending 
question will be whether to agree to an amendment consisting of 
everything that was in the conference report except the money for food 
stamps for certain noncitizens.
  Mr. Speaker, this conference report contains numerous violations of 
House rules, and these are major issues that were put into this bill 
after it left both the House and the Senate. There are multiple points 
of order which would be available to the Members of the House if this 
agreement were to be brought up under the privileged status which 
conference reports theoretically enjoy in the House.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, this conference report was filed on April 27 and it 
has languished on this calendar since. It was presented to the 
Committee on Rules yesterday, and the managers on the part of the House 
requested a rule waiving all points of order against the conference 
report and against its consideration.
  Among the many points of order which could be made against this 
conference report are as follows:
  Clause 3 of rule 28, prohibiting matters which extend beyond the 
scope of the conference.
  Clause 4 of rule 28, prohibiting nongermane Senate material, an 
example of which is section 226(f), the redistribution of funds under 
the matching funds requirement for research and extension activities at 
1890 institutions.
  Clause 2 of rule 20, so we can see how complicated this is, which 
prohibits consideration of Senate amendments which would violate clause 
2 of Rule XXI, which in turn prohibits appropriations on an authorizing 
measure, which includes many, many, many, many, many provisions. So we 
are breaking the rules of our House by going ahead today with this.
  Now, some of these are: Section 252, which is the Fund for Rural 
America; Title IV, miscellaneous fees; various nutrition programs in 
the bill; and the National Organic Certification Fees, and it goes on 
and on and on. I am just trying to point out to my colleagues, all of 
these things were added to this bill after it left both houses, so none 
of us have any idea of what is in this bill, including me.
  Section 303 of the Congressional Budget Act, which prohibits 
consideration of legislation creating new budgetary authority in a 
fiscal year before passage of the budget resolution. That is in here. 
This new budget authority is largely contained in the food stamps 
title.
  The conference report also contains legislative provisions in the 
jurisdiction of other House committees, including the Committee on 
Resources and the Committee on Appropriations, and the Committee on 
Appropriations

[[Page H3762]]

should be very concerned about what is happening here, because the 
Members that serve on standing committees always raise a ruckus when 
the Committee on Appropriations tries to legislate in their 
appropriation bill, taking away the jurisdiction in the standing 
committees. This is just the opposite. Here we have one authorizing 
committee taking away the jurisdiction of the appropriations 
committees.
  Finally, the unfunded mandates that I described earlier. Mr. Speaker, 
from among this panoply of options, the Committee on Rules chose two 
particularly egregious violations of House rules and we crafted the 
rule accordingly, trying to follow the Rules of the House.
  The rule therefore, and this is what we ought to listen to because it 
gets complicated, the rule, therefore allows Members to make an 
unfunded mandate point of order, which if I am allowed to put it back 
in by unanimous consent, I will make myself, because I unalterably 
oppose unfunded mandates on State and local governments under any 
circumstances. And then we would have a dedicated period of debate on 
my motion to raise the point of order against the unfunded mandate. We 
would have a period of debate, 20 minutes, and a vote on whether to 
consider the conference report with that unfunded mandate in it.
  That is fair. Everybody gets a clean shot. If we want to go ahead 
with it, we vote ``yes''. If we want to kill the bill then, we vote 
``no''. That is normal, regular rules of order.
  The rule then allows any Member to make a point of order under the 
scope rule, clause 3 of rule 28, against subtitle A, title V of the 
conference report, which I have just outlined to my colleagues, which 
contains both the unfunded mandate and the provision expanding food 
stamps to legal aliens.
  This rule gives the House the opportunity to take out of the 
conference report the food stamp provisions, which many of us object 
to, which never should have been in the conference report in the first 
place. Again, they were not in the House bill, they were not in the 
Senate bill. And the unfunded mandate saddles States and local 
governments, every one of our States, it saddles the States and local 
governments, local governments which raise their revenues to pay for 
these unfunded mandates out of property taxes. In other words, if we 
leave this mandate in, we are mandating an increase on property taxes 
on every one of our constituents throughout America that own a home.

  The bill, when it passed the House, was designed primarily to help 
the Committee on Agriculture and it should have stayed that way, and if 
it did, we would be sailing through here with about a 15 minute debate 
on the rule and a 10 minute debate on the bill and it would have been 
settled. That is the way it was when it left the House and the Senate 
and that is the way it should be today.
  When it came back from conference it was loaded up with these 
mandatory programs which rolled back the landmark welfare reform 
package this Congress passed in 1996, and that is exactly what we are 
doing here today. If we vote ``yes'' on this bill with the food stamps 
in there and these other provisions, saddling unfunded mandates on 
local governments and States, then we are just refuting everything that 
we did two years ago that was overwhelmingly accepted by the American 
people. Eighty-four percent of the American people think we did the 
right thing back then, and they are going to think we are doing the 
wrong thing here today.
  This rule gives the House a way to preserve the parts of the bill 
dealing with agriculture, while still taking out some of the most 
egregious add-ons.
  Now, that is what is before us today. Mr. Speaker, again, at the 
appropriate time, as soon as the parliamentarians have had time to 
review my unanimous consent request, I will offer an amendment to the 
rule to ensure that the offsets for crop insurance and food stamps for 
legal aliens are back in the bill.
  Mr. Speaker, in the case of the offset for both of these programs, 
crop insurance and food stamps for legal aliens, it is the unfunded 
mandate that we are talking about. That provision is a reduction in 
administrative costs which passes Federal costs off to the States, and 
therefore a vote for the amendment is a vote to send crop insurance and 
agriculture research to the Senate without food stamps for legal 
aliens, and we are assured that that will pass the Senate today and be 
sent on to the President.
  So I hope that is clear to my colleagues. If it is not, I would be 
glad to entertain any questions as we proceed in this friendly debate.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I want to thank the Chairman of the Committee on Rules, the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Solomon) for yielding me the time.
  As my colleague has described, this is a rule for consideration of 
the conference report on Senate 1150, which is the Agriculture Research 
Extension and Education Act of 1998. It waives all points of order 
except the rules pertaining to unfunded mandates and the scope of the 
conference. I am strongly opposed to the rule and I ask for its defeat.
  Behind all of the parliamentary language in this rule, this measure 
eliminates food stamps for 250,000 children, elderly people, disabled 
people, and people who came to this country to flee political or 
religious persecution who are legal immigrants. Yes, legal immigrants 
who are in this country with the approval of our government.
  This is a shameful and malicious rule. The conference report includes 
provisions that improve agriculture research, fund and reform the 
Federal crop insurance program, and extend rural development 
assistance. It also restores food stamps to about one-fourth of the 
refugees and legal immigrants who were made ineligible under the 1996 
welfare bill.
  The bill's provision on food stamps for legal immigrants do not 
undermine or conflict with welfare reform. The provisions are modeled 
on last year's Balanced Budget Act which restored eligibility for SSI 
and Medicaid to limited categories of needy legal immigrants.

                              {time}  1015

  We are talking about restoring food stamps to only the most 
vulnerable groups of legal immigrants. This includes children the 
elderly and the disabled. None of these groups are able-bodied, 
working-age people who would normally be expected to support 
themselves. Furthermore, eligibility is limited to those special 
categories of people who entered the country prior to the August 22nd, 
1996, enactment of the welfare reform bill.
  We are talking about only 250,000 of the neediest legal immigrants. 
This bill has enormous support in Congress and throughout the Nation. 
The Senate passed a conference report by an overwhelming vote of 92 to 
8. It is supported by numerous agricultural, commodity, nutrition, 
immigrant, and religious operations.
  Testifying before the Committee on Rules last evening, the chairman 
of the Committee on Agriculture, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Bob 
Smith), asked for a rule to protect the food stamp provision. He called 
the conference report a carefully crafted balance of interests. The 
ranking minority member of the Committee on Agriculture, the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Charlie Stenholm), also asked for a rule supporting the 
food stamp provision. He called it a very good bill.
  Members of the Committee on Rules of both parties spoke out in favor 
of extending food stamp eligibility to children, the disabled, and the 
elderly who are legal immigrants. The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Moakley) offered an amendment to the rule which would have saved the 
food stamp provision. That motion failed on a narrow 5 to 6 vote.
  Yes, there is enormous support for this bill, except for six members 
of the Committee on Rules, who do not want to see legal immigrants get 
food stamps if they are children, disabled, or elderly. The cost of 
this is fully offset, and it represents no net increase in spending. 
This bill does not affect any future immigrants to the U.S.
  There is no excuse for this nastiness. The measure even takes away 
food stamps from some needy legal refugees who came to the U.S. to 
escape political or religious persecution. These are the neediest of 
needy immigrants. They have no sponsors. They have no

[[Page H3763]]

support here. Why on earth do we want to take away their food stamps?
  The House must defeat this mean-spirited, hurtful rule. Before 
casting their votes, I hope Members understand that a vote for this 
rule, a vote to strip food stamps from children, the disabled, and the 
elderly who are legal immigrants, is a vote against citizens, groups 
that support disabled rights, religious groups, and advocates for the 
poor. It is a vote against farmers who will not be happy that this 
critical, time-sensitive legislation is delayed by the politics of 
malice.
  If this rule passes, there is not a chance that the legislation will 
survive without the food stamp provision. The Senate, which 
overwhelmingly supported this bill, will not pass it. The 
administration, which strongly supports it, will veto it; and the 
American people, who are generous people, will not stand for it.
  If this measure passes, we will have to change the inscription on the 
Statue of Liberty: Give me your tired, your poor, except for your 
disabled, too old, or too young. The Statue of Liberty must be weeping. 
I urge Members in the strongest possible terms, vote down this rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SOLOMON. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, let me say to my good friend, who I have great respect 
for, he says the Senate will not pass it. The Majority Leader, Trent 
Lott, has assured us that if this bill contains what it did originally 
in the House and Senate that he will pass that bill today.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Dick Armey), the Majority Leader of the House.
  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the fact that under different times and 
circumstances passions run hot. People get upset, feel the tension of 
this work. It is important work.
  But I have to say, Mr. Speaker, I have heard a little rhetoric this 
morning that is a little hotter than is necessary and, frankly, quite 
inaccurate and unfair. ``Mean-spirited'' I think is a little harsh.
  The agriculture community came to us, and they said they needed crop 
insurance. We agreed, and we want the agriculture community to get crop 
insurance through this Congress and through the White House, through 
the farmers of America. We are working hard on that.
  They also want additional funding for agricultural research. We are 
perfectly excited about moving that forward for the agriculture 
community, so we passed through this House a bill that would provide 
for agricultural research and crop insurance. A similar bill was passed 
through the Senate, and then House and Senate went to conference. In 
that conference, several things were added to the bill that had not 
been in either the House bill or the Senate bill.
  If we are going to talk about what is outside the regular order, what 
is outside the rules of the House, let us begin with adding things to a 
conference that is outside the scope of the conference. That, of 
course, was a startling event.
  When they closed their conference and brought back a conference 
report with these things that were outside the scope of their 
conference, it is perfectly in order within the rules of the House for 
a Member to have a point of order against the conference report.
  Why did the members of the Committee on Agriculture and the House and 
Senate, who had so convincingly made their case that crop insurance is 
important, get it done as quickly as possible, agriculture research is 
important, get it done as quickly as possible, why did they add so many 
things to that focused legislation that had come from both bodies that 
were outside the scope of their conference?
  Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ARMEY. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that 
crop insurance was not part of the legislation when it passed these 
individual Houses and was added simply on the same basis that the food 
stamp provision was. There is some inconsistency.
  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for that.
  Let me say, in the interests of inconsistency, when the agriculture 
community and the agriculture committees came to the leadership of both 
bodies and said, this is urgent, we want to do so, they did so with our 
blessings.
  Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue 
to yield, they did not do so on the issue of food stamps. So let us 
just put it on the basis of where we stand.
  Mr. ARMEY. The gentleman has had his time. I will make my point.
  That being the case, I am sure the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Fazio) might want to exercise his prerogative under the rules of the 
House with respect to his point of order.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ARMEY. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I would like to make the point, just so 
Members will know, when we are talking about these food stamps, there 
is a timeliness date of November 1. When we are talking about crop 
insurance, it is the end of June. That is why the crop insurance was 
added, because there is a time deadline. That is why it must be added 
on now. We can still deal with the food stamp issue any time during 
June, July, and August.
  Mr. ARMEY. The point I would like to make, Mr. Speaker, is that both 
the leadership in the House and Senate did everything we could to work 
with the members of the agriculture community and the members of the 
agriculture committees to move forward crop insurance. That was the 
focus.
  The fact of the matter is this Congress has taken great pride in the 
accomplishments we have made to relieve the States of unfunded 
mandates, and we have taken great pride in the welfare reform we have 
done. Everybody has understood, and for some period of time now we have 
been unable to solve the riddle of how to bring this legislation 
related to crop insurance to the floor because it was burdened with 
provisions that would be objected to by the majority of the people in 
the majority conference.
  Now we have found a rule that makes it possible. Let me make no 
mistake about it. If Members vote for this rule and they pass this 
conference report, they can get crop insurance through the House on its 
road to the farmers of America. We can get research through the House 
on its road to the agricultural research centers of America. We can 
have them paid for.
  If Members want to go back to their districts and say, I stopped the 
process, I scuttled the plane at takeoff, I defeated the rule because 
it was more important for me to have things, provisions of this bill 
that are outside of the scope of its intent, that relate to the 
extension of the time under which people who are legal aliens can get 
food stamps in America, because that was more important to me than you 
and your crop insurance in Iowa and North and South Dakota and Kansas, 
go ahead and make that vote.
  But what I will not do is have Members say that they had to make this 
vote to deny them their crop insurance because the leadership did not 
treat us fairly. It is Members' choice. It is their vote. They should 
make it and accept their responsibility and accept their accountability 
for it.
  If Members want a scapegoat in the matter, they are not going to find 
one here. I will be very happy to go back to the people of Texas and 
explain why it is that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Dick Armey) was 
able to vote to get them their crop insurance and other Members of the 
Texas delegation were not able to make that vote.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Stenholm).
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, that was a fascinating statement that my 
colleague, the gentleman from Texas, just made.
  The position that I am for today is supported by the State of Texas. 
The State of Texas has already done that which the gentleman opposes 
today, because they believe it to be right for those who have been 
affected by the food stamp provisions. They support our version of this 
rule.
  It should not surprise anyone, though, because this is the same 
majority leader that was responsible for

[[Page H3764]]

passing the farm bill in the Speaker's office and promising that we 
were going to have unlimited access to world markets, and then will not 
even bring up IMF funding or fast track funding.
  This is another backdoor attempt by the leadership of this House to 
gut agriculture in rural America, and let there be no mistake about it. 
We will not even have an opportunity to discuss the intricacies of the 
research and the crop insurance bill, because once this rule passes, 
with the mechanisms and the maneuvers that are going on in this rule, 
which the chairman of the Committee on Rules has already acknowledged a 
mistake was made last night and is going to attempt to correct it in 
just a moment, there are other mistakes in this rule today that can be 
corrected by going back up and letting the House work its will on a 
bill that the Senate has passed 92 to 8.
  Yes, there are things in this bill that are outside the scope: crop 
insurance, food stamps. That is true. Why was it done? Because we have 
serious funding problems for rural America in the budget. The budget 
that I voted for has tight restraints.
  We are looking for ways to help production agriculture, and we put 
together a coalition of consumer groups and production agriculture that 
said, here is some money that we can reprogram for purposes of feeding 
people, providing crop insurance, and providing funding for research.
  This rule will destroy it. Let there be no mistake about it. If 
Members pass this rule, they are kidding themselves, if the Senate that 
voted 92 to 8, that it is going to go back and change its mind. Because 
the Speaker of the House and the Majority Leader of the House have said 
they have a better idea. They have already been through that for 
months. It is not going to happen.
  The blame for having crop insurance problems is going to rest on the 
leadership of the House. If Members wish to have another political 
issue, and we have so many I cannot count them now, it is interesting, 
I am wondering if the Majority Leader's rhetoric is going to be the 
same on the ISTEA bill when it comes up later today as it is today. It 
is interesting how we are picking and choosing. I am frustrated with 
the picking and choosings that constantly and consistently say to rural 
America, you do not count. You do not count.
  So, I say to the majority leader, I welcome this debate with the 
gentleman back in Texas. He is dead wrong, and anyone that follows his 
leadership is going to find that out.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, here we go again. It is what really disheartens me as a 
Member of this body. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) has just 
stood up and said, we have so many issues now that we can play politics 
with. That is sickening.
  He also went on to say that if Members vote for this, they are 
knocking out agriculture research and crop insurance. I have the 
amendment. As a matter of fact, I think I will offer it right now.


        Amendment Offered by Mr. Solomon to House Resolution 446

  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment placed at the desk 
which I have discussed with the minority, and I ask unanimous consent 
that it be accepted.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment Offered by Mr. Solomon to House Resolution 446:
       Page 2, line 17, strike ``subtitle A of title V'' and 
     insert ``sections 503 through 509 and by striking section 
     510(b)''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from New York?

                              {time}  1030

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Calvert). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from New York?
  Mr. OBEY. Reserving the right to object, I would like to ask the 
gentleman a question. Let me explain why I am asking the question, to 
be perfectly fair.
  What I am confused about is as follows: The gentleman indicated a 
minute ago that there were a number of things wrong with this 
conference report. I agree with him. I have made known my concern about 
the fact that this conference report contains new mandatory spending. I 
think that ought to be discretionary.
  But I also recognize that there has been a compromise struck between 
the traditional agricultural interests and the nutrition program 
supporters and so each side has had to swallow some things they do not 
like. While the chairman indicated his concern about the entitlement 
that is created under this bill, he, in fact, has not allowed any point 
of order to be lodged against that, as I understand it. The rule that 
is brought to the House at this point only allows a point of order to 
be lodged against the food stamp provisions and the crop insurance.
  I am sorry. I am wrong on that.
  Let me ask the gentleman this: Is it the intent of the Republican 
leadership by what they are doing here today to take that $818 million, 
which is supposed to be used to reinstate food stamps for the neediest 
immigrants in this country, and instead move that over in order to pay 
for the ISTEA package that is coming up here later today? Is that the 
game that is going on?
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Absolutely not. It is the intention of the Committee on 
Rules and not the Republican leadership that we add back in the point 
of order that can be allowed against an unfunded mandate amounting to 
close to $2 billion that would pay for everything that is in this bill, 
including crop insurance, including food stamps and anything else.
  If we are allowed to do that because of the inadvertent error that 
was made between the parliamentarians and the crafters last night, then 
it means that I, Jerry Solomon, would, at the appropriate time, be able 
to stand and raise a point of order against the unfunded mandate that 
you and I are concerned about.
  If it is then voted down, let me explain, if that is then voted down, 
we would continue to consider the bill, at which time any Member, the 
gentleman from Wisconsin or the gentleman from Texas could then raise a 
point of order against the scope of the $800 million dealing with food 
stamps. That would probably be sustained by the Chair.
  Then, under the rule, the House would automatically, the Chair would 
move to vote on whether to send this measure to the Senate minus the 
food stamps. That is what would occur.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, continuing my reservation of objection, my 
question remains. Is it not true that if one of those scenarios occurs, 
that, in fact, that money will be on the table to be used later today 
for ISTEA? BESTEA?
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, 
this would have nothing to do with that. I do not know what else the 
gentleman is driving at. What we are doing has no implication on the 
ISTEA bill coming up. That is an entirely different matter, and the 
monies involved have nothing to do with that. My good friend, as an 
appropriator, ought to be very concerned with what is happening in that 
ISTEA conference in what it does to his appropriations.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I have been standing on the floor for 3 days 
objecting to that conference report.
  Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentlewoman from North Carolina.
  Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the chairman of the 
Committee on Rules if what he is proposing would take away the 
vulnerability of legal immigrants from receiving food stamps? Does he 
propose to allow a procedure that allows any individual to raise a 
point of order that would in essence deny the food stamps going to 
legal immigrants?
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, 
under regular rules of the House, if a conference report were to be 
brought to this floor that would have a scope violation, which is the 
food stamp issue, then any Member would automatically be allowed to 
raise a point of order, strike that out, and then it would kill the 
conference report.
  We did not want to do that, so we made a special provision so that if 
a

[[Page H3765]]

Member were to rise and raise a point of order and it were sustained by 
the Chair, then it would not kill, in effect, it would not kill the 
conference report. It would leave the bill then as an amendment 
standing and ready to go to the Senate without the food stamp provision 
in it. I have deliberately written it that way because I did not want 
to kill the conference report because then we could not deal with it in 
a timely manner for the crop insurance issue.
  Mrs. CLAYTON. Would that also be true with the crop insurance then? 
The gentleman is just making this special provision for a point of 
order for food stamps?
  Mr. SOLOMON. Yes.
  Mrs. CLAYTON. He is not making that point of order for the crop 
insurance?
  Mr. SOLOMON. No.
  Mrs. CLAYTON. That is out of scope, too.
  Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I just want the 
House to understand the difference between what we are doing with poor 
immigrants and what we are doing--by the way, I am for crop insurance.
  Mr. SOLOMON. I know the gentlewoman is.
  Mrs. CLAYTON. This bill is a well-crafted, balanced bill, and it is 
much needed in rural areas. But I cannot find the rationale for leaving 
out of scope the legal immigrants.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, may I give the rationale? It is a sincere 
one, because I represent an agricultural district, just as the 
gentlewoman does.
  But there is a timeliness involved with the crop insurance. In other 
words, it expires at the end of June and, therefore, we have very few 
legislative days left to work between the House and the Senate.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time under my reservation of 
objection, I certainly want to say that in addition to my suspicion 
about ISTEA, I think what is going on here is that there is an effort 
being made to once again set up a needless political confrontation 
under which a poison pill is inserted in this agreement. That will 
necessitate the White House vetoing this bill, and then that side of 
the aisle can claim that it is the White House that has shut down the 
crop insurance program.
  That is what I believe is going on. I think it is incredibly 
outrageous.
  Mr. Speaker, continuing my reservation of objection, I yield to the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall).
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), and I just want to be clear, what has happened 
here.
  What happened is, last night we passed this rule, about 11:30. This 
amendment that the chairman of the Committee on Rules has talked about 
said, I want to make it perfectly clear what his amendment will do that 
he will offer, it will take away the eligibility of food stamps for 
legal immigrants. It exposes whole sections, because what it does with 
sections 501 and 502, these are the provisions that pay for crop 
insurance programs; the sections that the rule allows to be taken out, 
the sections that the rule allows to be taken out of the bill are the 
provisions which will allow legal immigrants to receive food stamps.
  This amendment takes away eligibility of food stamps, because what it 
does is it exposes the food stamp sections to the scope. And what will 
happen is somebody from the gentleman's side will raise a point of 
order. The point of order will be, will rule against the point of 
order. The section will be taken out. So effectively what he is doing 
is, he is not portraying exactly what his amendment is doing.
  This will take legal immigrants out of the bill. I want everybody to 
understand that. I have the amendment right here. I can read it. This 
takes legal immigrants on food stamps completely out of the bill. 
Everybody should understand that.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I would ask all of my colleagues to pick up 
the conference report and look at title V. We are doing exactly what 
the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Smith) and the aggies have asked us to 
do. We are adding back in section 501 and 502, which is a reduction in 
funding of employment and training programs, a reduction in payments 
for administrative costs. That is the pay-for. The gentleman asked me 
to put that back into the bill. That is exactly what this amendment 
here does.
  For the gentleman from Ohio to say that this is striking out the food 
stamps is absolutely wrong. This amendment, and the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) and 
anybody else will tell the gentleman that we are putting back in the 
pay-for, as we were asked to do. That is all the amendment does.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to 
yield, I would just like to say what it does is that it exposes the 
sections on food stamps to----
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, on this amendment, I do not.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. In the rule, you do.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time under my reservation of 
objection, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm), 
distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Agriculture.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
  I want to make one correction. I believe the chairman of the 
Committee on Rules misspoke but not intentionally. What the House 
Committee on Agriculture, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Smith) and I, 
have asked you to do is to report a rule to allow the conference 
report, as reported unanimously from the House and Senate, that passed 
by 92 to 8, to be allowed to be voted on today. That is what we asked 
for, not what you stated we asked for.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, continuing my reservation of objection, I 
yield to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin).
  Mr. LEVIN. I just want to say something to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Solomon) in terms of effective date.
  Right now there are hundreds of thousands of legal immigrants who are 
ineligible for food stamps. What is being proposed is that their 
eligibility begin November 1, but there is a time sequence, a time 
impact for these people. They now are ineligible and, in many cases, 
hungry.
  This has nothing to do with welfare reform, Mr. Speaker. AFDC was 
reformed. We added SSI and food stamps as additional portions. We have 
restored now most of the money for legal immigrants in terms of SSI. 
This now suggests that we add $800 million of the $27 billion that was 
cut, and we are cutting food stamps by $2 billion and restoring $800 
million. There is a net cut in food stamps.
  Essentially, what the gentleman's amendment would do would be to 
shelter crop insurance from any objection, but leave food stamps for 
one person to object to and raise it in front of here for a majority 
vote, when the Senate has overwhelmingly said that food stamps should 
be put in. You are delaying crop insurance and everything else. You are 
delaying; you are the ones who are doing it.
  When the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey) gets up here and talks 
about crop insurance, et cetera, and talks about other things, that is 
a smoke screen, if I might say so.
  I want to just make it entirely clear what the gentleman is doing 
here. The Senate has already voted.
  I want to make one last point: Do not say that the food stamp issue 
is a surprise. We debated that issue when this bill came through here, 
and we were told by some on the gentleman's side that it would be 
raised in conference. Go back and look at the debate.
  You are going to come forth here on a bill I am going to vote for on 
ISTEA, asking to put in numerous provisions that were not discussed in 
the Senate or the House on the floor. You are going to ask a waiver. 
But when it comes to hungry people, you do not want to respond. It is 
disgraceful.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, continuing my reservation of objection, I 
would simply say that what the Solomon amendment does is simply to 
restore the pay-for. It still leaves food stamps open to being 
vulnerable to a single point of order objection by a single Member, and 
it is gone. That is why I

[[Page H3766]]

say that this process is designed to create another needless political 
confrontation.
  We ought to be here trying to deal with the problems of workers, the 
problems of farmers, the problems of food stamp recipients, the 
problems of agriculture research. Instead, another needless political 
argument is being fashioned, and I think it is incredibly unfortunate.
  I yield to the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy).

                              {time}  1045

  Mr. POMEROY. Speaking to the crop insurance and ag research portions 
of this bill, Mr. Speaker, the one way we pass this today and ensure 
its enactment is to pass the conference report, the one adopted by the 
Senate by 92 votes.
  The Committee on Rules follows that up. The Chairman's amendment does 
not cure it. This body has to pass this bill today. And for the 
majority not to bring the conference report, as unanimously adopted by 
conference committee and passed in the Senate to this body, is a slap 
in the face to rural America and every Member representing rural 
America.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, does the gentleman intend to object?
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object.
  Mr. SOLOMON. No, Mr. Speaker, we have to go to regular order at some 
point.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman wants me to object, I will 
object.
  Mr. SOLOMON. I am not asking the gentleman to. I am just saying we do 
have a time limitation. The gentleman knows that. We cannot continue 
under reservations beyond regular rules of order.
  Mr. OBEY. The gentleman created this situation. I do not think he 
should object to people who are stuck with it.
  Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, I simply wanted to say 
that I find it quaint, indeed, that there are objections being made to 
the fact that this conference report creates a small amount of 
additional mandatory spending for agriculture when they intend to ram 
through this place $220 billion in new mandatory spending on the 
highway bill, and we will not be able to in any way prevent that from 
becoming mandatory spending. I think that is absurd.
  Mr. Speaker, I object to the gentleman's unanimous-consent request.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Calvert). Objection is heard.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Solomon

  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Solomon:
       Page 2, line 17, strike ``subtitle A of title V'' and 
     insert ``sections 503 through 509 and by striking section 
     510(b)''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The amendment will be considered pending and 
will be voted upon.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy).
  Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, 1 year ago today, just before going out on 
Memorial Day recess, we failed to pass the disaster bill. My colleagues 
forced me to go back to the people of Grand Forks, North Dakota, and 
tell them that Congress politically was unable to respond to a 
situation that desperately needed responding to.
  Here we are again doing exactly the same thing. We have a disaster in 
rural America. We have got farmers in a world of hurt in the area I 
represent and all over the country, and we are about to go out on 
Memorial Day recess without having passed this vital bill, this vital 
bill that makes a commitment for ag research, so desperately needed in 
the future, and a commitment to crop insurance, which is so desperately 
needed to help farmers stay in the business of farming.
  Do we just want to come right out and end family farming? Why do we 
not just have a vote to end family farming? We could just as well for 
the way this body is dealing with this situation. Have we learned 
absolutely nothing from the disastrous debacle that so disgraced this 
body 1 year ago?
  We need to pass this bill today. And the only way we do it is by 
passing the conference report. I urge rejection of the amendment.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the very distinguished 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton).
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding 
me time, and I rise in support of the rule, as amended, whether we 
either accept it by unanimous consent or vote to accept it.
  I want to take the blame for being the skunk in this garden party, 
because it was me, yesterday, that said I would come to the floor and 
object to the unanimous consent to bring the conference report up 
immediately. I told that to the Republican leadership. I was prepared 
to do that.
  So the Republican leadership yesterday afternoon was prepared to 
bring the conference report, bring it to the floor, or at least get 
unanimous consent to bring it to the floor last evening or this 
morning, and I was prepared to object to that.
  Under the normal rules of the House, any Member can stand up and 
object to any item in a conference report that is outside the scope as 
reported by the House and the Senate. Under normal procedure. Not under 
a special procedure. And I was prepared to do that.
  In attempting to address the legitimate concerns of agricultural 
research and crop insurance, we tried to craft an approach that we 
could waive the normal rules of the House, except on certain 
provisions: one dealing with food stamps, one dealing with unfunded 
mandates. And, in doing that, inadvertently, certain things were taken 
out that should not have been taken out. So the chairman of the 
Committee on Rules is attempting to amend the original rule.
  All I and I think many Members on this side of the aisle want is an 
up-and-down vote on these expansions. If we win, we win. If we lose, we 
lose.
  My good friend from Abilene, Texas, pointed out that the State of 
Texas has decided to extend some benefits to certain aliens that were 
eliminated in the Welfare Reform Act. Texas and every other State has 
the right to do that under existing law.
  I would also point out that the welfare rolls are down 30 percent 
nationwide, and I am not aware that there are huge numbers of people 
that have suffered as a consequence of that. There may be individuals 
that have, and we can address those as needed.
  The gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) has a bill, he told me this 
morning, that would reestablish some of these benefits. It should be 
brought to the floor. It should be voted on on its own merits. But we 
should not cast stones on people that want to go through regular order, 
trying to insist that conference reports come back within the scope and 
be voted on within the scope.
  So, again, to conclude, I am the skunk of the garden party that 
yesterday afternoon said I would object to the unanimous consent 
request to bring the ag research bill up as it came out of the 
conference, not the chairman of the Committee on Rules, not the 
majority leader, not the Speaker. So if there is a skunk in this 
debate, it is the gentleman from Texas (Joe Barton), of the Sixth 
District.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/4\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Boswell).
  (Mr. BOSWELL Asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BOSWELL. Mr. Speaker, I would just state quickly, I follow how 
things go here, and I find it very interesting at times. But I know 
this for a fact: That we have people trying to plant and get ready to 
go to field, and they are counting on this crop insurance thing to come 
through.
  I agree with the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy) that we 
have got to pass this bill today. We must do it. I am convinced, as I 
have listened to this discussion, that this rule will kill the report, 
and we cannot afford to do that. Time is of the essence.
  Another thing that has come to my attention. Some of my colleagues, 
as well as I, served in the Vietnam conflict. And I remember very well 
the acquaintances I had in working with the Montagnards, the Hao 
Laotians and others. They fought at our side and they were valiant, and 
I think perhaps because of some of their willingness to put their lives 
on the line, I can be here today.
  Some of them have come to this country, and they are legal aliens, 
and

[[Page H3767]]

I cannot imagine that we would not want to provide assistance to them. 
I hope that my colleagues will defeat this rule, and we can get on with 
the business.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman 
from Michigan (Ms. Stabenow).
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. Speaker, I rise today as a member of the Committee 
on Agriculture to indicate that this is a critical day and a critical 
vote for production agriculture and consumers across this country.
  If we do not defeat this rule, if we do not proceed to an immediate 
vote on something that passed overwhelmingly in the Senate, unanimously 
by conference committee, we will lose an opportunity to provide food 
safety in our country through increased food safety research; to 
provide a crisis management team that will be able to go out when there 
is a food safety crisis and be able to protect our consumers across the 
country. We will lose the opportunity to provide critical agricultural 
research.
  My State farmers have lost $56 million last year on wheat scab and 
vomitoxin. I know that in South Dakota and Minnesota and important 
other parts of the country, critical, critical dollars have been lost 
as a result of these kinds of diseases. Without this bill, we will see 
farmers continue to lose hundreds of millions of dollars.
  A vote against the rule is a vote for agriculture.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, can you give us the time allocation on both 
sides?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon) 
has 9\1/2\ minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall) 
has 18 minutes remaining.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Dooley).
  (Mr. DOOLEY of California asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. DOOLEY of California. Mr. Speaker, I think everyone has to fully 
understand what are the consequences of this rule. To vote for this 
rule is to be turning our backs on American farmers, to be turning our 
backs on our agricultural research institutions which are performing a 
service that is benefitting consumers and benefiting our economy.
  There is no secret about the fact that we have almost every major 
agricultural organization in this country asking Members, Republicans 
and Democrats, to oppose this rule: the National Cotton Council, the 
National Association of Wheat Growers, the American Farm Bureau 
Federation, the National Cattlemen's Association, the National Pork 
Producers Council.
  Every major agricultural organization is saying to vote ``no'' on 
this rule because they know that it will jeopardize crop insurance and 
it will jeopardize ag research.
  The contentions of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon) that 
Senator Lott can ensure that they can pass this bill with his amendment 
in it is absolutely false. Senator Graham offered an amendment that did 
something that was even less onerous in terms of its provisions on food 
stamps, and it failed 77 to 23.
  This bill dies if this rule goes through.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman 
from North Carolina (Mrs. Clayton).
  Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Speaker, this rule is, indeed, unfortunate, because 
agricultural research provided for in the committee bill is much 
needed, for a variety of reasons.
  I cannot conceive that we would think feeding legal immigrants is any 
less important than any other part. I come from the rural areas, and I 
know there is a deadline and crop insurance is much needed. But people 
needing food is basic, too. And I just cannot conceive that we would 
even want to be part of a bill that would place the vulnerability of 
some 800,000 legal immigrants at risk, and that we could not craft a 
balanced approach.
  In fact, the Senate and the House crafted a very balanced approach. 
If we are about rural America, if we are about agriculture, if we are 
about research, we will vote against this rule. We can make this rule 
right and we can move on and have a fine, acceptable bill for 
production, for research and for crop insurance, as well as something 
for legal immigrants.
  Defeat this rule.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen).
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
this time, and I urge my colleagues to not ignore the importance of 
restoring food stamps to U.S. legal residents.
  Many in our Republican leadership will work to restore these 
benefits. I know that their commitment is true, it is valid, and this 
will work out, and I thank them for this. But, right now, it is 
important to stress to our side how vital this issue is.
  These are U.S. permanent residents who came to this country legally. 
They are law-abiding, taxpaying residents of the United States who have 
sacrificed their health and their lives in order to promote our ideals 
of democracy and liberty, the ideals of this great Nation, and who 
aspire to dream and live the American dream.
  It is ironic that when the tax man comes, there is no distinction 
made between a U.S. citizen and a U.S. resident. Both are obligated to 
pay their taxes. It is ironic that when Uncle Sam calls for military 
troops to go to war, no distinction is made between a U.S. citizen and 
a U.S. legal resident. Both must report to Selective Service.
  The Senate has wisely voted to restore food stamps to legal U.S. 
permanent residents who are elderly, who are disabled. Let us help 
those 250,000 legal residents.

                              {time}  1100

  And what of those families who have young children and need to put 
food on the table? I know that my colleague the gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. Diaz-Balart) has helped in the Committee on Rules to try to right 
this wrong.
  I ask my colleagues, who is going to give 75-year-old legal 
residents, many of whom live in our districts, a job so that they can 
sustain themselves? They are willing to work, but their age and their 
health prevents them from doing so.
  There is a lot that we could do, Mr. Speaker. This is a generous 
country. We have helped those in need. We must ensure that our own, our 
legal residents, U.S. permanent residents who came to this great Nation 
in search of the American dream, are not deserted by the Congress.
  The Senate has already sent a loud message on this issue. We should 
give assistance to those legal residents who have paid their dues. They 
are needy. They need our food stamps. It is unfair to deny this aid to 
them.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman 
from Indiana (Ms. Carson).
  Ms. CARSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today because, as a Member of this 
body, we start off on each legislative day with a prayer; we pledge 
allegiance to the flag, declaring liberty and justice for all people. 
And to borrow a passage of scripture, I would simply say to all of my 
colleagues on both sides of the aisle ``come and let us reason 
together.''
  I believe that all of my colleagues in this body certainly have a 
good heart. Whether it has been bypassed or put in a pump or whatever, 
the heart still works. And I would trust that we would amass sufficient 
votes to oppose the rule, inasmuch as it injures 250,000 legal 
immigrants.
  The legal immigrants, as we have heard several times today, are 
elderly people, disabled people. And those of my colleagues who are 
readers of the Bible, please know that there are at least 35 references 
to poor people. Hungry people are mentioned in the Bible as well. And 
it is distressing that these provisions are here. I would encourage my 
colleagues to defeat the rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to this rule. The bi-
partisan effort achieved in the agricultural research conference report 
to restore food stamp benefits to 250 thousand legal immigrants is to 
be applauded. These legal immigrants are the elderly and disabled 
immigrants who were legally in the United States and were eligible to 
receive food stamps before the Welfare Reform Act of 1996, as well as 
the children under age 18 who were in the United States at this same 
time.
  I would like to remind my colleagues that this restoration of food 
stamp benefits was fully offset by lowering the cap on the amount of 
money the Federal Government will reimburse the States for food stamp 
administrative costs.

[[Page H3768]]

  It is distressing that these provisions were overwhelmingly supported 
by the other body and that a House-Senate conference committee approved 
these provisions unanimously and yet this rule singles out food stamps 
and promises to eradicate this bipartisan compromise.
  If this rule is not defeated--the effect will be that 250 thousand 
deserving children, elderly and disabled in our Nation will be denied 
the food stamp benefits they desperately need.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Let me just say to the previous speaker that I certainly respect her 
views. I am one who was raised by a grandmother. And I have read the 
Bible three times and am very proud of it.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my very good friend, the gentleman 
from Syracuse, New York (Mr. Walsh).
  (Mr. WALSH asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend and colleague from New 
York (Mr. Solomon) for giving me the opportunity to use his time to 
speak against his rule. That is the kind of a gentleman he is. And I 
hesitate to disagree with him on most occasions, but on this one I 
strongly disagree.
  This rule is wrong. This conference report was carefully crafted to 
allow for ag research to be brought forward, to include crop insurance 
which is sorely needed, especially at this time of year, planting 
season, and also to deal with the issue of food stamps for legal 
immigrants.
  I strongly supported welfare reform. And I, like most of the rest of 
my colleagues, have gone around the country and bragged about what a 
success it has been. And it has been a success. But, my colleagues, as 
relates to legal aliens, people over 75 years of age, people under 18 
years of age, and those who have become disabled since they came to 
this country, we need to show that we care. We need to show that this 
country has a big heart. We need to show that this country is wealthy 
enough to help take care of them, get them through a difficult time.
  Welfare reform has worked, but there are certain aspects of it, 
including food stamps, that went too far. This was not a provision 
early on in welfare reform. The President has asked us to include $2.5 
billion more for food stamps. This conference report includes about 
one-third of that request. It is not nearly what the President 
requested. It is a carefully crafted compromise, not unlike the ISTEA 
bill that we will be voting on later today.
  So in conclusion, my colleagues, I would urge a defeat of the 
amendment, a defeat of the rule, and ask the Committee on Rules to go 
back, review this rule, and give us an opportunity to vote up or down 
on the conference report so that we can help to take care of people who 
need help and to get this agricultural research bill passed in a timely 
basis.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Becerra).
  Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, as my colleagues just said, this rule 
breaks that delicate compromise that was reached that withdrew savings 
in food stamp programs, allowed us to provide more monies for 
agricultural research, more monies for crop insurance, and more monies 
to provide food for very hungry elderly, disabled, and children who are 
legal immigrants, legal immigrants.
  If we send this out, and I hope we do not, I hope we defeat this 
rule, the Senate will still be able to put holds by any single member 
of the Senate on this bill; the Senate will be able to amend this bill 
further; and even if it should pass out of the Senate and come back 
here and still pass, the President has already said he would veto this 
bill if it did not include the three components of this compromise.
  Why we would want to stall this bill I do not understand, except to 
say that what it does is, it kills entire components of the bill 
because there will not be money left over at the end of the day to do 
all we want to do on transportation funding, all we want to do for 
Social Security and still come back. Defeat the rule.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman 
from Florida (Mrs. Meek) of Florida.
  (Mrs. MEEK of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend her remarks.)
  Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I have worked very hard since I 
have been here to try to be sure that legal immigrants receive justice 
and fairness in this Congress. Here we go again, turning around some of 
the good things we have already done.
  In order to strike from the conference report, I am asking my 
colleagues to please kill this rule so that it will never come before 
this floor in this manner again. They want to now go back and cut out 
250,000 legal immigrants in terms of getting aid.
  In my county, Dade County, 40,000 legal immigrants lost their food 
stamps because of the mistakes we made before in the 1996 welfare law. 
The conference report with restore this. Why not do the right thing?
  We have said many things, that they want to describe how they came to 
all of these conclusions. The procedure is not important. It is the end 
result that is important. Everything that my colleagues have done, 
everything that the gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon) has talked 
about leads to one thing, the destruction of food stamps for legal 
immigrants. It is very simple.
  So all we need to do is to kill this rule. It is a simple thing. It 
does not take too many explanations to see that they have changed what 
the conference intended. Let us kill this conference report.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Missouri (Mr. Gephardt) the minority leader.
  Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Stenholm) for the purpose of asking a question.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, it was stated earlier that if this rule 
passes in the form in which we are discussing it and the bill is sent 
over to the Senate, that this agricultural research bill, with the crop 
insurance and the other provisions, would pass very soon in the Senate.
  Is that a fair statement? Is that the understanding of the gentleman, 
that that is what the Senate would do?
  Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, if the gentleman would 
yield, after speaking with Members in the other body just in the last 
few minutes, it is my understanding that there are Democratic Members 
prepared to take action, which they can take under the rules of the 
other body, to stop this bill without the food stamp legislation being 
in it from becoming law today or at any time in the future.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, 
let no one be deceived. If this rule passes as it was designed, this 
bill is going to be dead. It will not pass, and we are going to get 
into a ``he blamed,'' ``he did,'' and what have you, just like we did 
2\1/2\ years ago and shut down the Government. This is not the way for 
us to proceed.
  I thank the gentleman for clarifying that.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to say that in my 
20 years in this body, I have never heard of any President threatening 
to veto anything because it did not contain extraneous matter. That to 
me is shocking.
  It is also shocking to me to find out that our good friend the 
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt) would speak with Members in the 
other body, Democrat Members, that would kill crop insurance that has 
to be enacted in a timely manner by the end of June. I am shocked.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Might I inquire, Mr. Speaker, how much time is 
remaining on my side?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Calvert). The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Hall) has 10 minutes remaining. The gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Solomon) has 7 minutes remaining.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Farr).
  (Mr. FARR of California asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio 
for yielding me the time.
  The conference committee report is a good report. It is a good deal. 
The compromises have been made. And frankly, as a member of the 
Committee on Agriculture, the reason we got to the compromises is 
because the food stamp program allowed for savings. That is where the 
money comes from.

[[Page H3769]]

  I want to applaud the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith) and the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Combest) for the work they have done. We have 
had a great bill. We all agree on it. There is no objection to it. 
Unanimous support in the Senate. And it comes over here and now we are 
going to try to screw it all up with a lousy rule.
  We have got to defeat the rule and support the conference committee 
report unamended.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to say, the 
gentleman said this is all paid for, this is great. And how are we 
paying for it? We brave Members of Congress, we brave Members of 
Congress are going to pay for it by making the State pay for it and 
making their local taxpayers pay for it in real property taxes. Are we 
not brave?
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman 
from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).
  (Ms. KAPTUR asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, yes, I rise in strong opposition to this 
rule because I really do not think it is the job of the Committee on 
Rules to thwart the will of the committees of this House, both the 
Committee on Agriculture and the Committee on Appropriations. Because 
this rule, in fact, destroys the delicate balance that has been struck 
between key provisions in this bill.
  For example, as Dean Kleckner, president of the American Farm Bureau 
Federation, says, the bill is very carefully crafted, balancing the 
needs of four communities: our research committee, those farmers that 
need crop insurance, food stamps for over 250,000 legal, and I 
underline legal, immigrants, and of course rural development.
  One of the other reasons to vote ``no'' on the rule is it actually is 
a budget buster because, in effect, the offsets that are included in 
the provisions that are struck leave us with $1.2 billion in additional 
deficit because of what has happened in the way the rule is crafted.
  So I urge my colleagues to vote ``no''. This is bad policy. It is bad 
procedure. And it undermines key agricultural interests across this 
nation.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman 
from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend her remarks.)
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I say to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Stenholm), I come from the consumer community and I want to 
stand with him and the farmers of Texas.
  This is a bad, bad, bad, bad result. In my home State of Texas, 
124,000 legal immigrants lost food stamps. Thirteen thousand of these 
who lost food stamps are children. The State itself is only able to 
recoup some 15,000.
  This is an effort to bash and to juxtapose those of us who are 
consumers, who have supported our farmers on crop insurance and 
research and matching our efforts together with the starving children 
of America. That is right, legal immigrant parents who have citizen 
children. Are we here to deny them the opportunity?
  This deal was already made. We know where our bread is buttered. It 
is buttered with cooperation and collaboration. The Senate knows by 
voting 92-8. Bust this rule, because this rule wants to bash farmers 
and bash consumers. We are going to stand up for those who have made a 
good rule, and the rule is to support the starving children. How about 
my colleagues?
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, thank you for the opportunity 
to speak on this crucial issue. I strongly oppose the rule striking 
reauthorizing food stamps for legal immigrants in the United States.
  The rule that has been recommended would set up a ridiculous 
procedure which gives Republican opponents two extraordinary procedural 
mechanisms to kill the bill. Under this absurd procedure, the House 
will not even be allowed to debate the bipartisan conference report, 
even though the conference report has already been filed and has 
already been approved by an overwhelming bipartisan majority in the 
Senate. I vote to reauthorize food stamps for those who need them.
  We must restore food stamps to our 900,000 legal immigrants including 
farm workers. Food stamp recipients are refugees, the elderly, disabled 
Vietnam veterans and children who are facing food and nutritional 
deficiencies in larger and larger numbers.
  This year, approximately 600,000 U.S. citizen children with immigrant 
parents will have less food on their tables because of these cuts. 
Since food stamp access has been cut, a widening hunger crisis has 
emerged that private charities and State and local governments have not 
been able to handle.
  There simply have not been enough resources to feed all the hungry. 
Catholic Charities USA, Second Harvest and the U.S. Conference of 
Mayors have all reported major increases in request for emergency food 
assistance while food pantries are going empty and are turning people 
away.
  In my home State of Texas, 124,000 legal immigrants lost food stamps. 
13,090 of these who lost food stamps are children! The State itself is 
only able to cover approximately 15,000 people under a State program 
for elderly and disabled during this biennium.
  The elimination of food stamp benefits for adults without children is 
calculated to create a mass of people who are desperate to take any 
job, no matter how poor the wages and conditions.
  It will serve to intimidate all lower paid workers, a valuable and 
crucial section of the American work force.
  President Clinton singled out these welfare provisions as 
particularly unfair, and has since asked for $2 billion to restore 
benefits to about 730,000 immigrants.
  Striking this rule would deny almost a million people, old and young, 
and those contributing as a valuable force to our nation's economy. I 
vote not to strike the rule and to reauthorize food stamps.

                              {time}  1115

  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
North Carolina (Mr. Hefner).
  Mr. HEFNER. Mr. Speaker, let us get right to the crux of this thing. 
This has nothing to do with crop insurance. It has to do with politics, 
and it may be good politics, because you can make food stamps for 
aliens seem so vicious and so ugly. I would imagine the press releases 
are already out for those that are speaking against this, that the 
press releases will go out: So and so voted to kill crop insurance so 
you can get food stamps for aliens. It will not say ``legal aliens''; 
it will just say ``aliens,'' and it will make it sound so ugly and so 
vicious.
  This is about politics. This is not about a conference report. The 
Committee on Rules is the Speaker's committee. It is now, it has always 
been, and they do what the Speaker asks them to do.
  This is about politics. It has nothing, nothing, nothing to do with 
all the good things that are in this bill. It is strictly politics. The 
press releases are already written and ready to go out.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Dooley).
  Mr. DOOLEY of California. Mr. Speaker, I would just like to clarify 
one point in the amendment that is being offered by the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Solomon) where he is saying he is addressing the issue of 
the unfunded mandate.
  But what is somewhat ironic and I think somewhat hypocritical is 
that, where he is contending that this is an unfunded mandate, his 
amendment is actually putting that money back in the bill. If we really 
are concerned about that issue, then we should not have the money in 
that bill at all.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DOOLEY of California. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I am doing it because it was inadvertently 
left out, and I am trying to be fair to all sides on both philosophies. 
The gentleman knows that.
  Mr. DOOLEY of California. Mr. Speaker, the issue is, the gentleman is 
willing to have an unfunded mandate for some provisions and not others?
  Mr. SOLOMON. That is correct.
  Mr. DOOLEY of California. So I think the case is really clear, that 
the gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon) has made a determination that 
it is all right to have an unfunded mandate for some provisions but not 
for others.
  It is clear why we have such a broad coalition which is opposing this 
bill. Every major U.S. agriculture organization is opposing it. Every 
group that is concerned about food and nutrition is opposing this rule. 
Every Member of this Congress should oppose this rule.

[[Page H3770]]

  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman 
from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose this rule. Funding 
provided through this authorization is used by State research centers 
to protect and to approve the use of crops.
  This rule jeopardizes some of the most important research that is 
done in this country. In my congressional district, scientists at the 
Connecticut Agriculture Experiment Station have used U.S. Department of 
Agriculture grants to fund research on ticks that causes Lyme disease 
and yew trees that produce taxol in order to fight breast and ovarian 
cancer.
  I am dismayed that some in this body will try to stop a carefully 
crafted compromise bill. As one of my colleagues said earlier, this is 
a political bill. It is going to stop funding that is available to 
legal immigrants in this country, food and nutrition programs.
  It is shameful. I urge my colleagues to vote against this rule.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Calvert). The gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Solomon) has 6\1/2\ minutes remaining. The gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Hall) has 4 minutes remaining.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Smith).
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of the 
Committee on Rules for yielding to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I do rise in support of this rule. The rule allows for a 
point of order to be raised on the provisions of the conference report 
that would expand by $818 million government benefits for noncitizens. 
These provisions were wholly outside the scope of either the House or 
Senate bills that were committed to the conference.
  The provision allowing the point of order is, first of all, about 
protecting the integrity of the process. The bill the House sent to 
conference did not contain the $818 million in food stamps for 
immigrants. The bill the Senate sent to the conference did not contain 
a provision for the $818 million in food stamps. But the conference 
report we are being asked to adopt today does contain such a provision, 
a provision inserted, without deliberation, by the Members of this 
body.
  The issue is not about immigrants. If the issue were about 
immigrants, we would be talking about the sponsors of these immigrants 
and the fact that they signed an affidavit and that they promised to 
take care of these individuals if they were not financially able to 
take care of themselves.
  To my knowledge, Mr. Speaker, not one time concerning the millions of 
noncitizens receiving government benefits today have we asked the 
sponsor to be responsible for that commitment, and we should not ask a 
single taxpayer to foot the bill until we have looked to the sponsors 
first.
  The issue, then, is not about immigrants. It is about priorities. The 
conference came up with $818 million, almost $1 billion, that could be 
reallocated to other programs. Apparently they decided that they had 
maximized funding of programs for the American farmer. Apparently they 
decided that food programs for women, children, and infants, the WIC 
program, did not need any additional funding this year. Apparently, 
they decided that food programs for impoverished elderly citizens were 
sufficiently funded to meet the needs for all the individuals at risk.
  I say ``apparently'' because neither my constituents nor those of the 
vast majority of the Members of the House were granted the opportunity 
guaranteed under the rules of the House to be heard on these 
priorities.
  Today, the issue is one of concern to my constituents, but tomorrow 
the issue may well be of concern to the constituents of other 
individuals when they see a conference report add additional programs. 
The rule before this body preserves the integrity of those rules and 
the process, the opportunity for all Americans to be heard on matters 
of public policy.
  Mr. Speaker, under this rule, the farm provisions will be able to 
move forward, and we will also preserve the integrity of the system, 
and I urge my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the very 
distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm), the ranking minority 
member on the Committee on Agriculture.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me, 
and I want to use this time to fully explain the issue that we are 
talking about.
  Mr. Speaker, if this rule passes, the crop insurance program is going 
to be thrown into turmoil, because it cannot and will not pass in the 
form in which the House leadership has suggested that it should pass. 
It will not.
  So let it be clear, if the rule should pass, the blame lies with the 
House of Representatives on what happens afterward.
  And that is not just Charlie Stenholm speaking. I have a list of 76 
organizations that have come to the same conclusion, and I will read 
just a few: the National Association of State Universities and Land 
Grant Colleges, the National Cotton Council, the American Sheep 
Industry, Southwest Peanut Growers, National Farmers Union, American 
Farm Bureau Association, National Cattlemen's Beef Association, 
American Bankers Association, Independent Bankers Association, Catholic 
Charities U.S.A., Council of Jewish Federation, Lutheran Social 
Services in America, and I can go on and on.
  We are playing politics with the lifeblood of individual citizens of 
this country, farmers and ranchers, and also those who depend upon the 
production of those farmers and ranchers.
  This is a philosophical battle that we have been going through now 
for several years. This is a perfect way to demonstrate who feels how. 
I respect those who feel so strongly that they would take this issue 
that has already been rejected 92 to 8 and force the issue again and 
try to place the blame on somebody else. I respect them trying that, 
but I sure do not understand why they would choose that political 
motive to go.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this rule. It is 
unprecedented. The parliamentarians of the House cannot think or find 
another method of this type on a conference report that has ever been 
tried. That ought to tell us something.
  The fact that the chairman of the Committee on Rules, he and I go 
back a long way, and I have a lot of respect for him, but the fact that 
he would come on the floor and speak against something and then offer 
the amendment should tell the Members of this body something.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. STENHOLM. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I think it shows that the chairman of the 
Committee on Rules is the fairest Committee on Rules chairman you have 
ever had around here.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Sometimes that is right.
  Mr. SOLOMON. He has the biggest heart.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Sometimes that is right, and sometimes that is wrong, 
but I appreciate the sense of humor in which the gentleman yields. But 
the colleagues should be looking at this right now and understand that 
we are playing games, and this is serious. This is serious.
  The reason, and I wanted to close with this, this bill, and it is a 
good bill, is paid for; to the extent changes are being made in this, 
these costs are fully offset by reductions in food stamp spending and 
in crop insurance programs.
  In fact, this bill, if it passes, will create a surplus of $101 
million over the life of the bill. So I ask my colleagues, please 
reject this rule, and let us send the Committee on Rules back to do 
that work.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief. This is probably the worst rule, 
certainly the most cruel and harsh rule that I can remember being part 
of since I have been on the Committee on Rules. It is anti-poor, it is 
anti-hunger, it is anti-legal immigrant, it is anti to the most 
vulnerable of our society. Almost any group in this country that I 
respect, that most Members in this room respect, are against what the 
Committee on Rules is trying to do today.
  I urge a very strong ``no'' vote on this rule and hope that it is 
defeated in a very bipartisan way. Please vote no on this rule.

[[Page H3771]]

  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the time.
  Mr. Speaker, the gentleman wants to know why I am going to offer an 
amendment to put back an unfunded mandate that I just adamantly oppose, 
and the reason is fairness. It was inadvertently taken out in the 
Committee on Rules because of an understanding with the 
parliamentarians, and we are going to put it back in.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield briefly to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. 
Smith), the chairman of the Committee on Agriculture, for a short 
colloquy.
  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman, and I would 
like to enter into a colloquy with the chairman regarding procedure.
  It is my understanding that the issue before the body is an amendment 
to the rule which would reinstate the offsets for both crop insurance 
and for research.
  Mr. SOLOMON. The gentleman is absolutely correct. It would reinstate 
the pay-fors for both crop insurance, for agriculture research and for 
food stamps, 100 percent.
  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. One further point, Mr. Speaker: There will be 
two votes, one on the amendment of the rule and one on the rule which 
is being debated and has been debated here all morning long. So we have 
two issues here before us?
  Mr. SOLOMON. That is correct.
  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. SOLOMON. The gentleman is right.
  Mr. Speaker, let me just say this, this unfunded mandate is going to 
add $3.6 billion over the next several years that is going to have to 
be paid for by our States and by our local governments. We all know 
that local governments pay for this expense out of real estate taxes.
  In the Hudson Valley that I represent, we have people that live on 
incomes of $4,000 and $5,000 a year, people on fixed incomes. Their 
taxes on their property to try to maintain and live in that home that 
they have lived in all their lives is sometimes $2,000. You are going 
to add another $500 to the cost of those people living on that? That 
just is not right. That is why I oppose the unfunded mandate.
  Let me tell my colleagues the other reasons. On the food stamps 
itself, I do not like to stand up here and say we do not want to give 
food stamps to needy people. But I am going to tell my colleagues 
something, two points. I was born on August 14th, 1930, right in the 
middle of the Depression. My dad walked out on me and my mom, and we 
never saw him again. That was in 1930. It was hard to stay alive. But 
do you know who helped us? Our relatives. Do you know who those 
relatives were? They came over from Scotland. But we brought over the 
young ones first so they can come over here and begin to make a living 
so that they could be responsible for the older Scottish relatives of 
ours. They came over, and then we took care of them.

                              {time}  1130

  When you are talking about these legal aliens in this country, 
somebody signed for them when they came over here. Somebody is 
responsible for them. But we say no, willy-nilly, they do not have to 
take care of them; the taxpayer will take care of them. That means that 
those of us who worked all our lives and were responsible, that have 
taken care of our own relatives, we have to pay for those that did not. 
That is what this argument is all about. You ought to think about that 
when you are voting on this entire issue today.
  Mr. POSHARD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the rule for 
consideration of the conference report on S. 1150, which permits a 
point of order to be raised against a critical provision of the bill. 
As filed, the conference report will allow the restoration of food 
stamp benefits to about 250,000 legal immigrants who lost their 
eligibility as a result of the 1996 welfare reform bill. Sadly, 
although the cost of this provision is more than offset, some of my 
colleagues are attempting to strike it from the bill, jeopardizing the 
health and well-being of thousands of needy families.
  This is an excellent, carefully crafted bill, and it is unfortunate 
that its quick passage is being threatened by those who do not believe 
that food stamps should be restored to some of the most vulnerable 
children, elderly and disabled persons in our society. The conference 
report is supported by a strong coalition of groups representing 
farmers, ranchers, crop insurers, researchers, immigrants and religious 
and community activists. It provides new funding, sets forth important 
reforms to our crop insurance and agriculture research programs, and 
helps provide the tools to ensure that the United States will remain at 
the forefront of agricultural productivity and competitiveness into the 
21st century. I know how important this bill is to the agriculture 
community in my congressional district and throughout rural America, 
and I am dismayed that certain members of this body would stand in its 
way in order to indulge in an unnecessary and mean-spirited, partisan 
confrontation.
  I urge my colleagues to preserve the delicate balance represented by 
this conference report. If passed as written, it will meet the urgent 
needs of the crop insurance industry, America's agricultural research 
institutions, rural communities seeking development assistance, and the 
most vulnerable legal immigrants. A vote for this rule will send a 
clear message to rural Americans and to needy immigrants that their 
needs are of secondary importance to partisan politics. That would be a 
tragedy, and it can be avoided by casting a no vote.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in opposition to the Rule on S. 
1150 which would jeopardize food stamp restoration, crop insurance and 
agriculture research and rural development.
  In April 1998, the Agriculture Conference Committee agreed to 
allocate $816 million (over 5 years) of the funding for the 
Agricultural Research, Extension and Education Reform Act of 1997. 
Under the agreement, food stamp benefits would be restored to the 
elderly and disabled immigrants who were legally in the United States 
and eligible to receive food stamps before the welfare law was signed 
in August 1996. It would also restore benefits to children under the 
age of 18 who were in the country at the time and to certain Hmong 
refugees. The funding is expected to affect the benefits of about 
250,000 legal immigrants in 1999.
  Last night, the Rules Committee reported this rule to eliminate the 
food stamp provisions of the conference report. By eliminating the 
bill's funding and its restoration of food stamps to legal immigrants 
would create numerous problems. Striking the food stamp provision would 
jeopardize the entire bill and kill all the provisions in the bill 
including agriculture research, crop insurance and rural development. 
Also, eliminating this provision would strip the bill's programs of 
their funding and would leave $1.2 billion in spending in the 
conference report.
  I strongly support the restoration of benefits to legal immigrants. 
The budget agreement and this proposal would restore fairness back into 
the treatment of legal immigrants and makes the Federal Government 
responsible for its commitment to support communities that have become 
the home for a significant number of noncitizens. Many of these 
residents are taxpayers who deserve to be protected by the same safety 
net as others enjoy.
  I oppose this rule which would not only jeopardize food stamps for 
legal immigrants, but crop insurance and funding agriculture research 
as well.
  The savings in this measure nearly $2 billion is derived from state 
administrative costs for the management of the food stamp program, the 
implication that this measure is not the right vehicle for restoration 
of food stamps for legal immigrants is ironic in that other measures 
are added without any relationship to the food stamp program however 
desirable they may be. Certainly food stamp restoration is appropriate 
and needed--vote against this unfair rule.
  Mr. BISHOP, Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this rule.
  The carefully crafted compromise reached between research, crop 
insurance and nutrition groups would have used food stamp 
administrative savings to fund the dire needs of each of these groups, 
all of which I represent.
  The shame is that if this rule passes, and the House proceeds to 
destroy the balance that has been reached, the Senate will not accept 
these changes, as evidenced by its passing of the Conference by 92-8.
  As pointed out by my good friends from California, Mr. Dooley, and 
from Texas, Mr. Stenholm, all the major commodity groups like the 
National Cotton Council, the National Wheat Growers Association, and 
the American Farm Bureau Federation recognize the importance of the 
delicate balance that was reached, and oppose the chicanery which 
occurred last night in the Rules Committee.
  To do through a rule what could not be done in the conference report, 
is just plain wrong.
  Moreover, Food Stamp administrative funding that was used in S. 1150 
was a windfall to the states--it was funding they were never counting 
on getting.
  Although the Unfunded Mandates Act technically applies to this 
provision, it was never

[[Page H3772]]

intended to allow the states to have free access to the federal 
Treasury, and those who served in state legislatures, as I did in 
Georgia, know what a true unfunded mandate is. This is not an unfunded 
mandate.
  Even with the cost allocation provisions in S. 1150, CBO projects 
that states will receive more federal funding for Food Stamp 
administrative costs than they would have received prior to Welfare 
Reform.
  The Agriculture Committee has worked in a bipartisan fashion to 
redirect its priorities--using Food Stamp money to pay for pressing 
needs in agriculture like research and crop insurance.
  If the bill is killed, vital funds will be lost for agricultural 
research on pressing livestock and food safety issues. This rule kills 
the bill, and I therefore urge the House to defeat the rule.
  Mr. QUINN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to 
express my opposition to the Rule to S. 1150, the Agricultural 
Research, Extension, and Education Reauthorization Conference Report. 
Due to family reasons, I was unavoidably detained and therefore unable 
to cast my vote against this Rule.
  I supported the base text of S. 1150 which represents a delicate 
bipartisan compromise by restoring food stamps funding to legal 
immigrants, and promoting agricultural research, crop insurance, and 
rural development. The rule would strike out the food stamp provisions, 
effectively killing crop insurance and agricultural research as well as 
food stamps.
  Legal immigrants cut off of food stamps are among the poorest and 
most vulnerable. Over 900,000 legal immigrants, including 150,000 
children, have lost food stamp benefits. Another 600,000 citizen 
children live in households where immigrant adults have lost benefits, 
thereby reducing the amount of food available to the entire household.
  The restorations with regard to food stamps in S. 1150 target the 
most vulnerable immigrants: elderly and disabled persons; children; 
refugees who often come to this country with nothing but the clothes on 
their backs; and Hmong veterans, who fought courageously alongside U.S. 
military forces in Vietnam.
  Private charities are overwhelmed trying to meet increased need for 
food across the country. The U.S. Conference of Mayors' recent survey 
found that 75 percent of cities report increased requests from legal 
immigrants for food assistance. Food banks cite increases of 40 to 70 
percent in requests for emergency food assistance. Catholic Charities, 
the nation's largest private human service organization, reports 
significant increases in requests for emergency food assistance, severe 
food shortages in their food banks and pantries, and an inability to 
meet all food need.
  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the 
Agriculture Research Bill and against the rule. We need to maintain 
food stamp provisions in the bill.
  I rise in support of the Agriculture research bill because it 
restores benefits for some of the nation's most vulnerable 
populations--low-income legal immigrants--many of whom are elderly, 
children or disabled.
  Legal permanent residents are hard working people who earn their 
money in the U.S., they pay taxes in the U.S. and contribute to the 
U.S. economy by buying products in the U.S. Like U.S. citizens, legal 
permanent residents are stakeholders in America who care about the 
status of our country and should be afforded equal rights in this 
country.
  Given the important contributions that immigrants make to our nation, 
it is only fair to accord them help when they fall into need. Legal 
immigrants have to contribute greatly to this country, pay taxes and 
even register for the draft.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the amendment and the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Calvert). The question is on the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution, as 
amended.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground 
that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum 
is not present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, I understand this is a vote on the 
rule, as amended, is that correct?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Oregon is correct.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 120, 
nays 289, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 23, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 188]

                               YEAS--120

     Archer
     Armey
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bono
     Brady (TX)
     Burr
     Buyer
     Camp
     Canady
     Cannon
     Chabot
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Cox
     Crane
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Deal
     DeLay
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Fawell
     Fowler
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Greenwood
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Jones
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Largent
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Manzullo
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Myrick
     Neumann
     Norwood
     Packard
     Paul
     Paxon
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Portman
     Radanovich
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Roukema
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schaffer, Bob
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shuster
     Smith (TX)
     Snowbarger
     Solomon
     Spence
     Stearns
     Sununu
     Tauzin
     Thomas
     Tiahrt
     Traficant
     Wamp
     White
     Whitfield
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--289

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Andrews
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Berry
     Bilbray
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burton
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Campbell
     Capps
     Cardin
     Carson
     Castle
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Combest
     Condit
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crapo
     Cummings
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (VA)
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Filner
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frost
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gordon
     Granger
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hansen
     Hastings (FL)
     Hayworth
     Hefner
     Hill
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Holden
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hoyer
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kim
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDade
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHale
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pappas
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pease
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Redmond
     Regula
     Riley
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Ryun
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shays
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith, Adam
     Smith, Linda
     Snyder
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Turner
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Waters
     Watkins
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Weygand

[[Page H3773]]


     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates
     Young (AK)

                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1

       
     Smith (OR)
       

                             NOT VOTING--23

     Bateman
     Conyers
     DeFazio
     Deutsch
     Foley
     Furse
     Gonzalez
     Green
     Harman
     Johnson, Sam
     King (NY)
     Meeks (NY)
     Miller (CA)
     Parker
     Quinn
     Reyes
     Riggs
     Skaggs
     Stark
     Taylor (NC)
     Torres
     Towns
     Wicker

                              {time}  1154

  Messrs. HYDE, BUNNING, STUMP, BACHUS, WELDON of Florida, RYUN and 
BEREUTER, and Mrs. LINDA SMITH of Washington changed their vote from 
``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Messrs. METCALF, PITTS, ENSIGN and McCOLLUM, and Mrs. BONO and Mrs. 
FOWLER changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the resolution was not agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                              {time}  1200

  (Mrs. ROUKEMA asked and was given permission to speak out of order 
for 2 minutes.)

                          ____________________