[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 84 (Wednesday, June 24, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H5195-H5212]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




   AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND 
               RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1999

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 482 and rule 
XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the bill, 
H.R. 4101.

                              {time}  1428


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of 
the bill (H.R. 4101) making appropriations for Agriculture, Rural 
Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies 
programs for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1999, and for other 
purposes, with Mr. LaHood in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole rose earlier today, the 
demand for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn) had been postponed.


          Sequential Votes Postponed in Committee of the Whole

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 482, proceedings will now 
resume on those amendments on which further proceedings were postponed 
in the following order: The amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn); the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Miller); and the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Royce).
  The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote 
after the second vote in this series.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Coburn

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn) on 
which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes 
prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The Clerk designated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 223, 
noes 202, not voting 8, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 260]

                               AYES--223

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Berry
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Borski
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Cook
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Fox
     Gallegly
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gillmor
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kasich
     Kildee
     Kim
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Mascara
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Ortiz
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pappas
     Parker
     Paul
     Paxon
     Pease
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Portman
     Poshard
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Redmond
     Regula
     Riggs
     Riley
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryun
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schaffer, Bob
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Linda
     Snowbarger
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Talent
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Traficant
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Weygand
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

[[Page H5196]]



                               NOES--202

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barrett (WI)
     Bass
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Bilbray
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Campbell
     Capps
     Cardin
     Carson
     Castle
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cooksey
     Coyne
     Cummings
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (VA)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Edwards
     Ehrlich
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Filner
     Foley
     Ford
     Fowler
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Furse
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gilchrest
     Gilman
     Granger
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hooley
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Klug
     Kolbe
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Martinez
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHale
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Nadler
     Neal
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Smith, Adam
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Torres
     Towns
     Turner
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Wexler
     White
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Cannon
     Dingell
     Doyle
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Hamilton
     Markey
     Slaughter

                              {time}  1449

  Mr. PORTMAN and Mr. BONILLA changed their vote from ``no'' to 
``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


               Amendment Offered by Mr. Miller of Florida

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Miller) of 
Florida on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the 
noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The Clerk designated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 167, 
noes 258, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 7, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 261]

                               AYES--167

     Allen
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Barr
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Bass
     Berman
     Bilirakis
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Bono
     Borski
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Campbell
     Capps
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chabot
     Coburn
     Collins
     Cook
     Cox
     Coyne
     Crane
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLay
     Deutsch
     Dickey
     Doggett
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehrlich
     Engel
     English
     Ensign
     Fawell
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hansen
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hilleary
     Hinchey
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Jackson (IL)
     Johnson (CT)
     Kanjorski
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kim
     Kind (WI)
     Kingston
     Klug
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Largent
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lowey
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDade
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Miller (CA)
     Miller (FL)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Neumann
     Ney
     Northup
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pappas
     Pascrell
     Paul
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pitts
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Riggs
     Rogan
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Royce
     Rush
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Scarborough
     Schumer
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Skaggs
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith, Linda
     Snowbarger
     Souder
     Sununu
     Tauscher
     Tierney
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wamp
     Waxman
     Weldon (PA)
     White
     Wolf
     Yates
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--258

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barrett (NE)
     Barton
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berry
     Bilbray
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Carson
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Combest
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crapo
     Cubin
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Filner
     Foley
     Ford
     Fowler
     Frost
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Graham
     Granger
     Green
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hefner
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilliard
     Hinojosa
     Holden
     Hooley
     Houghton
     Hunter
     Istook
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, E.B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     King (NY)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Latham
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Livingston
     Lofgren
     Lucas
     Luther
     Manton
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Murtha
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Ortiz
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Pastor
     Paxon
     Payne
     Pease
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Redmond
     Reyes
     Riley
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ryun
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Saxton
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schaffer, Bob
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Adam
     Snyder
     Solomon
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Torres
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Vento
     Walsh
     Waters
     Watkins
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Young (AK)

                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1

       
     Sisisky
       

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Cannon
     Dingell
     Doyle
     Gonzalez
     Hamilton
     Markey
     Slaughter

                              {time}  1506

  Mr. ISTOOK changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. ARCHER, MALONEY of Connecticut, and BARTLETT of Maryland 
changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Royce

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce) 
on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes 
prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The Clerk designated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.

[[Page H5197]]

  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This is a five-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 118, 
noes 307, not voting 8, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 262]

                               AYES--118

     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Barr
     Barrett (WI)
     Bass
     Bilbray
     Blagojevich
     Boehlert
     Borski
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Callahan
     Campbell
     Castle
     Chabot
     Coburn
     Collins
     Cox
     Coyne
     Crane
     Davis (VA)
     DeFazio
     DeLay
     Doggett
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     English
     Ensign
     Fattah
     Fawell
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Gejdenson
     Gillmor
     Goss
     Hastert
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     Largent
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Manzullo
     Mascara
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDade
     McInnis
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Miller (FL)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Neal
     Neumann
     Ney
     Olver
     Pascrell
     Paul
     Petri
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Ramstad
     Rivers
     Rogan
     Rohrabacher
     Rothman
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanders
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schumer
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Stark
     Sununu
     Taylor (MS)
     Tierney
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Wamp
     Waxman
     Weldon (PA)

                               NOES--307

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Baesler
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Berry
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Capps
     Cardin
     Carson
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Combest
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crapo
     Cubin
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Deal
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Emerson
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fazio
     Filner
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Graham
     Granger
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hefner
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Holden
     Hooley
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kim
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Livingston
     Lofgren
     Lucas
     Maloney (NY)
     Manton
     Martinez
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHale
     McHugh
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Murtha
     Nethercutt
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pappas
     Parker
     Pastor
     Paxon
     Payne
     Pease
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Redmond
     Regula
     Reyes
     Riggs
     Riley
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Ryun
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schaffer, Bob
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Adam
     Smith, Linda
     Snowbarger
     Snyder
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Walsh
     Waters
     Watkins
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Weygand
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Cannon
     Dingell
     Doyle
     Gonzalez
     Hamilton
     Markey
     Slaughter
     Torres

                              {time}  1515

  Mr. BOEHLERT changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Sanders

  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Sanders:
       Insert before the short title the following new section:
       Sec. ____. The amounts otherwise provided by this Act are 
     revised by adding an amount for programs included in Section 
     402 of PL 104-127 $10,000,000.

  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I am proud to offer this bipartisan 
amendment with the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. LoBiondo) to increase 
nutrition programs for senior citizens by $10 million.
  Last year, the gentleman from New Jersey and I offered a similar 
amendment which passed on the floor of this House, but which did not 
survive the conference committee. This year, we are going to do our 
best to see that it does survive the conference.
  Mr. Chairman, the truth of the matter is that as a wealthy Nation we 
do not treat our senior citizens with the kind of respect that we 
should. Half of the seniors in this country have incomes of under 
$15,000 a year. Four million live in poverty, and 16 million in near 
poverty.
  Most shamefully in this country today, which recently has seen a 
proliferation of millionaires and billionaires, tens and tens of 
thousands of senior citizens are malnourished and do not get the kind 
of nutritious diet they require. Sixteen percent of the people who 
receive food from emergency food banks are elderly people 65 years of 
age or older.
  Studies conducted at the University of Florida found that over 66 
percent of beneficiaries of senior nutrition programs are at moderate 
to high risk of malnutrition.
  Mr. Chairman, that is not what should be going on in the United 
States of America. We must do better. And the gentleman from New Jersey 
(Mr. LoBiondo) and I are trying to do that.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment funds senior commodity programs which 
provide grants, either food or cash, to States so that local 
organizations can prepare meals delivered to elderly persons in 
congregate settings or delivered to their homes through such programs 
as the Meals on Wheels program.
  Senior nutrition programs are a cost-effective, intelligent program 
which provide nutritious meals to some of the most vulnerable citizens 
in our country, senior citizens who are too weak and too frail to 
prepare their own meals.
  This program also provides funding to congregate meal sites where 
seniors not only get nutrition, but where they are able to get a chance 
to get out of their homes, to mingle with other senior citizens and to 
improve their quality of life. In Vermont and throughout this country, 
these are wonderful programs which work very, very well.
  Mr. Chairman, this is an enormously cost-effective program. For every 
$1 spent on senior nutrition programs, $3 were saved from Medicare and 
Medicaid. It is obviously that if we keep seniors healthy, they need to 
go to the doctor less, they need to go to the hospital less, they need 
less for prescription drugs.
  Mr. Chairman, the problem that we are facing is that 41 percent of 
the Meals on Wheels programs have a waiting list. That is part of the 
problem that the gentleman from New Jersey and I are addressing. This 
is an excellent program, but there are long waiting lists all over this 
country.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment increases funding in this program from 
$141 million to $151 million. This simply brings us back to where we 
were in fiscal year 1996. This money is offset by a $10 million cut 
already brought about in the Bass-DeFazio amendment on animal damage 
control that was passed yesterday.

[[Page H5198]]

  The bottom line is that the needs of senior citizens are great. We 
have hungry seniors. That should not be the case in this country. This 
is a cost-effective program, and I urge support for this program.
  Mr. LoBIONDO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) for 
his work on this issue last year and again this year.
  I want to associate myself with the remarks that the gentleman from 
Vermont made about some of the aspects of this program that are so very 
important for my colleagues, for all of us to understand.
  These are programs that make a difference. These are programs that 
are making a difference to people whose lives in many cases are very, 
very dark and shadowy. They are senior citizens who are shut-ins, who 
do not have the ability to get out on their own. In many cases this is 
the only social contact they have for a whole day. This is the only 
time they receive a hot meal and someone to check on them.
  Mr. Chairman, I know that in my district I have taken the time to go 
out to see how some of these programs work firsthand, to actually be 
with volunteers who are delivering the meals. That is another aspect. 
In many cases there are volunteers who are giving of their own time to 
make a difference by participating in the program.
  So when we combine all of these factors together, that it is cost-
effective, that for every dollar we spend we are saving three, to 
combine this with the fact that for a senior citizen who may have a 
problem there is a volunteer who is going to be, on a daily basis, 
giving a physical check, how do we measure these benefits? They are far 
beyond the $10 million that we are asking for.
  I am very appreciative that the gentleman from New Mexico (Chairman 
Skeen) has agreed to consider this amendment, and I thank my colleague 
from Vermont.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I just want to tell the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. 
Sanders) that we admire his tenacity, sagacity, endurance, and what a 
wonderful age to be that lively. And we are willing to accept the 
gentleman's amendment and hope that he gets some rest this evening.
  Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SKEEN. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. FAZIO of California. I would just like to associate myself with 
the sagacity of the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen) in accepting 
this amendment, and indicate that I would hope we could accommodate the 
needs of the seniors as the gentleman has outlined them as we proceed 
with this bill down the road.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SKEEN. I yield to the gentleman from Vermont.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New Mexico 
(Chairman Skeen) very much for his acceptance of this amendment. It has 
been a long morning. I grant the gentleman that. But I think it is 
worth it, and I hope to work with him in conference so that we can 
stand up for senior citizens.
  So many of them are really hurting, and I know that the gentleman 
agrees that this is an important program. I thank him very much.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I could not ask for 
better company or a better neighborhood to operate.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support 
of the amendment to HR 4101 offered today by my friend and colleague 
from New Jersey, Mr. LoBiondo, and Mr. Sanders of Vermont. The 
amendment will provide an additional $10 million for Senior Nutrition 
Programs, which support state and local efforts, offset with a minor 
reduction in overhead and salaries at the Food and Drug Administration. 
This amendment will restore funding for this vital senior program to 
its FY 1996 level of $150 million.
  As we make the tough choices needed to keep our budget balanced, we 
cannot forget the needs of our senior citizens, most of whom live on 
fixed incomes and have limited means.
  For many of these senior-citizens, the meals provided by these 
programs represent their main meal for the day. In 1996, the Mercer 
County, New Jersey Office on Aging reported that 1,483 persons received 
almost 119,839 nutritious meals provided in part under the Older 
Americans Act. In Ocean County, Phil Rubenstein, Executive Director of 
the Ocean County Office of Senior Services, has stated that 
approximately 600 individuals a day will eat a meal and enjoy the 
company of others at a congregate nutrition site. The situation in 
Burlington County and Monmouth County are very similar.
  Senior Nutrition Programs are cost effective. According to the 
Department of Health and Human Services, for every $1 spent, nearly $3 
is saved in other health care programs like Medicare and Medicaid, Mr. 
Speaker, this amendment should be a ``no brainer,'' and I urge all of 
my colleagues to support the LoBiondo/Sanders amendment to HR 4101.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I rise to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, in this country, when we have a threat from a foreign 
government or foreign entity, we allocate or appropriate sufficient 
resources in the Defense Department to fight it. When we have a threat 
from disease, we allocate sufficient resources to the NIH, the National 
Institutes of Health, and through technology and science to fight it.
  What I worry about, Mr. Chairman, in this bill is we have 
responsibility for the food safety of the American citizen, and I worry 
that we are not appropriating sufficient resources to protect the 
American people.
  Mr. Chairman, I am not one as a conservative Democrat that wants to 
throw money at problems, so I do not come at this issue saying that we 
need to throw money at the food safety issue in America today. What I 
do say is we need to analyze the problem and allocate our resources 
accordingly.
  First of all, with the allocation in this budget we are 82 percent 
less than the amount the administration requested. Eighty-two percent 
less than the administration requested.
  Now, is that a concern, Mr. Chairman, at this time in America? I 
think we need to allocate more resources for three reasons.
  One is we have a record number, a record number of imports of food 
into this country. A record number of food imports into America. Right 
now 9,000 Americans die and another 33 million become ill each year 
from food-borne pathogens. Nine thousand die, 33 million people will 
get sick in this country, the wealthiest country in the world.
  Currently, less than two-tenths of 1 percent of all imported produce 
is being inspected for pathogen contamination. Let me repeat that to my 
colleagues. Less than two-tenths of 1 percent of all imported produce 
is being inspected for pathogen contamination. Now, I think that is a 
serious problem, Mr. Chairman. I think that is a serious concern to 
protect American citizens. That is the first reason we need to come up 
to the President's request.
  The second is, it is going to cost a little money to start using 
science and technology instead of smelling and poking, the traditional 
method. We need to move from using the traditional method that we used 
before, that is antiquated and outdated, and move into the new century, 
the next century, and use the available technology that can protect the 
American citizen.
  And lastly, Mr. Chairman, a compelling reason to allocate more 
resources, we have the largest outbreak of E. coli in the country's 
history today and last week, and last night. Four thousand Americans 
became sick in Illinois from E. coli. We have an outbreak on the East 
Coast in New England. We have an outbreak in Georgia where children are 
in the hospital on the critical list and potentially at risk of dying 
from E. coli.

                              {time}  1530

  Mr. Chairman, this is a very significant problem. We are not a 
developing country. We are a superpower. When we have threats in 
defense, we meet them. When we have threats from disease, we meet them. 
When we have threats in food safety, Mr. Chairman, we better meet them.
  This bill does not meet them with the threat out there in the three 
areas that I pointed out. I would hope that our chairman, our 
distinguished chairman and ranking member would work

[[Page H5199]]

to address this very, very important issue for the safety of our 
children, for the food safety of our adults, for the 9,000 Americans 
that will die, for the 33 million Americans that will become sick, and 
for the lack of resources that we need to devote to science and 
technology at the current time.
  Mr. Chairman, I strongly encourage this committee to revisit this 
issue and get more serious about allocating sufficient resources for 
the E. coli outbreak that we have, for the record imports that we have 
coming into this country, and for the need to protect our children.
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I just want to comment additionally on food safety. And 
I would like to point out what was done in terms of funding, what was 
done in the research authorization bill passed through the Committee on 
Agriculture and ultimately, law. Food safety was given a high priority. 
We designated in that legislation that food safety research should have 
a priority, both in the detection of food-borne pathogens and in 
reducing food-borne pathogens. In the effort to make sure that the food 
that America eats is healthy both the Research Authorization bill and 
this appropriation bill gives priority.
  I would like to point out to my colleagues we included language in 
the authorization bill important in assuring coordination of the 
activities of the Department of Agriculture, the Centers for Disease 
Control and the Food and Drug Administration. We directed that those 
three agencies of government start working together now to coordinate 
their efforts in the event of a health risk from food-borne pathogens. 
A very important part of our food safety efforts must be preparedness. 
USDA has already designated food safety efforts as a priority. Food and 
Drug has already designated it as a priority, and the Centers for 
Disease Control has of course always had it as a priority. The 
coordination of efforts at the local, state and national level is 
important as is research and education.
  I think most of us agree that this is a very important aspect of how 
we make sure that disease outbreaks from food-borne pathogens is 
minimized. As we become more and more dependent on additional food 
products coming in from the other countries, because of new 
regulations, and I might add amendments, that put our farmers at a 
competitive disadvantage, food safety will become an ever more 
important issue.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the indulgence of the House to talk about 
an agricultural problem. Actually, the jurisdiction for the solution to 
this problem lies within the U.S. Customs Service. But I went to the 
chairman of the Subcommittee on Treasury Postal Service, and General 
Government this morning and asked him to enter into a colloquy with me 
in order that I could explain this very serious problem that ironically 
is facing the tree growers and the lumber manufacturers of Arizona 
also.
  His staff informed me that he did not want to have a colloquy with 
me. So, Mr. Chairman, with the indulgence of the Chair, I want to talk 
just a few minutes.
  We have the Canadians subsidizing their lumber industry and shipping 
lumber to the United States of America against the U.S.-Canada softwood 
lumber agreement, and selling it cheaper than our lumber people, our 
tree growers, can get it out of the mill in South Alabama, in Maine, 
all over this country.
  Those of us on the Forestry 2000 Task Force, which represents members 
of this Congress who have lumber interests in our district, are coming 
to this body to talk about this very serious problem.
  We have an agreement with Canada. Canada agreed they would not 
unfairly subsidize their sawmills in Canada and put our sawmills at a 
tremendous disadvantage. Canada is violating the agreement. The Customs 
Service is aware of the fact that they are breaking the agreement, yet 
they refuse to police it. Until sufficient time as we recognize that we 
cannot tolerate the Canadians or anybody else violating agreements, 
then we are going to continue to have this problem.
  I am notifying those managing the Treasury/Postal bill that when that 
bill comes to the floor, many of us are going to vote against it. Until 
such time as Customs recognizes that they are going to enforce the law 
of the land and that they are going to enforce these treaties, they are 
going to have trouble getting their money out of the Congress of the 
United States.
  To those members of the Forestry 2000 Task Force, I encourage them to 
be prepared to talk on the Treasury/Postal bill. For those of you from 
Arizona who have the same problems as they have in Alabama and in 
Texas, I encourage you to do a little bit of research and let us 
emphasize, even to the point of a possible amendment reducing the 
ability of the Customs Department's to be effective; since they are 
already ineffective, we will just reduce their appropriations.
  Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the Chair's tolerance and patience on 
this. I know that the jurisdiction for the policing of this trade 
agreement does not fall within the realm of the Department of 
Agriculture, but it is an agricultural problem because it impacts every 
farmer who grows a tree in the United States of America.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I do not plan on taking the full 5 minutes but only a 
moment. I would like to associate myself in part with the comments of 
the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer).
  I do not know how many Members have ever had food poisoning. I bet 
almost every Member here has had food poisoning at one time, not only 
from products but even from local problems that we have. We had in 
California a whole mess of strawberries with hepatitis come across from 
Mexico. It not only hurt people's sickness but our own local strawberry 
growers were hurt because people were afraid to buy strawberries. So 
there does need to be more control. I had a child in my district die of 
E. coli and the parents told me, ``We prayed, we prayed for our child 
to die because they were in such agony.''
  I mean, if you think about that and the dollars that we put into 
research, especially for E. coli, this is a problem that is not going 
to go away. They keep telling us that this goes away. This is fecal 
matter that sets on beef or meat products and is not cleaned off before 
it goes to the consumer. We have got to get a handle on this.
  I laud what the committee has done as far as focusing on the issue of 
food safety. But it is an area in conference that we need to address.
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman from 
California's comments. I just want to associate myself with his 
concern, especially for the children in this country that can 
potentially contract E. coli.
  As the gentleman knows, children can get different strains. The 
strain in Illinois apparently is a less severe strain. The strain 
currently that has had the outbreak in Georgia is the much more severe 
strain that has a number of children in the hospital, that has the 
potential to shut down kidneys and the liver and potentially kill these 
children in Atlanta. And this is something that this committee and this 
Congress needs to do, not only for the children of the country, but for 
the safety of all Americans, where 9,000 people will die in this 
country because of this kind of threat and 33 million Americans will 
get sick. This is a particularly devastating, much more severe E. coli 
outbreak on children 5 and under.
  I would strongly recommend that we take another look at the funding 
levels in conference with the Senate and that we do the duty that I 
know the chairman, our distinguished chairman from New Mexico and our 
ranking member from Ohio want to do, and that we do not wait for more 
children to get sick, and we try to come up to the President's level to 
protect the people in this country.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I would say the 
President's budget, if we enacted the President's budget we are going 
to have billions of dollars in new taxes and billions of dollars in new 
spending. There are areas which I think we can add and this is one of 
them.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

[[Page H5200]]

  Mr. Chairman, I would like this afternoon to rise and associate 
myself with the remarks of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle who 
talked about food safety for a moment.
  It happens that the strawberries that the gentleman mentioned that 
were brought in and eaten by children were eaten in my district in 
Trenton, Michigan, in southern Genesee County. In fact, my staff 
persons's daughter was one of the children that ate the strawberries. 
Fortunately, after monitoring her health, she did not get deathly sick, 
but this was a very, very serious issue for the families in my 
district.
  I would applaud the subcommittee and the committee for putting 
together a budget that makes sense in a number of areas. I would only 
urge, as has been said, that we focus more strongly, as we move towards 
conference committee, on the issue of food safety. We have passed an 
agricultural research bill that we should all celebrate, that makes 
sense, that does put food safety at a top priority, that does create a 
crisis management team for USDA to move in when there is a crisis in a 
community and be able to respond working with local and State 
officials. But there is more to be done.
  I have sponsored a safe food action plan, along with the chairman 
today who is presiding, to focus on food safety throughout the 
agricultural budget, particularly not only in research but in 
transferring that research into technology. If we develop faster E. 
coli testing, and in fact that is being done in my district in 
Michigan, we need to be able to transfer that to the private sector so 
we can get tools directly into the hands of farmers and producers.
  I wanted to also indicate that we have one of the premier food safety 
research facilities at Michigan State University, the National Food 
Safety and Toxicology Center, where we just recently did a national 
conference with USDA to focus on the top research risk factors that we 
should be addressing through funding.
  But without the necessary dollars to invest, we will not be able to 
follow through on all of the plans, the research bill, the efforts that 
have gone on in making food safety a priority. It happens if we make it 
a priority in terms of resources.
  Again, I commend the committee, the subcommittee's work and ask that 
they continue to look for ways to add resources for a very, very 
critical issue for all of our families.


          Modification to Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Bass

  Mr. BASS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to modify the Bass 
amendment No. 2 previously agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Blunt). The Clerk will report the 
request.
  The Clerk read as follows:
       Mr. Bass of New Hampshire asks unanimous consent that in 
     subsection (a) of the Bass amendment to H.R. 4101, previously 
     adopted, after the word ``Program'', insert the word 
     ``operations.''

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from New Hampshire?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. BASS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a technical correction that we have made to the 
amendment which the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) and I offered 
yesterday afternoon, which passed by a significant vote.
  I just want to mention that since that time, many Members of Congress 
may have received calls from their State agriculture departments or 
their State aviation departments or their State fish and wildlife 
departments saying that in some form or fashion the Bass-DeFazio 
amendment would affect the funding for such programs as human health 
and crops and natural resources, forest and range and agriculture and 
so forth. That may have been the case had the unanimous consent that 
was just accepted not been accepted.
  Unfortunately, legislative counsel made a minor drafting mistake 
which turned out to have a major impact on the interpretation of the 
amendment and now that this has been corrected, I want to assure my 
colleagues, each and every one of them, who have any concerns about the 
impact of this amendment that it will only affect the livestock 
protection matter which we debated yesterday.

                              {time}  1545

  I am not going to spend my time repeating the debate that we had 
yesterday only to point out that this is a very narrow program that 
affects a very few number of cattle and sheep ranchers in the West to 
eliminate predators at a significant cost to the Federal Government. We 
have been through these arguments yesterday.
  I want to urge my colleagues, should there be a revote after we go 
out of the Committee of the Whole to support the amendment, it is the 
exact same vote that we had yesterday. This is an important amendment 
that is supported by a number of different environmental groups and 
taxpayers groups, including the League of Conservation Voters, the 
Sierra Club, Friends of the Earth, Taxpayers for Common Sense, Natural 
Resources Defense Council, Defenders of Wildlife, U.S. Public Interest 
Research Group, the Humane Society, and Wilderness Society.
  Now that this amendment is corrected. I urge all of my colleagues, 
should we have another vote on it, to cast the same vote that they cast 
yesterday.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I am glad that my two colleagues had the opportunity to 
correct their amendment from yesterday that would have cut $21 million 
or 53 percent of this program. We are now going to be discussing and 
revoting in the full House, the $10 million cut, which is 25 percent of 
the budget, of Wildlife Services.
  In spite of the assurances of the gentleman from New Hampshire, each 
of my colleagues now have a letter from Secretary Glickman who is 
responsible for administering this program all over the United States, 
stating that it makes no difference whether it is $10 million, a 25 
percent cut, or $21 million, a 53 percent cut, it will have a very 
devastating effect on other than nonlethal predator control. It is much 
more than that.
  This is another example when Members attempt to do some very logical 
and, from their perspective, needed corrections to an agricultural 
appropriation bill. If you do not fully have knowledge of what is 
actually happening out in your various States, you will have unintended 
consequences.
  Wildlife Services is a cooperative program where local entities 
partner with USDA and APHIS to jointly pay for wildlife management. 
Cooperating groups at the local level expend over, in some cases, more 
than 50 percent of the cost of these programs.
  Slashing funding for Wildlife Services by 25 percent will result in 
across-the-board elimination of many important programs that protect 
human health. Much of this funding is also spent on efforts to develop 
nonlethal methods for livestock control.
  Wildlife Services is much more than predator control. USDA's Wildlife 
Services Program provides critical assistance to public health and 
safety programs in every State. That is the reason why we have been 
hearing from our local States.
  People are concerned because this is a program in which they multiply 
these dollars for local concern. The program provides help at more than 
340 airports to prevent flocks of birds from interfering with passenger 
aircraft flights. That is serious.
  It controls the spread of rabies in the North, East, Midwest, and the 
South. We have a very successful program going in all of these regions 
using bait in order to control rabies; coyote bait. It is a successful 
program.
  We cannot have this amendment pass and continue that program, because 
the people that administer it have other duties. When we start making a 
25 percent cut in a budget that is already as lean as the agricultural 
budget is, we will have additional nonintended consequences.
  This program controls damage to fruit crops, grain, and fish farms by 
migratory birds such as blackbirds, saving American farmers hundreds of 
millions of dollars. It conducts research on humane control of animal 
populations that spread diseases, such as deer and rats.
  It works to protect endangered species such as the Louisiana black 
bear and the Aleutian Canada goose, and I can go on and on.
  The important thing for my colleagues to understand when we do

[[Page H5201]]

revote this, this is not a program that can afford a 25 percent cut. 
The intention of the gentleman from new Hampshire and the gentleman 
from Oregon are really good. But it will have the unintended 
consequences.
  I hope when we revote this in the full House that my colleagues will 
overwhelmingly vote no and look to another date in order to accomplish 
the goal which these two people are proposing with their amendment 
time.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, this was a bad amendment yesterday, and the new version 
is not much better. I appreciate what the two gentlemen are doing or 
trying to do, but I do not think they have a real grasp of exactly what 
the consequences are of what they are asking us to do.
  I do have a letter from Secretary Glickman saying cutting Wildlife 
Services is wrong, whether the cut is yesterday's $21 million or 
today's $10 million. This is not about endangered species. This is 
about a severe cut to a program that provides essential public health 
and safety services to every State in the Union and Puerto Rico, Guam, 
and the Virgin Islands.
  Many of the Members who voted for yesterday's amendment wrote to me, 
asking for Wildlife Services Programs at the same or increased level. 
This is just not possible with these proposed cuts.
  If you want rabies control, programs to protect commercial aircraft 
from flocks of birds at 360 airports throughout the country, protection 
of grain and fruit crops from migratory birds, research into disease-
carrying animals such as rats and deer to continue, and many other 
important programs, you must vote no on this amendment.
  At this point I would like to include tables that reflect the bill as 
reported by the Committee.

[[Page H5202]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH24JN98.001



[[Page H5203]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH24JN98.002



[[Page H5204]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH24JN98.003



[[Page H5205]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH24JN98.004



[[Page H5206]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH24JN98.005



[[Page H5207]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH24JN98.006



[[Page H5208]]

  Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, today I rise to support the Bass-DeFazio amendment to 
H.R. 4101, a bipartisan amendment to eliminate wasteful spending and to 
protect wildlife and the environment.
  This amendment makes a surgical cut from the operations of the 
Wildlife Services, known to many of us for years as the Animal Damage 
Control Program. Mr. Chairman, this is a program that the public holds 
in poor regard, because it reflects a callous attitude toward wildlife 
and the environment and amounts to corporate welfare in the West.
  For decades, Wildlife Services and Animal Damage Control have taken a 
jaundiced view toward wildlife problems, relying on quick-fix lethal 
control strategies rather than lasting solutions. They have measured 
their success in terms of the number of animals killed rather than the 
amount of livestock damage mitigated.
  Indeed, Mr. Chairman, the Los Angeles Times reported on September 9, 
1997 ``Each cycle of control only seems to beget more coyotes. They 
have been shot at, trapped, snared, clubbed, strangled by the millions. 
The Federal Government alone dispatched 82,261 coyotes last year, more 
than 638,000 since 1980. Yet, in the 100 years since livestock owners 
began the coyote war in the West, the resourceful predator has far 
surpassed the wolf, the grizzly, and the cougar, tripling its numbers 
and its range.''
  We are not winning the war against the coyote. We are wasting dollars 
in a futile exercise, a lethal control treadmill that leads us nowhere.
  Indeed, ranchers need to protect their livestock, their investment. 
During the last two decades, there have been a variety of practical and 
effective nonlethal husbandry techniques developed and put into 
practical use: the use of guard animals, such as dogs, donkeys or 
llamas; the use of electronic sound and light devices; predator 
exclusion fencing; shed lambing; and night penning.
  By deploying these techniques, ranchers can minimize the need for 
lethal responses to predators. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound 
of cure.
  What we are advocating in supporting the Bass-DeFazio amendment is 
practical and workable. In fact, there is an excellent working model in 
the State of Kansas which has virtually no Animal Damage Control money 
or staff.
  Instead the State Extension Service has worked with ranchers and 
other resource users and taught them how to deter coyote problems and 
how to selectively eliminate problem animals.
  Kansas has spent less than $75,000 of Federal dollars in 27 years, 
while all other States in the West spent 8 to 50 times more. Take the 
case of Oklahoma which spent $1.3 million a year and maintained 28 
damage control staff. In spite of the increase in spending labor, the 
reported wildlife problems are 20 times greater than in Kansas.
  Mr. Chairman, there is a better way. The DeFazio-Bass amendment leads 
us in the right direction by reducing the full of dollars invested in 
failed and fruitless lethal predator control strategies.
  I urge my colleagues to join with taxpayer defense groups and 
environmental and humane groups in supporting this sensible amendment 
to bring sanity to this program.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, there is no Member of this House that I have more 
respect for than my colleague, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio). 
I congratulate his efforts along with the gentleman from New Hampshire 
(Mr. Bass) to try to bring some additional attention in this particular 
program to some of the difficulties with lethal control methods that 
are used across this country on certain species.
  However, I rise to oppose this particular amendment, as did I 
yesterday, because I really think that it may have consequences that 
the authors might not yet have anticipated.
  First of all, there is a severe problem in this country with damage 
created by wildlife. It is not just in rural areas. We have lots of 
Members here, including myself, who represent major metropolitan 
airports where bird control is a very serious matter in order to try to 
preserve human life when people go into flight. In fact, a third of 
this particular appropriation is spent by that type of control around 
the country at these various facilities.
  In fact, the Federal Aviation Administration admits that about $1 
billion of all of the wildlife damage across this country relates to 
birds in flight close to airports. They do not really follow the human 
sonar in their flight paths. So this is not just about coyotes in the 
western part of the country.
  Yesterday, after our debate here, Secretary Glickman at the 
Department of Agriculture did communicate with us, and I just want to 
read a portion of his letter into the record. It is important here, 
where he says: ``A reduction of $10 million or more would constitute a 
serious cut, perhaps up to one-third of the program's budget, and lead 
to draconian reductions of personnel in this account across the 
country.''
  Since the program is largely cooperative and requires State and local 
matches, he is very concerned that what is going to happen is that the 
local shares will drop out. He says, ``Faced with a cut of this size, 
we may have no option but to eliminate work to protect endangered and 
threatened species, which is another function of the office, to prevent 
bird strikes at airports,'' which I have talked about ``and control 
animals that can transmit diseases to humans, such as rabies, plague, 
and lyme disease.''
  I continue to be amazed in my own district, the largest share of 
which is an urban district, to watch householders want to try to bring 
deer to wander into their country and feed them with their backyard 
feeders, with lyme disease spreading. Last year, we had sightings in 
eastern Ohio of rabies from raccoon.
  So this is not something that is just out in the middle of Oklahoma 
or even New Mexico. But States like Ohio, which has more urban areas 
than any other in the country, are severely impacted.
  Truly, State and local governments cannot deal with this problem 
alone. A lot of the research and so forth is Federal research that 
benefits every single State. A lot of the tracking that is done is 
Federal tracking of these animals.
  Secretary Glickman advises us, we believe the President's budget 
proposal to gradually increase cost sharing is a more reasoned reform 
than the amendment being offered and is consistent with the bill's 
report language.
  Normally, I support my colleague, the gentleman from Oregon. But I 
think in this situation, where the Secretary of Agriculture does view 
this amendment as having difficulties and where we really feel that it 
is taking such a major share of funding that is necessary for animal 
control, wildlife control in different parts of the country, it really 
does not make sense, and it goes too far.
  I do think that his emphasis on trying to get nonlethal means, where 
possible, of animal damage control is a very helpful suggestion and one 
I know that the department is working hard on and, in fact, needs this 
research money that is a part of this account to pursue.
  I will tell you, when I see coyotes by the pack by our local 
metropolitan airport, which is located inside the city of Toledo, and 
we have coyotes running around the source systems of Los Angeles, we 
have a situation where this type of wild animal is breeding with dogs, 
and you do not produce a friendly animal as a result.
  In some cases, you cannot have a nonlethal solution. So where we try 
to minimize the damage to animals and we try to be as humane as 
possible, sometimes it is just not possible in some of these 
situations.
  With all due respect to my colleagues, the gentleman from Oregon and 
the gentleman from New Hampshire, I would say that the amendment goes 
too far, and I would urge Members to reject this amendment and follow 
the recommendations of our own Secretary of Agriculture.

                              {time}  1600

  Ms. FURSE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment. I should 
say at the outset, I am a westerner and I am a farmer. In fact, we find 
that one of the greatest damages to our crops are mice, and the coyotes 
in the neighborhood keep that mice population down,

[[Page H5209]]

so I think we need to be a little sophisticated when we think about 
coyotes.
  In 1980, I ran a statewide ballot measure to ban leg-hold traps in 
Oregon. We did not win because the opposition said things about human 
health that were not true, and in fact we won a case against them, 
because in fact we found that a lot of the arguments they made, which 
are being made today, are not really true.
  Let me tell my colleagues what is true about this program. It is 
cruel, it is wasteful, and it is a subsidy to corporate farmers. Those 
three things are true. It is cruel, because we are talking about lethal 
control. I do not know how many of my colleagues have seen a leg-hold 
trap. It is a steel trap. The animal put its foot into the trap, the 
trap snaps on the animal's foot, with tremendous pressure, and we have 
seen many, many examples of animals caught in these traps who have 
chewed their own legs off to get away from this agonizing situation.
  The other uses are these poison lethal collars. Oh, they are very 
efficient. The only problem is that things like cougars chew on these 
when they see a dead sheep that has this collar on it. Lots of domestic 
dogs are killed by biting on these collars that are on these critters. 
Coyotes are not the only ones who like sheep, dead ones specially laid 
out for them. So they are lethal and they are wasteful.
  They are wasteful in two ways: First of all they are wasteful because 
millions, literally millions of nontarget species die in these traps, 
die because of these lethal collars. Cougars. Our beautiful, beautiful 
bald eagle. There are many, many bald eagles which land, they see the 
trap, they see the food that is there in that trap, they get into it, 
it snaps on their foot and the wildlife is destroyed. So that is very 
wasteful. But it is a wasteful in a second way. It is incredibly 
wasteful of money. More money is spent in this program killing the 
predators than the value of the livestock that supposedly is being 
protected. It just does not make sense.
  It is a corporate giveaway. Big farmers love this program. They can 
say that these dead sheep that died for some other reason, died because 
of predators, bring predator control in, you get the money from the 
program, it is great. But it is dreadful. It is a dreadful program. 
That is why the League of Conservation Voters, all the animal rights 
organizations, all of the large environmental organizations have said 
that this is a vote that they will count. It is not just them. It is 
not just the environmental organizations. It is the taxpayer 
organizations, also. They will score this vote. Because this vote is to 
end a program in the West that is cruel, is wasteful and is merely a 
subsidy. I ask my colleagues, if you voted yesterday for this 
amendment, vote again, and ignore all this thing you have heard that it 
is going to stop us getting slugs out of our garden. I do not know a 
slug that gets in a leg-hold trap, not one. There is a lot of nonsense 
about this issue. But the issue is, it is cruel, it is wasteful of our 
dollars and the nontarget species, and it should be ended.
  I ask Members to vote with DeFazio and Bass on this very important 
amendment.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I think we are reaching the end of this debate, and I 
appreciate the fact that the committee members allowed us to correct 
the drafting error by Legislative Counsel. That means we are going to 
have a straight up-or-down vote, the same vote that we took yesterday, 
the same issues, nothing has changed.
  Let us get a few facts straight. I serve on the Subcommittee on 
Aviation. I am certainly very concerned about bird strikes. We are not 
touching the money that goes to bird strikes. You can say, yes, since 
it is an appropriations bill, we cannot target the cut at one 
particular program, but we can certainly indicate where we want it to 
come.
  Ten million of the $28 million in this program is spent for livestock 
protection in 17 western States, including my own State who gets nearly 
half a million dollars from the Federal Government. So I am not just 
cutting in somebody else's backyard. I think this is a bad program, it 
is a waste of taxpayers' money. I do believe it constitutes a subsidy. 
It encourages the Federal Government, sends Federal employees on to 
private property to undertake lethal predator control, generally pretty 
indiscriminate lethal predator control efforts on private lands to 
theoretically protect those sheep or cattle from predation. Actually 
the losses due to lung disease, to birthing problems, to digestive 
problems are about 97 percent of the losses in the West. Three percent, 
according to our own animal damage control people, now called Wildlife 
Services, come from predation. So we are spending all this money for a 
few people on private lands to protect predation that is not really 
happening.
  I am puzzled by Secretary Glickman. Kansas has the most progressive 
program in the country. They pretty much stopped this program 10 years 
ago and they have an incredibly successful program with higher 
concentrations of coyotes than their neighboring States with very, 
very, very little loss because they have moved away from the 
indiscriminate lethal controls and gone to more effective methods, 
without the Federal subsidy.
  So why should the other 33 States and Members from the other 33 
States pay for a subsidy to these western States, to these private 
interests in these States? I am puzzled by that. It is not public 
health and safety.
  If you go through the budget, if you took out $10 million out of the 
budget, you are right, Secretary Glickman if he wanted could say, 
``Well, I'm going to teach them a lesson, I'm going to cut the money 
out of the airports and I'm going to put the money into the ineffective 
subsidized program on private lands.'' I do not believe they will do 
that. If we cut this $10 million, we will bring this wasteful program 
to an end.
  The other programs are all categorized. We have here the program for 
property, for human health, for crop, for natural resources, for forest 
and range protection, and even for aquaculture protection. Those all 
within the administration's budget get separate little line items. Now 
we are going after one program and one program only, and the total 
amount of money that goes into that program, $10 million, $10 million 
spent to protect private property for private purposes with very little 
contribution. In my State, zero is contributed by the beneficiaries. It 
is paid for by State taxpayers and Federal taxpayers. That situation 
occurs in other States. In some States indeed there is a share paid by 
some of the ranchers. They can certainly continue those activities on 
their own or in cooperation with their State if their State 
legislatures want to put up general fund money for these activities. 
But the Federal Government has no business being involved in this.

  Then to the issue of how many coyotes are running around the 
gentlewoman from Ohio's district or Los Angeles, that is true. This 
program has been going full bore for 60 years, and because they have 
not looked at the science and effective control methods, by going after 
and breaking up the alpha, killing the alphas and breaking up the 
packs, there are more coyotes now than there were 60 years ago before 
we spent hundreds of millions of dollars on these programs and hit a 
whole bunch of nontarget species. What we are doing is not working, it 
is time to admit it is not working. If the committee in its wisdom 
wanted to work through conference or something else and put this money 
totally into research or into more effective nonlethal methods, model 
the State program in Kansas, other things they could do, I would be 
supportive of that. But the point is this money is being wasted, it is 
ineffective, it does constitute a subsidy, and our colleagues should 
know that this will be the vote that will be scored, not the vote 
yesterday, this vote, the vote to reverse the vote.
  I would hope that Members would not within a 24-hour period, given 
the fact that nothing has changed, reverse their vote and reverse their 
position.
  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I am quoting from the USDA report and part of a letter 
that the Secretary sent up regarding this issue. I want to quote from a 
response by them:

       ``The animal damage control specialists perform a variety 
     of activities to protect agricultural resources, but also 
     help protect public health and safety, natural resources

[[Page H5210]]

     and property. A budget reduction of $10 million would lead to 
     a major reduction in ADC field personnel throughout the 
     country and significantly affect the program's 
     infrastructure.''

  Mr. Chairman, this is a misguided effort by those who do not like 
agriculture, and obviously we have seen the results of that. People 
here all day long and all day yesterday, who are the enemies of 
agriculture, are attacking this program from every point and every 
source.
  By the way, there will be a scoring here. I have a new scoring 
program. Everybody scores, so I am going to start scoring for 
agriculture. Now, all you are out that I have heard. There are some 
that may be in, but we will see how they act and how they vote. So we 
are going to score.
  Mr. Chairman, my colleagues have missed the point. They have 
attempted to attack agriculture, and they have really attacked the 
effort to manage wildlife in America. Because we have trained experts 
that we have in the services, in the wildlife services, and in the case 
of Oregon and in the case of your States wildlife specialists who have 
dedicated their lives to the balance of wildlife and the balance of 
nature. If this should pass, sure it will impact those people who raise 
domestic animals. But I want to re-emphasize to some Members who do not 
know about the predation in the West and around the country of deer and 
of antelope and of elk and of our wildlife. If we allow the imbalance 
to continue, we continue to ruin that side of our wildlife population. 
I do not suppose we want to do that. I doubt it. But I do not think we 
do. But that is exactly what we are doing if we vote for this 
amendment.
  Now, one other thing. Let us assume that the gentleman from Oregon 
does not know what he is talking about and let us assume that I do not 
know what I am talking about, and we will let the gentleman from New 
Hampshire go on his own, so I will make a deal with you. If you will 
agree that we do not know what we are talking about, why do we not turn 
it over to the specialists, to the wildlife specialists in this country 
and in Oregon to manage our wildlife and to manage this situation. If 
you want to take my deal, you will vote against the amendment.
  Mr. LUCAS of Oklahoma. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma.
  Mr. LUCAS of Oklahoma. We have discussed the nature of coyotes. The 
gentleman having been involved in the livestock business a substantial 
part of his life, could he describe a moment to my colleagues the 
nature of coyotes and how they interact in certain times of the year 
and how they travel in packs and how they go after breeding stock and 
some of the other things that go along with this?
  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. As the gentleman understands, there were those 
who I have dealt with in Oregon who believe that coyotes will never 
kill anything alive. I would submit to the gentleman from New Mexico 
(Mr. Skeen) who runs sheep, we have been trying to get rid of them for 
some time in cattle country, and coyotes are helping, but it is awful 
what can happen with a pack of coyotes at certain times of the year, 
and in the spring of the year when calves are small and when sheep are 
producing to see the relentless enjoyment of just killing when packs of 
coyotes run together. That is the answer.
  Mr. LUCAS of Oklahoma. That literally a cow or a sheep is defenseless 
from a pack when they are on the move together, a factor that we need 
to bear in mind.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Blunt). The Clerk will read the final 
lines of the bill.
  The Clerk read as follows:
       This Act may be cited as the ``Agriculture, Rural 
     Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related 
     Agencies Appropriations Act, 1999''.

  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak in favor of 
this bill, which appropriates funds for important Federal agriculture 
and social programs.
  Our nation was founded by farmers, and they are still a vital part of 
our economy, and our identity as Americans. For the better part of the 
history of this nation, farmers were our pioneers, our philosophers, 
our engineers, and our statesmen. I hope that we do not turn our back 
on them as we move forward into the Age of Information.
  This bill appropriates funds that will be used by farmers and other 
agriculture-oriented businesses across America. The bill increases last 
years appropriations by $6.4 billion, which amounts to a 13% increase. 
This amount is the minimum increase needed in order to assure that 
these federal programs are meaningful and worthwhile to the people that 
they are supposed to assist.
  Many farmers need federal support to generate income and maintain 
their livelihood. Typically, federal assistance comes in the form of 
low-interest federal loans, which are not unlike those that we provide 
college and university students. Like education, these loans are an 
investment in something that will bring great rewards in the near 
future. Like university students, farmers need these loans in order to 
avoid highly cumbersome private loans which would negatively effect the 
way that they do their business. We must maintain these programs, so 
that American Farmers can feed themselves, and their families.
  As a Member of the Congressional Black Caucus, I am also happy to 
report that this bill contains a provision which assists black farmers 
in their quest for fairness in the system. It does so by waiving 
certain statutes of limitation which have effectively barred many 
claims of racial discrimination that have remained unaddressed and 
unresolved by the proper authorities. I give my wholehearted thanks to 
the Rules Committee Members who allowed this provision to be made part 
of H.R. 4101.
  As Founder and Chair of the Congressional Children's Caucus, and as a 
member of the Congressional Caucus for Women's Issues, I also support 
this bill because it contains funding for many programs which are 
relied upon by children and families everywhere. The most important of 
these programs is Food Stamps. This bill appropriates $22.6 billion for 
that program, which has become an important part of the lives of many 
low-income, single-parent, and minority families. By supporting this 
budget, we assure that thousands of innocent children will not know the 
meaning of hunger.
  Two other programs important to our families and our future which are 
funded under this set of appropriations, are the Federal School 
Breakfast and Lunch programs. Private and public studies have shown the 
link between nutrition and effective learning, therefore, we must 
continue these programs in order to ensure that our investment in 
education will be realized by this Nation's children.
  I appreciate the bipartisan effort which went into the drafting of 
this bill. United States agriculture feeds our Nation, and it is time 
to do our part to make sure that none of our citizens go hungry. I 
encourage you all to vote for this bill.
  Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Market 
Access Program (MAP) and oppose any attempt to further debilitate the 
program's capacity to aid in the exportation of U.S. agricultural 
commodities. The Market Access Program boosts agriculture and 
international trade, and promotes small business and American-made 
products. Put simply, MAP helps develop foreign markets for U.S. 
exports. The MAP provides cost-share funds to nearly 800 U.S. 
businesses, cooperatives, and non-profit trade associations to promote 
their products overseas. The funding is limited to U.S. entities.
  America's farmers are still adjusting to ``Freedom to Farm,'' and it 
would be unwise and unfair to take away other underlying support 
programs like the MAP. I have said the same thing about research 
funding and funding for adequate revenue and crop insurance. Congress 
promised America's farmers certain fundamental support mechanisms as we 
moved to ``Freedom to Farm.'' Although producers no longer can rely on 
the government to come through and pick up the tab when commodity 
prices are lower than target prices, they need to be able to depend on 
certain supplemental programs run by the Department of Agriculture that 
keep producers' heads above an already narrow margin.
  American agriculture is continually threatened by subsidized foreign 
competition. The European Union and other foreign competitors maintain 
a 10 to 1 advantage over the U.S. in terms of export subsidies, and 
with that advantage they can expand their share of the world market at 
the expense of U.S. farmers and ranchers.
  In my state of North Dakota, the USDA-Bureau of Census tells us the 
MAP contributes indirectly to the promotion of approximately $1.7 
billion in exports, and 29,300 jobs. Specifically, farmer cooperative-
members of the Minn-Dak sugarbeet growers, and North American Bison 
Cooperative benefit directly from MAP funding. These direct benefits, 
for instance, produce indirect benefits throughout many facets of the 
economy.
  Rural income depends on--and is at the mercy of--many variables. 
Weather and domestic supply are examples. But the ability to export 
overseas and compete with foreign markets is another integral piece to 
maintaining rural income. The MAP offers one small

[[Page H5211]]

opportunity for American farmers to compete in the international 
market--during a time when agriculture is our nation's most export-
dependent industry and exports account for one-third of U.S. 
production. The elimination of MAP would represent unilateral 
disarmament in the face of continued subsidized foreign competition.
  Oppose reductions to the MAP. Don't take away this important tool 
which provides access for U.S. farmers to assistance which knocks down 
foreign barriers and reduces the costs of competing in the world 
market.
  Mr. POSHARD. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in favor of this 
appropriations measure, which is of such enormous importance to the 
19th District of Illinois. I commend Chairman Skeen and Congresswoman 
Kaptur for their efforts in crafting a bill which will help farmers and 
rural communities across the country.
  In addition, I am very pleased to note that H.R. 4101 includes $34 
million in funding for implementation of the FDA's tobacco regulations, 
designed to combat teenage smoking. It is critical that this body 
demonstrate its support of the FDA's efforts to protect underage 
consumers from the dangers of tobacco, and I thank the members of the 
subcommittee for recognizing the importance of this issue.
  Mr. Chairman, we must not relax our efforts where America's children 
are concerned. The time has come to take a stand against the 
devastating effect of tobacco on our nation's youth, and this bill will 
help us to do that. I urge my colleagues to support this measure and to 
continue to fight for the health and safety of our children.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. If there are no further amendments, under 
the rule the Committee now rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Pease) having assumed the chair, Mr. Blunt, Chairman pro tempore of the 
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that 
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 4101) 
making appropriations for Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug 
Administration, and Related Agencies programs for the fiscal year 
ending September 30, 1999, and for other purposes, pursuant to House 
Resolution 482, he reported the bill, as amended pursuant to that rule 
back to the House with further sundry amendments adopted by the 
Committee of the Whole.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment?
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Speaker, I demand a separate vote on the so-called 
Bass amendment.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is a separate vote demanded on any other 
amendment? If not, the Chair will put them en gros.
  The amendments were agreed to.

                              {time}  1615

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pease). The Clerk will report the 
amendment on which a separate vote has been demanded.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment: Insert before the short title the following new 
     section.
       Sec.    (a) Limitation on Use of Funds.--Not more than 
     $18,800,000 of the funds made available in this Act may be 
     used for the Wildlife Services Program operation under the 
     heading ``ANIMAL AND PLANT HEALTH INSPECTION SERVICE''.
       (b) Corresponding Reduction in Funds.--The amount otherwise 
     provided by this Act for salaries and expenses under the 
     heading ``ANIMAL AND PLANT HEALTH INSPECTION SERVICE'' is 
     hereby reduced by $10,000,000.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the amendment.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, if no other record vote 
or debate intervenes before the question of passage, then the Chair 
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for electronic voting on the 
question on passage.
  There was no objection.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 192, 
noes 232, not voting 9, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 263]

                               AYES--192

     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Archer
     Baldacci
     Barrett (WI)
     Bass
     Becerra
     Berman
     Bilirakis
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Borski
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Campbell
     Capps
     Cardin
     Carson
     Castle
     Chabot
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cummings
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (VA)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fawell
     Filner
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gilchrest
     Gilman
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Horn
     Houghton
     Inglis
     Jackson (IL)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (WI)
     Jones
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Kucinich
     Lantos
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manton
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHale
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Miller (FL)
     Moakley
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Nadler
     Neal
     Neumann
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Paul
     Payne
     Pease
     Pelosi
     Petri
     Porter
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schumer
     Sensenbrenner
     Shays
     Sherman
     Skaggs
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith, Adam
     Stark
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Sununu
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Tierney
     Torres
     Towns
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates

                               NOES--232

     Abercrombie
     Aderholt
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bateman
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berry
     Bilbray
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Clayton
     Clement
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Deal
     DeLay
     Dickey
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Ensign
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fazio
     Foley
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gillmor
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Graham
     Granger
     Green
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hooley
     Hostettler
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Istook
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kim
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Largent
     Latham
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Livingston
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     Martinez
     Mascara
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     Meek (FL)
     Minge
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Ortiz
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pappas
     Parker
     Pastor
     Paxon
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Redmond
     Regula
     Reyes
     Riggs
     Riley
     Rodriguez
     Rogers
     Ryun
     Salmon
     Sanchez
     Sandlin
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schaffer, Bob
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Linda
     Snowbarger
     Snyder
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Stupak
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Traficant
     Turner
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)

[[Page H5212]]


     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wise
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Cannon
     Dingell
     Doyle
     Gonzalez
     Hamilton
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Markey
     McDade
     Slaughter

                              {time}  1638

  Messrs. HOEKSTRA, EHRLICH and SNYDER and Ms. MEEK of Florida changed 
their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. BRADY of Pennsylvania, GILMAN, LAZIO of New York, DICKS and 
TORRES changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                          personal expalantion

  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, during rollcall vote No. 263, 
the Bass/DeFazio Amendment to Protect Wildlife, I was unavoidably 
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pease). The question is on the 
engrossment and third reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  Pursuant to clause 7 of rule XV, the yeas and nays are ordered.
  This will be a 5 minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were-- yeas 373, 
nays 48, not voting 12, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 264]

                               YEAS--373

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Bliley
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Capps
     Cardin
     Carson
     Castle
     Chambliss
     Christensen
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coburn
     Combest
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crapo
     Cubin
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dixon
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Filner
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Fox
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefner
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kim
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McGovern
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pappas
     Parker
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paxon
     Payne
     Pease
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Redmond
     Regula
     Reyes
     Riggs
     Riley
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Ryun
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schaffer, Bob
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Adam
     Smith, Linda
     Snowbarger
     Snyder
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Torres
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watkins
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Weygand
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                                NAYS--48

     Andrews
     Barr
     Barrett (WI)
     Berry
     Campbell
     Chabot
     Chenoweth
     Collins
     Crane
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Ensign
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Hall (TX)
     Hefley
     Johnson (WI)
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     McDermott
     Meehan
     Menendez
     Moran (VA)
     Nadler
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Paul
     Petri
     Portman
     Ramstad
     Roemer
     Rohrabacher
     Royce
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scarborough
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stump
     Sununu
     Taylor (MS)
     Tierney

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Cannon
     Dingell
     Doyle
     Emerson
     Ford
     Gonzalez
     Hamilton
     Markey
     McDade
     Miller (CA)
     Northup
     Slaughter

                              {time}  1647

  Mr. BARR of Georgia changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. BERMAN and Ms. LEE changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________