[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.

                          ____________________