[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 71 (Thursday, June 4, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H4123-H4134]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
CONFERENCE REPORT ON S. 1150, AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH, EXTENSION, AND
EDUCATION REFORM ACT OF 1998
Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to previous order of the
House, I call up the conference report on the Senate bill (S. 1150) to
ensure that federally funded agricultural research, extension, and
education address high-priority concerns with national or multistate
significance, to reform, extend, and eliminate certain agricultural
research programs, and for other purposes.
The Clerk read the title of the Senate bill.
Unfunded Mandates Point of Order
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I rise to a point of order under section
425 of the Congressional Budget Act regarding unfunded
intergovernmental mandates on every single senior citizen homeowner in
America.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his point of order.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, this does increase property taxes on senior
citizens, and everybody ought to be listening.
Pursuant to section 426 of the Congressional Budget Act, the language
on which this point of order is premised is contained in section 502 of
the subtitle A of title V, ``Reductions in Payments for Administrative
Costs for Food Stamps,'' of the conference report.
(For section 502, see Congressional Record of April 22, 1998, page
H2185.)
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York makes a point of
order that the conference report violates section 425(a) of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, and according to section 426 (b)(2)
of the Act, the gentleman must specify the precise language of his
objection in the conference report on which he predicates this point of
order.
Having met this threshold burden, the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Solomon) and a Member opposed each will control 10 minutes of debate.
Pursuant to section 426 (b)(3) of the Act and after debate, the Chair
will put the question of consideration, to wit: Will the House now
consider the conference report?
Will the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Smith) claim the 10 minutes in
opposition?
Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, I am in opposition.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Smith) will
be recognized for 10 minutes in opposition, and the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Solomon) is recognized for 10 minutes.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I might
consume.
I do want the Members to listen up. It is very, very important. We
are about to force every single senior citizen homeowner in America to
pay more real estate taxes. That is why I raise this point of order
against this unfunded mandate.
This conference report would lower each State's reimbursement for
administrative costs in the food stamp program by an amount to be
determined by the Secretary of Health and Human Services. That
provision, my colleagues, according to CBO would limit the Federal
Government's responsibility to provide funding to States and local
governments to cover the administrative costs of the food stamp
program.
Mr. Speaker, the National Governors Association opposes this
provision, and almost every single individual governor in America has
expressed outright hostility to this reneging on them and putting more
costs on our States and our local governments, and that is wrong.
Mr. Speaker, I mentioned CBO had scored this legislation as exceeding
the unfunded mandate threshold in the law, which is $50 million. In
fact, those costs on the States are much, much higher, in the hundreds
of millions of dollars in administrative costs to our individual States
and each one of our counties and cities and towns and villages that we
represent. And that is according to the National Governors Association,
my colleagues.
Overall, this represents a cost shift from the Federal Government to
the States as high in my State of New York as $280 million, $280
million, of which local governments are going to have to pay 25 percent
of that cost. That is what we are leveling on our senior citizens. What
that means, Mr. Speaker, is a ``yes'' vote for this unfunded mandate is
a vote to increase property taxes on every single one of our homeowners
that own a home in America.
Mr. Speaker, there are so many families living in my district on
fixed incomes that it is almost impossible
[[Page H4124]]
today for them to even pay the taxes. As my colleagues know, we have
tremendous school taxes and land taxes, all of which are caused by the
cost of welfare. When State and local governments are forced to raise
taxes and ordered to pay for this unfunded mandate from Washington it
is going to get even worse.
Taken together, this legislation reserves a fundamental principle of
the American majority, of the Republican majority in this House,
returning power and influence to the States and letting them not be
saddled with these terrible unfunded mandates.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time in order to let other
people speak as strongly as I have.
Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr, Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, I have the utmost and greatest respect for my friend
from New York. But I must, Mr. Speaker, correct the issue here because
without question this is an unfunded mandate, and we are asking our
colleagues to recognize what kind of an unfunded mandate this truly is.
Certainly not in the minds of those who passed the unfunded mandate
law, but indeed by decision, this is an unfunded mandate. How did it
occur?
These are funds, Mr. Speaker, that were allocated to the States as a
cushion should the welfare rolls go up and we have a huge downturn in
the economy. They are funds that we do not anticipate being used,
certainly in the near future, maybe not ever, so they are funds
residing within each of the States that may never be used. That is
because of the action of this Congress in reducing the welfare rolls by
requiring people to work and by reducing the need for food stamps.
So if these funds were not used in the manner in which we have
provided to our colleagues in the conference committee report, they
would be used for some other purpose, maybe for highways, maybe for
other purposes. Certainly there is a great demand for the use of these
funds. This in no way is an increase in property taxes, this is in no
way an increase in senior citizens' costs, in no way.
Mr. Speaker, let me also advise my colleagues, particularly from
these States: California, New York, Florida, Illinois, Maryland,
Massachusetts, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island,
Washington, and recently Texas, that funds are already being used,
State funds, for the very purposes that we talk about here in the bill
and in the conference committee report regarding legal aliens' food
stamps. Already States are paying, through State coffers, for these
exact kinds of funds for food stamps for illegal aliens. Therefore, the
passage of this bill will relieve States like New York and Texas and
other States who may choose to substitute the conference committee
report for State funds.
It makes great sense to pass this. Believe me, not addressing the
unfunded mandate kills the conference committee report.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
{time} 1930
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I do not know, I have heard of smoke and mirrors in my
lifetime, but let me tell you, I have been a town mayor, I have been a
county legislator, I have been a State legislator, and nobody knows
more about this welfare system in this country than I do.
Let me tell you, when you take away the administrative cost of this,
you are going to give them something on one hand and take something
away on the other. Let me tell you, that is a smoke and mirrors.
This letter from the Governors Association says this would deny
several hundred million dollars in food stamps and Medicaid funding
from New York State alone, and $3.6 billion in Federal costs to the
States by forcing States to absorb food stamp and Medicaid
administrative costs, and it goes on and on and on.
Let me tell you, in New York State, and I think it is the same in
most every State in the Union, the local share is raised by property
taxes. That means that older Americans that are paying property taxes
today are going to have to pay that increase, a very substantial
increase, to pay for somebody else's food stamps in another area.
That is wrong. If you are going to give those food stamps, at least
pay for them out of Federal coffers, and do not force local governors
to raise property taxes.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm), the ranking member of the
Committee on Agriculture.
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, I must say I was reminded of the famous quote of Will
Rogers, when he observed that, ``it ain't people's ignorance that
bothers me so much, it is them knowing so much that ain't so is the
problem.''
The gentleman from New York is totally nonfactual in what he was
saying. All States are not affected by this bill. States are affected
only to the extent they charge common AFDC food stamp administrative
costs, and the only States that will be detrimentally affected are
those that have been double-dipping, and that is something that we
would not want to see done.
First, make no mistake about it, a vote against consideration of S.
1150 will kill the bill, and that is what the gentleman from New York
honestly wants to do, is kill this bill. Funding for crop insurance
research and rural development and nutrition will be denied.
Now, Federal mandates are generally thought of as any provision that
imposes an enforceable duty upon a State, except as a condition of
Federal assistance. The original intent was simply to require the
Federal Government to pay for requirements placed on States. The
Committee on Rules identified the purpose of the unfunded mandates bill
as being to prevent Congress from passing feel-good legislation that
transfers the cost burden from the Federal Government to State and
local governments, for example, the Occupational Safety Health Act, the
Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act.
The provision we are considering in this bill today is unlike any of
these. Technically, a Federal intergovernmental mandate is any
provision that relates to a program which provides $500,000 annually to
States if the provision would decrease funding to the State and the
State lacks authority to amend their programmatic responsibility.
An unintended consequence of the 1996 welfare reform bill allows
States to shift administrative costs previously charged to the AFDC
program and already included in their Temporary Assistance for Needy
Families grants, the TANF block grants, to the food stamp program. The
result is duplication of Federal administrative reimbursement to States
for the same activity, since these costs are included in the TANF block
grants and would be matched at a 50 percent rate by the food stamp
program.
S. 1150 would close this loophole by annually adjusting States'
claims for administrative cost reimbursement by the amount that was
included in their TANF block grants for the same purpose. The CBO has
identified this provision of S. 1150 as an unfunded mandate relative to
the food stamp program because there would be a reduction in funding
for that program without a commensurate reduction in administrative
requirements.
While this determination is technically correct for the food stamp
program in isolation, the provision is drafted to deal with interaction
between the two programs. Therefore, when the provision in question is
examined from a broader perspective, it prevents States from being
overfunded due to the combined effects of TANF block grants and the
change in the food stamp cost allocation methodology.
It is difficult to see the provision as an unfunded mandate in this
light. Without S. 1150, CBO estimates payments to States for food stamp
administrative costs will be $2.5 billion more than prior to welfare
reform. Even with enactment of this conference report, States will
receive over $800 million more for administrative costs than they were
projected to receive prior to enactment of welfare reform.
Welfare reform was never intended to allow States free access to the
Federal
[[Page H4125]]
Treasury, to double-dip for reimbursements to carry out these programs.
I certainly am speaking for the State of Texas, who has informed me
they support what we are attempting to do for the reason that the
gentleman from Oregon (Chairman Smith) mentioned a moment ago. We are
one of those States that will, in fact, benefit fairly from the passage
of this act, and double-dipping or having an unlimited access to the
Federal Treasury is something I believe this body would not want us to
do.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, let me just say to the previous speaker, you know, he
says, ``All Solomon wants to do is kill the bill.'' The gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Stenholm) came here when I did 20 years ago. The gentleman
knows that I represent an agricultural district in this country. We are
the 20th largest dairy-producing district in America. The last thing I
want to do is kill this bill. I just want the Federal government to pay
for it and not saddle the local property taxes with the costs.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Barton) to counter what the other gentleman from Texas just
said.
(Mr. BARTON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman
from New York for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, I will enter into the record a letter received by every
Member of Congress from the National Conference of State Legislators,
dated June 4, 1998, signed by Representative Tom Johnson, Ohio House of
Representatives.
It says, ``As reported by the conference committee, S. 1150 contains
a substantial unfunded mandate to States, confirmed repeatedly by CBO,
that not only violates the Unfunded Mandate Reform Act but breaks the
agreement crafted by the Congress and the States on welfare reform. The
proposed offset reducing the Federal reimbursement rate for State food
stamp administration represents a $1.7 billion cost shift to States
without similar reduction in programmatic responsibilities required
under the Unfunded Mandate Reform Act.''
The National Conference of State Legislators supports the point of
order of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon).
Mr. Speaker, under the savings that were found in the conference,
there were $2 billion of administrative cost savings found in the
overall administration of the food stamp program. The conferees
allocated $800 million to restore benefits for certain categories of
legal aliens in this country. That is 40 percent of the increase. They
did provide an additional $500 million for crop insurance and $600
million in a new program for agricultural research and an additional
$100 million for other agriculture research programs.
Those are good programs that would stand the scrutiny of this House.
I am not sure that $800 million restoration of food stamp benefits for
legal aliens would withstand the scrutiny of this House if we had a
full vote.
I hope we would sustain the point of order of the gentleman from New
York (Chairman Solomon). Let us eliminate the unfunded mandates that
are in this bill. Let us report out the money for the farmers and the
research universities that needs to be reported and then work on the
food stamp program as a stand-alone issue.
Mr. Speaker, I include the letter from Representative Tom Johnson for
the Record.
National Conference
of State Legislatures,
Washington, DC, June 4, 1998.
Dear Member of Congress: The National Conference of State
Legislatures fully supports the Rules Committee's decision to
allow a point of order on S. 1150, the Agricultural Research
bill and urges you to support the point of order when it is
raised by Representatives Rob Portman and Gary Condit.
As reported by the conference committee, S. 1150 contains a
substantial unfunded mandate to states (confirmed repeatedly
by CBO) that not only violates the Unfunded Mandate Reform
Act (UMRA) but breaks the agreement crafted by the Congress
and states on Welfare Reform. The proposed offset reducing
the federal reimbursement rate for state Food Stamp
administration represents a $1.7 billion cost shift to states
without similar reduction in programmatic responsibilities
required under UMRA.
The National Conference of State Legislatures has long been
supportive of efforts to restore Food Stamp benefits to legal
immigrants; however, we vehemently oppose the funding of
these benefits through a reduction in federal Food Stamp
administrative reimbursement to states. It is disingenuous
for the Congress to solve one cost shift to states by
imposing another.
We urge you to support the point of order on S. 1150 and
look forward to continued partnership with the Congress in
restoring Food Stamp benefits to legal immigrants.
Sincerely,
Tom Johnson,
Ohio House of Representatives, Chair, NCSL Federal Budget
& Taxation Committee.
Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Combest).
Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, the conference report includes a provision that corrects
an unintentional consequence in the 1996 welfare law reform. That
provision would have allowed some States to be paid twice for the same
administrative costs for determining eligibility for food stamps. That
is corrected in the conference report.
What we are presented with is a situation in which it is an obvious
windfall extra payment to some States that must be corrected. If I were
one of those States or representing one of those States, I would
probably like to be a part of the recipient of $2.5 billion of Federal
money that is not due to those States. If in fact that is the desire of
Members, to give them $2.5 billion more than is necessary, then vote
with the gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon). If it is not and you
have a desire to see the bill continue to move forward, vote on the
position of the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Smith).
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson), one of the most respected Members of this
body.
Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, you know, it is funny that we
pass welfare reform and then turn around the next year and destroy it.
It is also kind of funny that we have a provision in here that does not
address just crop insurance and agricultural research, which is what we
should be addressing. Instead, we add to it a bunch of unfunded
mandates, which has been admitted by the Committee on Agriculture
chairman, and those same unfunded mandates that are coming out of our
hide are going to be asked of the Committee on Ways and Means again, we
just learned today, to take another $16 billion out of this very same
program.
Somewhere, the well runs dry. We have to pay the piper. It is time to
stand on the laws that we passed. It is time to stand with our welfare
reform and not suck the States into more spending.
Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman
from California (Mr. Dooley), also a member of the conference
committee.
Mr. DOOLEY of California. Mr. Speaker, I think every Member has to
fully understand what would happen if you vote with the gentleman from
New York (Mr. Solomon) on this point of order. You would ensure that we
would not provide the largest increase in agriculture research which
will benefit U.S. farmers in a generation. You will ensure we will not
provide the crop insurance money which is vitally needed by a lot of
farmers struggling out there.
A year ago, we passed welfare reform by a large bipartisan margin.
That welfare reform decreased AFDC benefits, it decreased food stamp
benefits, and it was certainly not the intention of those who supported
welfare reform to increase administrative payments to the States.
What we are doing with this legislation is ensuring we are going to
have a commensurate reduction in the administrative costs to the
administration of the welfare programs. This is a sound fiscal
approach. The States should not be allowed to double-dip when we are
reducing their obligations under our welfare reform policies.
Ensure that we can maintain the agricultural research funding. Ensure
that we can maintain the crop insurance funding. Vote against the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon).
Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the
gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Clayton), a member of the
Committee on Agriculture.
[[Page H4126]]
Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Speaker, I also want to emphasize the fact that
this may be an unfunded mandate in its technical sense, but you have a
way to close this and you also have a way of correcting the unintended
result.
Please know when you vote yes for the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Solomon), you vote against agricultural research, you vote against crop
insurance, and you vote against the opportunity to correct something
that we should not have had in the first place. Plus you do good by
allowing legal immigrants to have food they so desperately need,
particularly children and senior citizens and the disabled.
Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the final 30
seconds.
Mr. Speaker, I would just point out again to Members that this
unfunded mandate does not impact States because they are not in a
position to use it, as has been indicated by the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Stenholm) and others. They are in no position to use it. It is
excess money that will never be used.
Here is a chance to reinvigorate agriculture, for crop insurance, for
research and for food stamps for legal aliens in this country. Here is
our chance to do it. If you vote for the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Solomon), you lose that opportunity. Please vote no.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, let us clear the record here. The worst thing we can do
is to not use accurate figures. In a few minutes we are going to take
up the budget for 1999, and I want Members to look at it very
carefully, because in that budget we are going to knock off another $16
billion out of this same category, okay? Where is that money coming
from? Your State and local governments are going to pick up that. In
this alone, we are talking about $3.6 billion.
My good friend from North Carolina, and I have great respect for her,
she says that this is a vote against crop insurance and ag research.
Let me tell Members what a no vote does here right now. A no vote is to
not go forward; and if we carry the no vote, it means that the bill
rests on the calendar until we find a better way to pay for it and not
mandate this expense on your counties and towns and cities and
villages.
{time} 1945
We have until June 30 to solve the crop insurance program. Nothing is
in danger. We have got another 3 weeks here.
So I ask you to vote ``no'' so that it stays on the calendar so we
have time to come here with a manager's amendment from my very good
friend, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Smith), who is articulate and
very innovative about finding ways to pay for things, and we will pay
for this and not mandate it on local governments.
Having said that, Mr. Speaker, you all should vote for every
homeowner in America and vote no to go forward at this time, and we
will take that bill up in a few days when we find a way to legitimately
pay for it.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY
Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Point of parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Sununu). The gentleman will state his
parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, I am attempting to determine how
Members are going to analyze this vote. This is a vote, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, regular order here. What is the gentleman
doing?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his point of
inquiry.
Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Is this a vote to proceed?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question before the House is: Will the
House now consider the conference report?
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. STENHOLM. 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.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 324,
nays 91, not voting 18, as follows:
[Roll No. 203]
YEAS--324
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Allen
Andrews
Bachus
Baesler
Baker
Baldacci
Ballenger
Barcia
Barrett (NE)
Barrett (WI)
Bateman
Becerra
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berman
Berry
Bishop
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonior
Bono
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bunning
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Capps
Cardin
Carson
Castle
Chambliss
Christensen
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Combest
Conyers
Cook
Cooksey
Costello
Cox
Coyne
Cramer
Cummings
Danner
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (VA)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Emerson
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Ewing
Farr
Fattah
Fazio
Filner
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fox
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gekas
Gephardt
Gilchrest
Goodling
Gordon
Graham
Granger
Green
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hansen
Hastings (FL)
Hayworth
Hefner
Hill
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Hooley
Horn
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (WI)
Johnson, E. B.
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kasich
Kelly
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kim
Kind (WI)
King (NY)
Kleczka
Klink
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
LaFalce
LaHood
Lampson
Lantos
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Manton
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McHale
McInnis
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Metcalf
Millender-McDonald
Miller (CA)
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Moran (KS)
Morella
Murtha
Nadler
Neal
Nethercutt
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Oxley
Packard
Pallone
Parker
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pease
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Pickering
Pickett
Pitts
Pomeroy
Portman
Poshard
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Redmond
Regula
Riggs
Riley
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rogan
Rogers
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Ryun
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Schaffer, Bob
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Shays
Sherman
Shimkus
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (OR)
Smith, Adam
Smith, Linda
Snowbarger
Snyder
Souder
Spratt
Stabenow
Stark
Stearns
Stenholm
Stokes
Strickland
Stupak
Talent
Tanner
Tauscher
Tauzin
Thomas
Thompson
Thornberry
Thune
Thurman
Tierney
Torres
Towns
Turner
Upton
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Walsh
Waters
Watkins
Watt (NC)
Watts (OK)
Waxman
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Weygand
White
Wicker
Wise
Wolf
Woolsey
Wynn
Young (AK)
NAYS--91
Archer
Armey
Barr
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bliley
Bryant
Cannon
Chabot
Chenoweth
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Condit
Crane
Crapo
Cubin
Cunningham
Deal
DeLay
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Ehrlich
English
Ensign
Fawell
Fossella
Fowler
Gallegly
Gibbons
Gillmor
Gilman
Goode
Goodlatte
Goss
Greenwood
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hefley
Herger
Hinchey
Hostettler
Inglis
Istook
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kingston
Largent
Livingston
Manzullo
McHugh
McIntosh
Mica
Miller (FL)
Neumann
Pappas
Paul
Paxon
Petri
Pombo
Porter
Rohrabacher
Roukema
Royce
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer, Dan
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shuster
Smith (TX)
Solomon
Spence
Stump
Sununu
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
[[Page H4127]]
Tiahrt
Traficant
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Whitfield
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--18
Burr
Engel
Frank (MA)
Furse
Gonzalez
Harman
Hoyer
Lewis (GA)
Markey
McDade
Mollohan
Moran (VA)
Myrick
Ney
Pelosi
Reyes
Ros-Lehtinen
Yates
{time} 2005
Messrs. ARMEY, CRAPO, DREIER, WAMP, GILLMOR, PORTER, BILBRAY, INGLIS
of South Carolina, and EHRLICH changed their votes from ``yea'' to
``nay.''
So the question of consideration was decided in the affirmative.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Sununu). Pursuant to the rule, the
conference report is considered as having been read.
(For conference report and statement see proceedings of the House of
Wednesday, April 22, 1998, at page H2171.)
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Smith) and
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Smith).
Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the conference committee
report on S. 1150.
Mr. Speaker, first I want to thank members of the conference
committee who were responsible for bringing this issue to us after long
and deliberate discussion, dating back to last year, in fact, with the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) and the Committee on Agriculture
discussions on this very issue, but especially the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Combest) and the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Barrett) who served
with us, and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) and the gentleman
from California (Mr. Dooley), who with myself made up the House side of
the conference committee.
I want to say first, Mr. Speaker, that this is a transfer of
spending, as most Members understand, mandatory spending to mandatory
spending. We have rearranged the priorities here, and we have
rearranged them in a way which we think is most beneficial to
agriculture, but certainly takes into consideration food stamps to
legal aliens as well.
In fact, as some have already identified, the Members' conference
committee is bringing to them a bill which provides for $600 million of
research money, which we think is the backbone of the future of
agriculture. We know it is imperative that we pass crop insurance, and
finally we have a 5-year program, mandatory spending at $500 million
for crop insurance, which again is going to be used, by the way, by the
end of this month, and therefore it is essential that we act, and act
today.
Of course, there is a $100 million program for rural development,
which all of us in rural areas of America would support, as well as the
food stamp money, which is $800 million, to compose totally the so-
called unfunded mandate which we just discussed, of about $2 billion.
The urgency of the conference committee report, Mr. Speaker, is
simply, as I mentioned, that we must provide a solid program for crop
insurance. Risk management is an essential part of the future of
agriculture, as is research. So those two factors are addressed
directly in this conference committee report.
We have not only provided for crop insurance, but through innovative
management we have reduced the cost to taxpayers of some $500 million,
so the passage of this research bill will essentially provide a savings
of some $500 million in crop insurance itself. As I mentioned, the
whole program for crop insurance is now $500 million.
The conference committee report was carefully balanced to offset
further reductions in excess food stamp spending, and represents, and I
want to underline this, represents no net increase in spending. So if
budgeteers are listening, there is no net increase in spending. The
conference committee accomplished the most substantive reforms to our
agricultural research infrastructure in more than 20 years.
If there is another part of the responsibility of government besides
risk management, it is certainly research, because those of us who have
found that it is the responsibility of government to provide help in
research know that is the underpinning of a huge agricultural export
program for this country. We export almost $60 billion, Mr. Speaker, of
agricultural commodities to foreign countries. The reason we do that is
because we are the most competitive Nation in the world, bar none, in
the production of foods and fiber. That is why we can be competitive in
the world, and it is the result of research that has been successfully
done in the past.
Let me give some examples. For instance, one that most of us know
about, I know more, from Oregon now, than I did before, having traveled
to Georgia, but the whole question of the boll weevil, the control of
the boll weevil has restored cotton production to much of the South, a
huge breakthrough for agriculture in America.
The genetically modified organisms that we have heard about, BT corn,
Roundup Ready soybeans, the increase in grain crop production and
yields, the protections for food safety, all are part of this research
program, of which we are quite proud.
Yes, it does include some money for legal aliens coming into this
country. Listen to who they are, please: the elderly, over 65, living
in this country since August 22, 1996; the disabled, legal noncitizens,
living in this country since August 22, 1996; and children under the
age of 18, living in this country since before August 22nd of 1996. All
of these people must have lived here before August 22, 1996.
We invited them here. They are legal; not citizens, but they are
legal aliens. We have invited them to this country.
{time} 2015
And if, for a small time, it is our responsibility to help them with
food stamps, it is my belief we ought to do that.
Mr. Speaker, this is the most important agricultural issue and bill
that Members will vote on in this session of Congress, without
question. This is a huge advance for agriculture production in America,
and it is a huge advance for agricultural people and farmers.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 4 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this conference report, and
I want to begin by acknowledging and thanking the gentleman from Oregon
(Chairman Smith), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Combest), the gentleman
from Nebraska (Mr. Barrett), and the gentleman from California (Mr.
Dooley) for their work on the conference that brings us this report
tonight, a result of months of hard work by Members on both sides of
the aisle.
Mr. Speaker, a number of significant differences between the House
and the Senate bill had to be reconciled during conference. I believe
the legislation we bring now is a fair and balanced compromise among
those competing priorities.
This legislation provides for a number of improvements in our system
to conduct and deliver information from federally funded agricultural
research. It increases producer input into the research process and
authorizes research in several new and important areas such as nutrient
management, food safety, and crop diversification.
In addition, this conference report reprioritizes the spending which
falls under the jurisdiction of the Committee on Agriculture to provide
critically needed resources to a number of important national
priorities. By limiting the States's ability to shift administrative
cost to the Federal Government, this legislation prevents States from
circumventing welfare reform while at the same time providing necessary
funding for agricultural research, crop insurance, rural development
and nutrition programs.
Despite the fact that this bill results in a $1.2 billion reduction
in Federal spending for food stamps, S. 1150 has still won support from
nutrition advocates. This legislation enjoys broad support because it
reprioritizes spending in the food stamp program to provide needed
benefits for those who cannot move to self-sufficiency as envisioned by
the recent welfare reform, such as the elderly, disabled, and children.
And for those refugees and
[[Page H4128]]
asylees who are fleeing political and religious persecution, it
provides a realistic time frame to make application for United States
citizenship.
In addition, this bill fulfills a commitment made by our government
during the Vietnam war to some unfamiliar people, the Hmongs and the
Highland Laotians who assisted our military during the Vietnam era. As
a result of providing assistance to our military, these people suffered
terribly at the hands of Communists. By supporting this legislation, we
can provide assistance to those who fought so bravely for us.
S. 1150 will provide funding certainty for the crop insurance
program. Farmers will no longer have to worry if crop insurance will be
delivered, nor will bankers who require it. But although S. 1150
provides this certainty, make no mistake about it; much more needs to
be done. We must continue to search for new and innovative ways to
improve the program in order to provide meaningful risk management for
our farmers.
In terms of budget discipline, S. 1150 is a perfect example of what
balancing the budget is all about. Unlike other bills recently
considered which provide no offsetting reductions in spending, this
bill will not result in increased government expenditures as was stated
by the gentleman from Oregon (Chairman Smith). I underline that. We do
not balance the budget by creating new spending but by redirecting
existing resources to needed areas.
Mr. Speaker, this legislation simply reprioritizes existing funds
from within the agriculture function. From my perspective, that is the
very definition of budget discipline.
This bill does not create unlimited spending but limits it by closing
a loophole that the States could use to shift costs to the Federal
Government, costs that were funded as a result of welfare reform. We
are simply looking at agriculture, rural development, and nutritional
needs and reprioritizing our existing resources to address current
problems.
If we are going to successfully address problem areas, our programs
cannot remain static. With limited resources we have to have the
ability to address issues as they arise.
So if Members care about agricultural research, if they care with
rural communities, if they want to save farmers' crop insurance, if
they are concerned about reducing hunger in America, I urge them to
support passage of this conference report. It is a responsible and
balanced piece of legislation.
Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Combest).
Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Oregon (Mr.
Smith) for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to again reemphasize the title of this
conference report as the Agricultural Research Extension and Education
Reform Act of 1998. Initially, I would like to join with Chairman Smith
in also thanking him but also thank our colleagues, the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Stenholm), the gentleman from California (Mr. Dooley), and
the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Barrett) for their hard work and
cooperation in bringing the conference report to the floor.
This has been a bipartisan effort from the start, and it represents a
lot of hard work on the part of a lot of Members. Agricultural research
has brought us a multitude of results, from the mass production of
penicillin to the sixfold increase in today's agricultural
productivity. For American agriculture to continue to be profitable and
competitive in the global economy, it is critical that we maintain
strong agricultural research programs.
As chairman of the subcommittee with jurisdiction over ag research, I
presided over four hearings which provided the basis for crafting this
bill. We worked diligently to improve upon the structure of research
education and extension. We increase competition and maximize the
research by leveraging private dollars with limited Federal funds.
As we know, this conference report contains several provisions which
were not in the House research bill. S. 1150 is the product of some
very tough negotiations in conference. In the end, we meet our
responsibilities to the truly needy, to the farmers who feed them and
the researchers and crops insurers who support them; and we do this by
putting unspent Ag Department funds to work.
The funding for food stamps is limited primarily to the truly needed
among immigrants who legally entered this country prior to the 1996
welfare reform. Children, the elderly, and the disabled will be
included in the coverage. Let me stress, no food stamps will be given
to new immigrants, only to needy immigrants legally here on or before
August 22, 1996.
This is by no means a wholesale repeal of the provisions of welfare
reform. Those who can and should work will still be required to do so.
No immigrant who came here after August 22, 1996, will be able to
receive food stamps.
The funding for the crop insurance program and ag research programs
fulfill a commitment that the last Congress made to our farmers and
ranchers. With the passage of the 1996 farm bill, Congress reduced the
direct payments farmers have historically received to offset the
natural risk of farming. In return, Congress promised to provide better
risk management, production and marketing tools to maintain farmers'
competitive advantages in the global market.
Mr. Speaker, passage of this conference report is critical to
America's farmers and ranchers. They deserve our support. I commend
this to our colleagues, and I would urge them to support this
conference report.
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes 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, today we have an opportunity to
pass bipartisan legislation built by broad coalition. This should have
been a no-brainer, but, once again, the House leadership decided to
attack the most vulnerable of our society. I commend my colleagues for
their strong vote on opposing the previous rule on May 22 and ask them
to join me in supporting this bipartisan legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of S. 1150, the Agricultural
Research, Extension and Education Reform Act, and I would like to thank
the hard work of the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Smith), our chairman;
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Combest); the gentleman from California
(Mr. Dooley); and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm); along with
their staff, for crafting this legislation that is so important to the
central coast of California and to the rest of the Nation.
The farmers in my district are the most productive specialty crop
growers in the world. They produce over $2.2 billion worth of fresh
fruits, vegetables, and horticultural crops each year. I represent the
``Salad Bowl'' of the country. The agriculture industry is the backbone
of the communities in my district, and they do this without Federal
price supports.
In this highly competitive field of agriculture, research is one of
the few ways that the Federal Government can help my farmers. The new
money in the Initiative for Future Agriculture and Food Systems will
jump-start our efforts on emerging technologies as farming moves into
the 21st century. The partnerships for high-value agriculture product
quality research will give farmers and researchers the ability to work
in conjunction with each other to address a wide range of opportunities
facing the research community, including production, packaging
technology, and value-added enterprises in rural areas.
Mr. Speaker, the bill contains for the first time an initiative for
organic farming and will help this niche market continue to grow. We
have barely begun to tap the full potential of organic farming systems
today. This initiative will provide competitive grants to facilitate
the development of organic agriculture production, processing, and
potential economic benefits associated with both domestic and foreign
markets.
Lastly, I think we have an obligation to provide food assistance to
whose to fell through the cracks when we restored the SSI benefits to
the elderly and disabled last year. This conference report restores the
nutritional safety net for 250,000 legal immigrant adults and children
who were indiscriminately cut off from the food stamp rolls.
[[Page H4129]]
Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
Mr. Speaker, I want to make sure that this debate is based upon the
manner in which this bill was brought to the floor, that is, with
respect and restraint. Now, the facts are that if it were not for the
leadership, this bill would not be on the floor. And I will say that
one more time. If it were not for the leadership, this bill would not
be on the floor.
So from this point on, I hope that this discussion continues on a
bipartisan basis, because that is the only way this bill will pass.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr.
Barrett).
Mr. BARRETT of Nebraska. Mr. Speaker, I, of course, rise to urge the
adoption of the conference report, S. 1150, and am very pleased,
incidentally, to see the House is considering this bill this evening.
The Federal Government's investment in research, except for
agricultural research, has increased dramatically over the last several
years. The reality is that spending on ag research has barely kept up
with the rate of inflation. As a matter of fact, this is the first time
that agricultural research has been seriously reevaluated in about 25
years. This bill would correct that situation and provide a total of,
as has been mentioned, $600 million over 5 years to boost research for
agriculture.
Today, we are at a critical juncture. The 1996 farm bill charted the
course for a free market in agriculture. Unfortunately, this year we
are experiencing for the first time since passage of that bill a
depressed market for agriculture. If Congress does not resist the call
to open the farm bill, we could end up seriously distorting our
markets, reversing a positive trend toward a free market in agriculture
and losing credibility with many of our trading partners.
Agriculture research can help this situation. It could help with the
depressed prices by developing new uses and markets for our products
and through teaching programs that help farmers and ranchers learn new
marketing techniques.
Congress' support for this bill gives agriculture a confidence boost.
Farmers and the industry will know that Congress is interested in
agriculture and will support it in the future, even if we do not
support it in the old way with subsidies and acreage controls. This new
way is much more positive. We support research, new and expanded
markets for our products, and less restrictions on private land.
Let me say a few words to my friends who are opposed to the bill
because it restores food stamps to some legal immigrants. I understand
the controversy that this creates for many. I have the same concerns. I
supported welfare reform in 1996. I believe, however, that the Congress
can do more to further reduce the dependence on and the size and the
cost of government. However, I think there are times when one has to
swallow the good with the bad; and I think this is one of those times,
Mr. Speaker. And in this case, I think the good far outweighs the bad.
Congress is about compromise. We come from all parts of the country.
We have widely divergent political and ideological backgrounds, but we
are here to achieve the best we can for this country. This conference
report is the best thing that we could do for agriculture right now,
and we need Members' support.
Mr. Speaker, I strongly encourage all of my colleagues to support the
bill.
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Michigan (Ms. Stabenow).
{time} 2030
Ms. STABENOW. Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to strongly support the
conference committee for agricultural research and to first commend our
chairman and ranking member, as well as the Chair and ranking member of
the subcommittee who have worked so hard.
This is truly a bipartisan bill. It is good for production
agriculture and it is good for families in Michigan. It is good for
families across the country. We have heard tonight about the important
need for crop insurance, critical agricultural research, food and
nutrition programs, and I want to speak just a moment about food
safety.
My good friend, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt) and I
introduced a safe food action plan just a number of months ago. Two
critical provisions of that are in this legislation: making food safety
a top priority for research, and creating a crisis management team to
respond in the case of an emergency in a very rapid fashion. Today also
at Michigan State University, where we have a national food safety and
toxicology program, we are doing a two-day national research
institution conference to focus on risk factors for food safety.
Today's action could not come at a better time.
Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman
from Illinois (Mr. Ewing), a member of the committee.
Mr. EWING. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the
time. I thank all on the conference committee for the hard work on this
important bill, S. 1150, the Agricultural Research, Extension and
Education Reform Act of 1998.
This is the first comprehensive overhaul of agricultural research
programs in over 20 years. This is quite an impressive accomplishment.
It provides $600 million over the next five years for research. This
conference report funds important agricultural research programs, vital
crop insurance, rural development programs, and restores food stamps
for some legal aliens.
S. 1150 is fully offset from savings from food stamp programs. There
is no budget impact with this legislation. If American farmers are to
compete in the world of free trade, the commitment that we made in the
Freedom to Farm Act must be provided. This is a step in that direction.
Crop insurance, research, these are very important elements of keeping
the Freedom to Farm movement going in America.
In my part of the country the corn is up, the beans are in the field,
and the wheat is green, and it is time that we give them their crop
insurance program and let them know what it is so they can move ahead.
This bill also creates some exciting new research opportunities,
improving the productivity and efficiency and generating, I think, a
better environment, higher quality air and safer and more affordable
food products for American consumers. This legislation also establishes
an animal waste management research initiative, something we hear so
much about today when we talk about confinement livestock operations.
Mr. Speaker, this is an excellent bill. It is time that we move on.
Parts of it are very time sensitive, particularly the crop insurance
portion. I hope that we will give this a resounding ``yes'' vote
tonight. Again, my thanks to the chairman and all on the conference
committee.
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
North Carolina (Mr. Etheridge).
Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for yielding
time to me. Let me also congratulate the chairman and the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) and other members of the committee for
bringing this conference report to us. I commend the Republican
leadership for bringing this report to the floor.
I hope we now realize it is time to stop balancing the budget on the
backs of farmers. Farmers have taken it on the chin, and it is time
that we show our support for the people who risk so much to produce the
safest, most abundant food supply in the world.
This conference report passed the Senate by 92 to 8. We should pass
it in a similar margin in the House. Nothing could have highlighted
more the support for this bill than our failure to pass it prior to the
Memorial Day recess. I certainly heard about it. I am sure others did.
Americans want to support their farmers. Americans want farm
communities to be made whole after a disaster. Americans want research
reform that will make our food cheaper and safer. Americans want
research reform that makes production agriculture environmentally
friendly, and Americans want this bill passed.
The most important part of this legislation or at least one of the
more important ones, in my opinion, is the provision on crop insurance.
With the traditional safety net for farmers disappearing, crop
insurance is the one barrier to ruin for farm families from natural
disaster. Maybe the only one left.
[[Page H4130]]
In North Carolina farmers have been faced with two hurricane seasons
in a row. Without a healthy insurance system in place, many farmers in
these communities would have been ruined. This is a good bill for
farmers in their communities, which means it is a good bill for all
Americans.
I urge Members to cast their votes in favor of these hard-working
Americans and the programs that they depend on. Vote ``yes'' on the
conference report.
Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Georgia (Mr. Chambliss).
Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this
conference report. I would like to take a moment to congratulate the
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Smith) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Stenholm), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Combest) and the gentleman
from California (Mr. Dooley) for the great job they did in putting this
ag bill together.
In 1996 we passed a farm bill that is a very historic farm bill, a
farm bill that is a 7-year bill instead of the normal 5-year bill, a
farm bill that participated in the balanced budget process, a farm bill
that moves agriculture into the 21st century, and a farm bill that gets
the Federal Government off the farm and allows our farmers to do what
they do best and grow the very finest agriculture products of anybody
in the world. In that farm bill we phase out commodity support prices
over that 7-year period.
The Federal Government has got to stay involved in agriculture in
three areas: Number one, we have got to stay involved from a market
standpoint. We have got to move forward to continue to open markets for
our agriculture products.
Secondly, we have to provide a safety net, a safety net in the form
of a good substantive crop insurance program.
Thirdly, the Federal Government has got to stay involved in the area
of research.
Why do we need crop insurance? The year 1997 was a disastrous one in
my section of the country from an ag perspective. Going into July we
had the most beautiful crops we had ever had and then the rain stopped.
We had 60 days of drought, when yields started decreasing and the sun
took its toll. Then the rain started again in September and El Nino
brought rains into February and March, and our farmers were unable to
get their crops out of the field. Crop insurance is extremely important
to farmers who are faced with that problem.
Why do we need research? My son-in-law is a farmer. Joe is living the
American dream of coming back home and farming with his father. But Joe
is only able to do that because through research we are now planting
seeds in the ground every day that are more resistant from a disease
standpoint than what his father planted, and we are also providing
seeds that yield higher yields and better quality yields than what his
father was able to produce. That is why we have to have research.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman very much for this very positive
bill, and I urge its passage.
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes and 30 seconds to the
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Minge).
Mr. MINGE. Mr. Speaker, the bill that is before us this evening is
truly one that is supported on a bipartisan basis, as is evident in the
discussion. But I think that it needs to be said that we have gone
through a fair amount of turmoil in this body as we have discussed
agricultural policy, and there is not unanimity as to the wisdom or the
effectiveness of the farm bill under which we are operating.
Agriculture in many areas of this country is in severe economic
distress. The bankers in my area tell me that we have more farmers that
are facing foreclosure or forced exit from farming than we have had
since the mid-1980s, and the condition of the farm economy rivals what
we saw in the farm depression of the mid-1980s. The farm bill, by
transferring billions of dollars in automatic transition payments, is
not truly addressing the needs that many of these farmers face.
What I feel is good news is that the bill that we are taking up this
evening indeed does. I believe that agricultural research is something
that has paid rich dividends to the American consumer and to the
American farmer, and investing in this area is one of the key
investments that we should make in this Nation. Agricultural research
is every bit as important as scientific research, medical research and
other research.
The crop insurance program similarly pays rich dividends because what
we are doing is, we are giving farmers a better tool with which to
manage their risks. This is not from my perspective a safety net or a
welfare program for farmers. This is a tool to manage risk. What we are
doing is making sure that we are handling at the Federal level the
overhead or the administrative cost of the insurance program and the
farmers are paying for the underwriting cost or the risk element of the
program.
They choose what level of coverage they wish. I believe one of the
more exciting opportunities is to move ahead with what is called crop
revenue insurance, and this would enable farmers to not just look at
the problems of crop failure but also of marketplace failure; that is,
where prices are too low. I hope that the U.S. Department of
Agriculture uses the authority that it has and the funds that are now
available through this bill to expand the revenue assurance program
throughout the country.
Mr. Speaker, I believe that this indeed is an historic occasion this
evening, that we are operating on such a bipartisan basis in a body
that often is fractured by partisan rhetoric. I look forward to quick
passage of this measure.
Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Illinois (Mr. LaHood).
(Mr. LaHOOD asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Speaker, notwithstanding the assault two weeks in a
row by the chairman of the Committee on Rules, I am glad that we are
finally at the point where we can pass in a very bipartisan way this
bill. I think some of us who have worked for the last year and a half
in many ways dislike the tactics that were used to assault a bill that
was passed in a very bipartisan way. I am glad that we are at the point
now that I am sure it will pass overwhelmingly.
I give a good amount of credit to the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Combest) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Dooley) for the many
hearings that they held, for wanting to reach out to every Member that
had any interest in agriculture to say, give us good information and we
will put a bill together. And they did that. And to the gentleman from
Oregon (Mr. Smith) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm), our
thanks to them, too.
For me personally, I have one of the four ag research labs in my home
town of Peoria. This bill means an awful lot. For agriculture it is
just not growing corn and soybeans. Research is the future of
agriculture well into the 21st century. That is why this bill is
important, because what happens in these ag research labs and what
happens at the University of Illinois in Champaign, Illinois as a
result of this bill means that corn farmers and soybean farmers and
people that grow commodities and crops all over this country will have
the advantage of the best research anywhere in the world. I am
delighted to have played a very small part in that.
In addition, this bill contains an opportunity for those of us who
live in States where these megahog farm operations are beginning to
crop up all over to really do some swine odor research over the next
four or five years, to really try and go after the problem that has
been created by megahog operations not just in Illinois but in other
parts of the country. I know that Members grin and smile when we talk
about swine odor research but if they have one of these megahog
operations crop up in one of their communities, they know it is a very
serious problem. This bill also helps address that.
So for the future of agriculture, for the future of research in
agriculture, I ask everyone in the House to support the bill.
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
North Carolina (Mrs. Clayton).
Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the
time.
I too want to join and commend the leadership on both sides of the
House for bringing this bill to this point and hope that the delicate,
carefully crafted, bipartisan compromise conference
[[Page H4131]]
report is indeed overwhelmingly supported. Members should know that it
provides vital funding for agriculture research, education and
extension programs, as well as the restoration of food stamps benefits
and much-needed crop insurance.
{time} 2045
This legislation is also critical as it addresses badly needed
funding for crop insurance for particular farmers and for those who
have suffered disasters in years past.
These moneys will be used for Federal crop insurance research. The
moneys will be used for production liability and limiting of a farmer's
risk due to natural disasters beyond their control.
I am pleased that the conference report continues to recognize the
need for research along with the need for water and sewage on this
rural development program.
This agreement continues the education, research and extension
programs that are so vital at our county level. They also provide
essential funding for the entire agriculture community, providing new
research initiatives and priorities, including Pfisteria, a
microorganism that has plagued much of our waters in North Carolina,
creation of consistent funding standards that all the universities will
know how to have access to the funding, and better funding and better
accountability for these funds.
It also furnishes integral funding for land grant universities,
including historically black colleges and universities, oftentimes who
need these research funds to further their education research
activities. It also provides much needed funds for Hispanic-serving
institutions as well.
Finally, I want to express my heartfelt appreciation and profound
support for the restoration of food stamp benefits for legal
immigrants. The food stamp restoration program has caused a lot of
discussion, but this conference report, I think, targets this to the
most vulnerable of our legal immigrants, the elderly, the disabled,
children, refugees, those who often come to this country with very
little, those who have come to our country who were veterans, who
fought alongside other veterans in the U.S. military forces in Vietnam.
They were eligible for food stamps prior to the Welfare Reform Act of
1996. When we changed the rule, we really denied these persons who
needed these benefits. I am pleased that we are doing the right thing
by restoring that.
I represent a rural district where the need for Federal crop
insurance is very great and very much appreciated. 1996 demonstrated
not only our need but also our utilization of this. I am pleased that
we are restoring that today.
The importance, the urgency and the fairness of this conference
report both by the producers and the consumers of agriculture products
is paramount.
Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to support this much needed
and very well crafted report.
Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Oklahoma (Mr. Lucas).
Mr. LUCAS of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the conference
committee report. It has not been all that long ago that we passed the
1996 farm bill, the most dramatic 7-year farm bill in the history of
agriculture. At the time that we passed the bill, a majority of the
Members of this body supported it, the leadership of this body
supported it, the other body supported it by voting for it, and by his
signature the President showed his support.
What was one of the main points that we made in the 1996 farm bill?
We said, ``Farmers, go forth and farm for the market and we will help
provide you with the tools that you need.''
Today, Mr. Speaker, we have a wonderful opportunity to help provide
those tools. This bill provides additional resources for agricultural
research to the tune of $600 million, a commitment that the Federal
Government has been involved in for 130 years that has benefited not
only farmers and ranchers but the American consumer, as well as crop
insurance, almost $400 million to make that program work, to make those
resources maximize themselves.
The amazing thing is, this is funds that the committee in effect made
decisions that were saved, the money was saved in other areas and then
spent in these areas. The best of all worlds. We live up to our
commitments, we use the resources that we have more efficiently
allocated, and we have done what we said we would do. I thank the
chairman for the opportunity to support this conference committee
report.
Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from South Dakota (Mr. Thune).
Mr. THUNE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman for yielding me
this time and for all the good work of the leadership on this committee
and the leadership of the House in bringing this bill to the floor.
A couple of years ago we did away with production controls and supply
management and price supports and deficiency payments and all those
things that have marked our farm policy for a lot of years. In doing
so, we said to the American agricultural producer that we want you to
make your living at the marketplace. But we did not give them very many
tools with which to manage their risk. Crop insurance is really the
only thing that they have out there to do that. We have the opportunity
here today to cure this annual crisis that we have over the funding
mechanism for crop insurance. This is very important for that reason.
The second thing that is important is because this legislation
provides a mechanism whereby researchers can compete for ag research
funding. The reason American agriculture is even remotely profitable
today to the extent it is, and many would argue when you have prices
below the cost of production that it is even the least bit profitable,
but the reason it is is because of the technological breakthroughs that
we have seen in the past few years. We have become much more efficient.
We have got a lot better yields on a lot less farmable land. If
American agriculture is going to be profitable and continue to be
profitable in the future, we are going to have to make the investment
in research and development.
Agriculture is a tough business under even the best of conditions. We
have an opportunity today to say something that is very positive to
producers of this country, and, that is, that we want to work with you
in making this crop insurance program workable so that you have a tool
whereby you can manage your risk, and, secondly, we are going to invest
in research, so as we head into the next century that agriculture
continue to lead the way and our producers can be the most efficient in
the world and our consumers can continue to benefit from the lowest
prices for food. This is a very important step in that direction.
Again, I thank the leadership and the chairman for his hard work,
diligence and persistence in bringing this bill to the floor and would
urge my colleagues to support the conference report.
Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Montana (Mr. Hill).
Mr. HILL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the agriculture research
conference report. As my colleagues know, the United States has led the
world in agricultural production. We have the best producers in the
world. We can compete on a level playing field with anyone, any
producer, anywhere in the world.
Right now things are not very good on the northern plains. We have
dry conditions, we have trade imbalances, market failures, and it has
created a lot of problems for producers on the northern plains. This
bill does not address all those problems, but it does deal with one,
and that is the insurance program for our drought conditions. But we
cannot continue to compete unless we have research and an investment in
research, because it is research that increases the productivity of our
farms and ranches, it is how we lower costs, and it is how we increase
yields. Frankly it is how we feed America and it is how we feed the
world and it is why Americans enjoy the highest living standard in the
world.
When the last Congress asked U.S. farmers to compete in the world
markets, we said that we would help them manage risk with a better
insurance program and assure our commitment to an effective crop
insurance program. This bill delivers on that promise. We also said
that we would invest in research so that we could assure our
[[Page H4132]]
long-term competitiveness. This conference report delivers on that
promise as well.
Mr. Speaker, my State leads in agricultural research. At Montana
State University, we have research with regard to different grains. At
our Agricultural Research Station at Sidney, we are dealing with pest
management. At Fort Keogh, we are dealing with increased production for
people in the livestock industry. It is research that has increased our
production, it is research that will improve our environment, and it is
research that will deliver on our standard of living for all Americans.
I urge all my colleagues to support the conference report.
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds for purposes of
saying thank you to the staffs on both the majority side and the
minority side for the hours and days and weeks and months of hard work
that they have put in to bringing us to this point tonight. We
appreciate it.
Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Dooley), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on
Forestry, Resource Conservation, and Research and I thank him for his
work.
(Mr. DOOLEY of California asked and was given permission to revise
and extend his remarks.)
Mr. DOOLEY of California. Mr. Speaker, I also want to commend the
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Smith) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Combest), along with the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm), for
really continuing the tradition of the Committee on Agriculture to work
in a bipartisan fashion to devise ag policy which is going to work in
the best interests of our farmers.
I think also that the environment that they have created in the
Committee on Agriculture, that bipartisan environment, certainly has
contributed to our staffs working in a very effective and bipartisan
fashion, too.
I rise today in strong support of the conference report to accompany
S. 1150, the Ag Research, Extension and Education Reform Act. It has
been a long road, but I believe that passage of this bill is
imperative, and I am pleased that the House will vote on it today.
As with any legislation that we consider in Congress, S. 1150 is a
product of hard work and compromise. While there will be some here
today who will criticize certain provisions of this bill, I strongly
believe that we have crafted a good bill that deserves the support of
the House.
Mr. Speaker, I believe that the Federal investment in ag research is
the most vital component of the agricultural safety net for the future.
Our country has a long and successful history of agricultural research
innovations, and our system is the envy of the world. I believe that
the research provisions of S. 1150 will lead to an even better
agricultural research system in our country and provide farmers with
the tools that they will need to be competitive in this international
marketplace into the next century.
Specifically, the conference report requires a competitive process
for high-priority research projects and requires a match for those
projects. The conference report does not contain any earmarked projects
for specific States or specific universities, and I also think that the
peer review and merit review provisions will improve the quality of
research conducted at USDA.
The most exciting provision of the bill is the establishment of the
Initiative for Future Agriculture and Food Systems. This new program,
which is funded at $120 million per year, will provide a new and stable
source of competitively awarded research money to be targeted at high-
priority issues. I want to applaud Senator Lugar for his persistence in
establishing this program and know that it will begin delivering
benefits to farmers in the next few years.
While the research provisions of the bill were a top priority, the
crop insurance components are also very important, because they provide
the needed ability for farmers to manage the risk that is going to be
inherent in the marketplace certainly as we move away from many direct
subsidies to farmers.
But one other important component was the restoration of food stamp
benefits for certain groups of legal immigrants and refugees and
asylees. Many people in this body have criticized this provision, but I
take exception to that. As part of the Balanced Budget Act we passed
last year, we tried to provide some I think responsible reforms to the
welfare act that many of us voted for in a bipartisan fashion.
We are not turning our back on welfare reform. What we are trying to
do is provide some important assistance to some people who we invited
into our country that have been important contributors to our society.
I am particularly pleased about this because in my district I am home
to a large number of Hmong refugees who will be benefiting from these
provisions.
Oftentimes, we forget the sacrifices that these Hmong and Lao
refugees have provided our country in participating in the secret war,
participating alongside of our soldiers in the Vietnam War, saving many
of their lives. I do not think we have to make any apologies for
providing a restoration of food stamp benefits to some of these
individuals who we invited into our country and provided service to our
country.
Mr. Speaker, I think we have a great conference report here that
meets the needs of U.S. farmers and is a responsible bill. I urge the
entire body of the House to vote in support of it.
Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume. In closing, let me thank again the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Stenholm) and his great statement about our staff, on both sides. They
have worked arduously and well together. Members would be surprised how
closely we work. I think they would be proud, as I am, this evening,
proud of the conduct of this debate, and the people who are in it,
because we who represent agriculture represent farmers. We do not
represent anybody else, not huge companies, not foreign interests. We
represent farmers. I think that is the reason that we can find ways to
accommodate one another's issues and accommodate one another's ideas.
I am especially proud to bring this conference committee report to my
colleagues. I might say to them that it is not only because of our work
together. There were 71 agricultural organizations in America, I cannot
find any organization that was not represented, that not only had great
patience with us with this bill when we asked them to have patience but
then when we asked them to step forward and to support this bill with
Members, they did so enthusiastically. It is out of great respect for
the organization of agriculture in America which stood together on this
issue is the reason that we are here.
{time} 2100
So, Mr. Speaker, I again thank all my colleagues for the debate, and
I ask them all to support this very good conference committee report.
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member rises in reluctant support of
the conference report for S. 1150, the Agricultural Research Bill.
This Member is voting for the conference report because of the urgent
need for crop insurance and the importance of agricultural research.
However, this Member is strongly opposed to the provision in the bill
that reinstates food stamp benefits for legal immigrants.
Two years ago, we finally passed major legislation that ended welfare
as we knew it. The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act of
1996 contained a provision that barred most legal immigrants from the
Food Stamp program, and we need to remember that immigrants are
sponsored by American citizens who have agreed to take financial
responsibility for their needs during the naturalization process. Too
many sponsors have failed in their responsibility. This Member is
strongly opposed to the reinstatement of food stamps for legal
immigrants that was added to the bill during conference.
However, the need to approve crop insurance funding has reached a
critical point. Funding is necessary so that our nation's farmers have
in place a safety net to protect them against the natural disasters
which are a constant threat. Allowing crops insurance coverage to lapse
would make too many producers vulnerable to the uncertainties cause by
weather. The farm bill enacted in 1996 creates more freedom and
opportunities for farmers, but it is important for crop insurance to
remain in place as a viable option.
It is also critically important to reauthorize the agricultural
research program. Funding for research offers a long-term and far-
sighted approach to supporting producers and improving our nation's
food supply. Clearly, the success
[[Page H4133]]
of agriculture in the future depends on the research we support now.
This Member is voting for the conference report because of the
importance of crop insurance and agricultural research.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, today, I rise to support passage of S.
1150, the conference report on the Agricultural Research, Extension,
and Education Reauthorization Act, which reauthorizes these programs
for five years. Funding provided through this authorization is used by
state research centers to protect and improve the use of crops.
Three weeks ago, I spoke against the rule that would have allowed a
vote on this legislation. The rule, if passed, could have stopped
funding for food and nutrition assistance.
Today we have a chance to vote on a clean bill. This bill contains
funding for some of the most important research done in this country.
In my congressional district, scientists at the Connecticut
Agricultural Experiment Station have used U.S. Department of
Agriculture grants to fund research on ticks that cause Lyme Disease
and on yew trees that produce Taxol to fight breast and ovarian cancer.
I support today's bill because it ensures that 250,000 individuals
and families will receive needed hunger assistance. I also support this
bill because it provides for research that saves lives.
I urge my colleagues to join me in support of this important
legislation.
Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend Chairman Smith, Ranking
Member Stenholm, and the members of the Committee. I commend you for
the excellent legislation we have before us today.
The Agriculture Research, Extension and Education Reform Act will
give stability to crop insurance programs, boost spending on
agricultural research for the first time in 10 years, and provide an
additional $100 million for economic development in rural areas. By
doing so, the bill will bring jobs to East Texas and improve long-term
productivity and profitability for East Texas farmers and ranchers.
As government subsidies for agriculture come to an end, crop
insurance has become one of the last barriers against financial ruin
for farm families. The 1996 farm bill guaranteed crop insurance to our
agricultural producers, but without this bill, farmers across the
nation face the prospect of crop insurance cancellations as early as
this month. In East Texas, there are agricultural producers facing
drought conditions in some counties and floods in others, and we cannot
deny them the crop insurance they have been promised. I share the
relief of every crop producer in East Texas tonight as we pass this
bill and ensure the continuation of crop insurance.
Equally important is the research component of this bill, providing
$600 million over five years in mandatory spending on agricultural
research, including funds for the Texas A&M University System across
Texas. We have a long history of agricultural research in this country,
and it has led to the most productive and most efficient agricultural
industry in the world. Continuation of this commitment is vital for
America's farmers and ranchers as agricultural subsidies disappear and
global markets become more competitive.
Mr. Speaker, this bill has been carefully crafted to pay for itself
and protect the future of our agricultural producers and every American
who relies on their products. I encourage all my colleagues to cast a
strong vote for rural America and pass this bill.
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
farmworkers. 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 workforce.
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.
Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my
time.
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of our time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Sununu). All time has expired.
Without objection, the previous question is ordered. The question is
on the conference report.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the conference report.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. SOLOMON. 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.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 364,
nays 50, not voting 19, as follows:
[Roll No. 204]
YEAS--364
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Allen
Andrews
Armey
Bachus
Baesler
Baker
Baldacci
Ballenger
Barcia
Barrett (NE)
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berman
Berry
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonior
Bono
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant
Bunning
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Capps
Cardin
Carson
Castle
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coble
Combest
Condit
Conyers
Cook
Cooksey
Costello
Cox
Coyne
Cramer
Crapo
Cubin
Cummings
Cunningham
Danner
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (VA)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Ewing
Farr
Fattah
Fawell
Fazio
Filner
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fossella
Fowler
Fox
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gekas
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goodling
Gordon
Graham
Granger
Green
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefner
Hill
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Hooley
Horn
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (WI)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kasich
Kelly
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kim
Kind (WI)
King (NY)
Kleczka
Klink
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
LaFalce
LaHood
Lampson
Lantos
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
Livingston
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Manton
Markey
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McHale
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Metcalf
Mica
Millender-McDonald
Miller (CA)
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Moran (KS)
Morella
Murtha
Nadler
Neal
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
[[Page H4134]]
Ortiz
Owens
Oxley
Packard
Pallone
Parker
Pascrell
Pastor
Paxon
Payne
Pease
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pickett
Pitts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Poshard
Price (NC)
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Redmond
Regula
Riggs
Riley
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rogan
Rogers
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Ryun
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Schaffer, Bob
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Sessions
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuster
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (OR)
Smith (TX)
Smith, Adam
Smith, Linda
Snowbarger
Snyder
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stabenow
Stark
Stenholm
Stokes
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thompson
Thornberry
Thune
Thurman
Tierney
Torres
Towns
Traficant
Turner
Upton
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Walsh
Wamp
Waters
Watkins
Watt (NC)
Watts (OK)
Waxman
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Weygand
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wise
Wolf
Woolsey
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NAYS--50
Archer
Barr
Barton
Bass
Bliley
Blunt
Brady (TX)
Cannon
Chabot
Coburn
Collins
Crane
Deal
DeLay
Doolittle
Ensign
Goode
Goodlatte
Goss
Greenwood
Hefley
Herger
Hostettler
Hunter
Istook
Johnson, Sam
Kingston
Largent
Manzullo
Miller (FL)
Neumann
Pappas
Paul
Rohrabacher
Roukema
Royce
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer, Dan
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Solomon
Stearns
Stump
Sununu
Taylor (MS)
Tiahrt
Weldon (FL)
NOT VOTING--19
Bartlett
Bateman
Burr
Engel
Frank (MA)
Furse
Gonzalez
Harman
Lewis (GA)
Martinez
McDade
Mollohan
Moran (VA)
Myrick
Pryce (OH)
Reyes
Ros-Lehtinen
Talent
Yates
{time} 2119
Messrs. GOODLATTE, HERGER and SALMON changed their vote from ``yea''
to ``nay.''
Mr. GALLEGLY changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the conference report was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________