[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.)
____________________