[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 77 (Wednesday, May 26, 1999)]
[House]
[Pages H3614-H3649]
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, 2000

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 185 and Rule 
XVIII, 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. 1906.

                              {time}  1041


                     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. 1906) making appropriations for Agriculture, Rural 
Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies for the 
fiscal year ending September 30, 2000, and for other purposes, with Mr. 
Pease in the Chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole rose on Tuesday, May 
25, 1999, the amendment by the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn) had 
been disposed of and the bill was open for amendment from page 10, line 
1 to page 11, line 24.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I submit for the Record tabular material relating to 
the bill, H.R. 1906:

[[Page H3615]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH26MY99.000



[[Page H3616]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH26MY99.001



[[Page H3617]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH26MY99.002



[[Page H3618]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH26MY99.003



[[Page H3619]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH26MY99.004



[[Page H3620]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH26MY99.005



[[Page H3621]]

  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to this portion of the 
bill?


                   Amendment Offered by Mr. Kucinich

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Kucinich:
       Page 10, line 14 (relating to Agricultural Research 
     Service), after the dollar amount, insert the following: 
     ``(reduced by $100,000) (increased by $100,000)''.

  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, a few years ago I visited an elementary 
school in Cleveland at the start of the school year. The children 
celebrating the beginning of their school year had released hundreds 
and hundreds of butterflies into the air.
  Now, a butterfly is a powerful symbol in our society. It is a symbol 
of transformation, transformation from a caterpillar into this 
beautiful winged being. Butterflies excite the imagination, they 
enthrall us with their possibilities. Yet, the butterfly may become the 
next casualty of our brave new world.
  We are all familiar with the genetically altered crops where 
pesticides are engineered right into the crop. A recent study indicates 
that pollen from such crops may have the potential to kill off 
butterflies, including the majestic and beautiful Monarch butterfly.
  Mr. Chairman, my intention with this amendment is to provide the 
Agricultural Research Service with $100,000 to study the effects of 
pollen from genetically modified crops on harmless insects, and to 
study the effect on other species, including animals and humans, that 
may come in contact with the pollen.
  Corn that has been genetically engineered with the pesticide Bt has 
been approved and was introduced to farmers' fields in 1996. It now 
accounts for one-fourth of the Nation's corn crop. Bt is toxic to 
European and Southwestern corn borers, caterpillars that mine into corn 
stalks and destroy developing ears of corn.

                              {time}  1045

  According to a recent study conducted at Cornell University, it is 
also deadly to Monarch butterflies. The Cornell study found that after 
feeding a group of larvae, milkweed leaves dusted with Bt pollen, 
almost half died. The larvae that did survive were small and lethargic.
  The implications of this are very clear. Pollen from Bt-exuding corn 
spreads to milkweed plants, which grow around the edges of cornfields. 
Monarch larvae feed exclusively on milkweed. Every year, Monarchs 
migrate from Mexico and southern States, and many of them grow from 
caterpillars into beautiful black, orange, and white butterflies in the 
United States corn belt during the time the corn pollination occurs.
  I am sure that millions of Americans have had the experience of 
taking their children in hand and going into a pasture and watching for 
beautiful butterflies to come by and visiting an arboretum, a zoo, a 
park and watching the butterflies.
  Well, now, if we read the Washington Post, it says that pollen from 
plants can blow onto nearby milkweed plants, the exclusive food upon 
which the Monarch larvae feed, and get eaten by the tiger-striped 
caterpillars.
  At laboratory studies at Cornell, the engineered pollen killed nearly 
half of those young before they transformed into the brilliant orange, 
black, and white butterflies so well-known throughout North America. 
Several scientists expressed concern that if the new study results are 
correct, then monarchs, which already face ecological pressures, but so 
far have managed to hold their own, may soon find themselves on the 
Endangered Species list. Other butterflies may soon be at risk.
  From the Friends of the Earth we hear, ``The failure of Congress and 
the administration to ensure more careful control over genetically 
modified organisms has unleashed a frightening experiment on the people 
and environment of the United States. It is time to look more closely 
at the flawed review process of the three Federal agencies that 
regulate genetically modified products: EPA, FDA, and USDA.
  ``The implications of the Cornell University study go far beyond 
Monarch butterflies and point to the need for a revamping of our 
regulatory framework on biotechnology.''
  Monarchs have already lost much of their habitat when tall-grass 
prairies were converted to farmland. We now need to protect them and 
other species that are harmless to farmers' crops, that may be 
adversely affected by Bt pollen.
  It is shocking that more extensive studies like the one performed at 
Cornell were not done before the crop was approved. It also makes one 
wonder what effects other genetically altered crops may have on other 
species, such as birds, bees, and even humans, and if adequate risk 
assessments are being done on bioengineered products before they are 
approved and released into the environment.
  My fellow colleagues, more research obviously needs to be done on 
these transgenic crops. I ask my colleagues to support my amendment to 
protect Monarch butterflies from the harmful effects of genetically 
modified crops.
  Finally, Mr. Chairman, last year I had the opportunity to visit Pelee 
Island in Canada, which is a migration point for the Monarch 
butterflies. There is nothing more beautiful than to see hundreds of 
thousands of these beautiful creatures moving in a migratory pattern. 
It is an awesome sight. And yet, because of a lack of foresight on the 
part of our government, there is the possibility that these beautiful 
creatures may in fact be doomed. That is why this amendment is 
important.
  Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to enter into a colloquy with the strong, 
gentle woman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), the ranking member of the 
subcommittee.
  I am strongly supportive of this bill because agriculture is an 
essential part to our country. It is as essential to our country as 
manufacturing, services, transportation, or any other sector of our 
economy.
  I am concerned, however, about two major programs in particular. 
These programs are the Agricultural Research Service, which conducts 
and funds a variety of research projects, including those related to 
animal and plant sciences, soil, water and air sciences, and 
agricultural engineering; and the Cooperative State Research Education 
and Extension Service, which works in partnership with universities to 
advance research, extension and education in food and agricultural 
sciences.
  My concern, Mr. Chairman, is not so much about how much money is 
being spent on these programs or what research projects are being done. 
My concern is what other hands are needed to do this work. In looking 
over the list of universities that are conducting research in these 
programs, I am concerned that land grant colleges and universities in 
general, and historically black colleges and universities in 
particular, are underrepresented in research and education funding.
  There is still a woeful gap between the capacity of majority land 
grant colleges and historically black land grant colleges, particularly 
in the amount of research being done and the facilities that are 
available. Despite this, historically black colleges have consistently 
outperformed majority institutions in the development of minority 
scientists and engineers.
  The assistance of the government in this effort has been essential. I 
would hope that as the legislative process moves forward today and in 
conference with the Senate, my colleague will help voice these concerns 
and work with the distinguished chairman, the gentleman from New Mexico 
(Mr. Skeen), in working for a fairer distribution of Federal 
agriculture research and education funding.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. MEEK of Florida. I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I say to the gentlewoman that she is 
correct about the lack of funding for historically black colleges and 
universities. While the bill contains programmatic funding for these 
institutions, such as capacity-building grants, we must do more for 
historically black colleges and universities that can make valuable 
contributions to agricultural research and really deserve the support 
of this Nation.
  I promise that I will work with the gentlewoman and the chairman, the 
gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen) of our subcommittee and my

[[Page H3622]]

colleagues on the full committee to address this problem as the bill 
moves through the process and through conference, particularly starting 
with report language to require the Department to report back to us on 
what is currently being done, if anything, so we can establish the 
baseline for the future.
  Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for her 
comments.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment dealing with 
research by the Agricultural Research Service for the Monarch 
butterfly. Let me just say that the Committee on Agriculture, which the 
gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen) chairs and of which I am the 
ranking member, is the chief ecosystem committee of this Congress, and 
I believe, of this country.
  There is an expression: ``You can't fool Mother Nature.'' There are 
some fundamental questions being raised here by the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Kucinich) that are very important to the future of botanical life 
and biological life in our country. Because we have never before had 
these genetically engineered crops, we really do not know their long-
term impacts.
  I know recent articles in Scientific American and many newpapers 
indicate that as a result of butterflies, which are essential to 
pollinating crops so we can produce fruit and corn, and representing 
the eastern part of the eastern corn belt, we know something about corn 
and soybeans, and these butterflies are essential to our future. After 
being impacted by this pollen, 40 percent of them died. 40 percent. 
This is a profound result. So I think the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Kucinich) brings to us a very important and current finding that is 
well deserving of research.
  I also would say to the gentleman, I thank him for doing this, 
because I know he represents the inner part of Cleveland, Ohio; and one 
of my greatest concerns as another American is that we have the first 
generation of Americans now that have no connection to the land. We 
have literally raised the first generation of people in the Nation's 
history who do not spend the majority of their time raising their food 
or with any connection to production at all, so they are divorced from 
the experiences that he is talking about.
  I would just say, for someone from Cleveland, Ohio, a major city in 
this country, to bring this amendment to the floor, to me, in some ways 
is a modern-day miracle. So I want to thank the gentleman, and I look 
forward to supporting him.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. KAPTUR. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentlewoman's response. 
And it is an honor to serve with the gentlewoman in this Congress, 
serving the people of Ohio.
  She raised an interesting point, and that is, what effect do these 
genetically engineered products have on our natural environment? I 
mean, sometime in the 20th century there was kind of a disconnection 
between humanity and the natural environment; and we will spend, I 
suppose, a good part of the next century trying to reconnect.
  The disassociation from the land which the gentlewoman speaks about 
is a profound disconnection from nature. I think that is why 
schoolchildren, for example, find it so fascinating to study 
butterflies. Because in some ways, that primal human sympathy which 
Wordsworth talked about in his poetry flutters in the heart when we see 
something so beautiful. And I think that as the schoolchildren, who 
spend time with their parents and their grandparents going to parks and 
zoos and arboretums, have the knowledge that this very beautiful 
butterfly could be impacted by this bioengineering, I think that we are 
going to see a response nationally. And it would be healthy because 
this country needs to look for opportunities to reconnect with our 
natural state.
  So I thank the gentlewoman. I would hope that the esteemed chairman, 
the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen) would be able to respond.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. KAPTUR. I yield to the gentleman from New Mexico.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I will tell the gentleman I am all aflutter. 
I would like to say that I understand the concern of the gentleman, and 
I will continue to work with him to address this situation, and I think 
he has got a good program.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, if the gentlewoman would continue to 
yield, I would be more than happy to work with the chair. I need the 
help of the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) and I need the help of 
the Chair. We can work together to address this issue, bring it to the 
committee.
  With that kind of assurance, I say to the gentleman from New Mexico 
(Mr. Skeen), I will withdraw the amendment, but look forward to working 
with both of my colleagues to find the appropriate venue within the 
committee so that we can start to get these agencies to be aware of 
this major concern of public policy.
  I thank the gentleman again for his work on this matter and for his 
work on the agricultural bill. And again, my gratitude to the 
gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur). It is an honor to be with her in 
this House.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I say to the gentleman from Cleveland, Ohio 
(Mr. Kucinich) that I thank him very much for bringing this to the 
Nation's attention. He is a leader on this issue, and I look forward to 
working with our chairman to find an answer to this as we move toward 
the conference.
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the amendment of the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) is withdrawn.
  There was no objection.
  ( Ms. KAPTUR asked and was given permission to speak out of order for 
2 minutes.)


                     thanks to the folks back home

  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I will not take long, but to say I should 
have said this yesterday as I began my remarks on this Agricultural 
Appropriations bill for the Year 2000. And that is that I am very 
indebted to the people from back home who have sent me here to serve on 
their behalf. A number of them are farmers and have spent their life in 
production and in agriculture.
  I want to recognize a few of them on the floor today, in particular, 
Ray Zwyer and Thelma Zwyer, who are now, I believe, Social Security 
recipients. And I know Ray is undergoing kidney dialysis several times 
a week. I want to thank him and his wife, Thelma, for everything they 
taught me about agriculture, for taking me out on my first combine, for 
helping me understand chicken production and poultry production, for 
helping me to understand direct marketing and how hard it was for the 
average farm family in this country to make it, to watch their son Tom 
and his children and their family to try to carry on the family 
tradition on that farm in Monclova Township.
  I want to thank his brother, Howard, and his wife, Eleanor Zwyer, 
right across the street, for all the hard work they have done to create 
and keep in our area production agriculture.
  I also want to thank Herman and Emma Gase up the street, who have 
worked so very hard to raise their family. And I notice they had a 
couple of pieces of equipment for sale in their front yard this past 
week.
  I also want to thank Melva and Pete Plocek. Pete is the one that 
taught me what it is like to have wet beans and that they do not get as 
much when they take them to the elevator.
  There are so many people like this back in our community who truly 
represent rural life in this country, the very best traditions of our 
Nation. And I just want to thank them for letting me try to be their 
voice here, as well as the one million farm families across our country 
who expect us to do the job for them in this bill.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Coburn

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Coburn:
       Page 10, line 14, after the dollar amount insert ``(reduced 
     by $50,863,000)''.

                              {time}  1100

  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I hope the chairman and ranking member will 
bear with me on this amendment. I do intend on withdrawing this 
amendment at some point in the discussion, but I

[[Page H3623]]

think the American people need to know about the increase in 
agricultural research. I agree with many of the increases that are in 
there, but I think it is going to do us a good job of informing the 
American people where we actually spend this money.
  This is a $50 million increase that this committee has put in for 
agricultural research. I want to put it in light of the real issues of 
why we are trying to trim this budget back to last year's level.
  I am going to say again, for our seniors out there that are watching 
and for our children that are watching, that are going to pay the bills 
for the money that we spend above the caps and the Social Security 
money that ends up getting spent this year despite the fact that we 
made a commitment to not spend that money: The graph that you see to 
the left shows what is going to happen to Social Security revenues. The 
bars that you see in the black are the increase in the number of 
dollars that are coming in over expenditures, the amount of money that 
comes in minus the amount of money that goes out for Social Security 
payments.
  In 2014 we see a tremendous change. We start seeing red show up. That 
money, that red, is indicative of the amount of money that is going to 
have to come from the general fund, not the Social Security fund, to 
meet the obligations for Social Security.
  Where is that money going to come from? That money is going to come 
from increased payroll taxes on our children. The Congressional Budget 
Office and the Social Security Administration estimate that if we stay 
on the track that we are staying right now, that in fact our children 
and grandchildren most likely will be paying twice in payroll taxes as 
they pay today just to meet the requirements of the baby boomers.
  I happen to be a baby boomer. I was born in 1948. I was a product of 
the postwar greatness that came in this country in terms of we came 
back from the war and were allowed to have children and our material 
standard of living rose greatly.
  Our commitment in this body, both by the budget that the Democrats 
provided and the Republicans provided, everybody committed that we 
would not touch one dollar of Social Security money, not one dollar. 
Yet we are on a track to make sure that we spend about $45 billion of 
that money this year. Most people know that but they are not willing to 
say it. They are not willing to admit that the 302(b) allocations that 
have been put out will actually in the long run spend Social Security 
money.
  I think that it is unfair to the American public to say that we are 
going to go through an appropriations process that is going to protect 
Social Security and protect 100 percent of the dollars in that, when in 
fact in our heart we know that Washington is not going to live up to 
that commitment. That commitment is a secure, honorable commitment to 
the seniors of this country. But, more importantly, it is a commitment 
to our children and our grandchildren.
  If you ask the seniors in this country, the people that won World War 
II, do they want to burden their grandchildren with a FICA tax rate 
that is twice what they paid so that we can meet the mere obligations 
of Social Security, they are going to say no. And if you ask them what 
if we just trim spending a little bit more in Washington so that does 
not happen, they will all say yes.
  I am a grandfather. I will do almost anything for my grandchildren. I 
will make whatever physical, material sacrifice that I need to make for 
my grandchildren. The question that we have before us and the debates 
that we have before us today are about whether or not we are going to 
do that.
  Agriculture is a very important part of our country. I have said when 
we discussed this bill and when we discussed the rule, this is a good 
bill. My hope is to make it somewhat better so that we are back to last 
year's level, so that we have a chance to fulfill our commitment to the 
American people by not spending Social Security money. Just so that 
everybody can know, here is 1999.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn) 
has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Coburn was allowed to proceed for 2 
additional minutes.)
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, what we see is 1999 and 2000 estimated 
numbers for Social Security surplus. Last year there were $127 billion 
in excess Social Security payments in over what we paid out. What did 
we do? We started out, we had a budget that spent $1 billion of it. 
This is before we had made a commitment not to do that. Then we had a 
$15 billion supplemental. And then at the end of the year we crashed 
with what was called the omnibus bill at the end of the year.
  So what we ended up doing was spending $29 billion of Social Security 
payments to run this country last year because the Congress did not 
have the courage to force the Federal Government to be efficient. It is 
not a matter of making cuts. It is a matter of demanding efficiency 
from the Federal Government and living within the budget.
  In 1997, we agreed with the President, both bodies of this Congress, 
that we would live within the 1997 total budget caps. At the time we 
did that, most of the pain we knew was going to start this year. The 
actual spending on discretionary programs, programs other than 
Medicare, Medicaid and mandated programs, has to decline by $10 billion 
this year if we are not going to spend Social Security money.
  Here is where we are going. Right now the President's numbers that 
say that we are going to have $138 billion in Social Security excess 
payments, we are on track to spend $57 billion of that money. If you 
look at it conservatively, the best we will do if we stay on this track 
is that we will spend $45 billion of that money.
  This House has a lot of integrity. It is time for us to stand up and 
meet that integrity. It is time for us to live within the budget 
dollars that we agreed that we would live with.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment continues the process that began 
yesterday. The gentleman has demonstrated that he has patience and 
endurance, and I would say that the committee has no shortage of 
endurance or patience.
  Yesterday the House adopted an amendment by the gentleman from 
Vermont (Mr. Sanders) which I opposed. It reduced the amount for the 
Agricultural Research Service by $13 million in order to provide an 
increase of $10 million for the Commodity Assistance Program.
  I opposed that amendment because I think that research is absolutely 
essential if we want the 2 percent of our people who are farmers to 
continue to feed the other 98 percent of our people and much of the 
rest of the world, too. I am sure that they would like to contribute to 
that. And contributing a huge amount to our balance of trade and 
humanitarian assistance. This simply would not be possible if it were 
not for our agricultural research efforts which are the envy of the 
entire world.
  The gentleman's amendment would reduce this amount by $51 million in 
addition to the $13 million reduction that the House agreed to 
yesterday. This would reduce the Agricultural Research Service well 
below the fiscal year 1999 level and would make it impossible to 
maintain the base level of activity. I oppose this amendment. I ask all 
the Members to oppose it and to support the committee.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I also rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. 
Let me say in terms of Social Security, the most important input to 
Social Security's Trust Fund is an America that is working and that is 
productive. Therefore, the reason we have seen the revenues bounce up 
in Social Security is because the economy has been stronger in the last 
several years than in past decades. And so the most important thing we 
can do is help people's incomes rise and help people keep working so 
that that revenue flow increases.
  The Social Security Trust Fund is not a static fund. It is a fund 
that is very connected to what is happening in production America, 
whether it is in the industrial plants, whether it is in agriculture or 
in our service industries.
  Rural America, however, right now is in serious crisis. It is in 
depression.

[[Page H3624]]

 Our job here should be to be partners with rural America in helping 
them pull out of the tailspin that they are in so that they again can 
become productive partners, contributing to the national well-being as 
well as their own well-being.
  And so I would say to the gentleman, I think his efforts to try to be 
responsible and to deal with the budget issue here are admirable. 
However, in the context of the way we function as the Congress, we are 
one of 13 committees. We have been given the budget mark against which 
we must not go over. When we bump our heads up against it, we know we 
cannot go over.
  As the gentleman admitted on the floor yesterday, we have done our 
job on this committee. Now, other committees have spending that is cut 
several hundred million dollars. That is all balanced out by the 
leadership of your party. Therefore, we on the Committee on Agriculture 
in some ways are insulted by the fact that you would try to go line 
item by line item inside our accounts and say, ``Well, this isn't 
important'' or ``This isn't important'' when we have so many tradeoffs 
that we have had to try to make, especially in Depression level 
conditions like rural America is facing today.
  This agricultural research account is critical, because it is the 
future. If America is going to have a future in agriculture, it is 
built on the research that is being done every day by scientists who 
are not given enough credit here in Congress or in general in the 
country.
  If you look at some of the costs to our economy where we do not have 
answers, something like soybean nematode which takes 25 percent of our 
crop, if we could produce 100 percent of the crop or 90 percent rather 
than 75 percent, how much more wealth and buying power and income that 
would add to our rural sector. In the South, something like a corn 
earworm costs farmers over $1.5 billion annually in losses, in chemical 
costs. We do not have answers to that problem.
  These may seem like funny names to people who do not live in rural 
America but to people who face this every day, these are vital 
problems. We had the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley) yesterday 
talk about the Asian Longhorn beetle infecting New York City as well as 
Illinois. Maple sugar producers in my area are scared to death that 
that thing is going to come across the State and cause billions of 
dollars worth of damage and kill all of our hardwoods.
  These are not simple issues. We need answers to these questions. The 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) was just here on the floor talking 
about the problem with the Monarch butterfly. We do not have an answer 
to why nearly half the Monarchs in this country are dying, but we 
better find an answer because if we do not, production agriculture goes 
down, income goes down and we do not have dollars flowing into that 
Social Security Trust Fund.
  I would just say to the gentleman also in my time here that he keeps 
looking at the accounts in our overall budget and he says, ``Well, this 
one is going up,'' but he does not look at the ones that went down. We 
have a lot of accounts, for instance, our surplus commodities and 
foreign food shipments account has gone down by over $25 million, our 
P.L. 480 title I by over $11 million, all of our rural community 
advancement programs by over $56 million. You look at our Agricultural 
Credit Insurance Fund by over $18 million, the Agricultural Research 
Service buildings and facilities, over $11 million.
  So we feel that we have done what we need to do in each of these 
accounts, but I would beg the gentleman not to cut America's future, 
not cut her seed corn for the future by cutting these agricultural 
research accounts. And also to say to the gentleman, go back to your 
leadership. If you have got a budget problem, do not put it all on the 
backs of this subcommittee. We have done our job, we have met our mark. 
We are proud of the work that we have done.
  I rise in strong opposition to the gentleman's amendment.
  Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words. Actually, before I begin with my comments, I would yield to the 
gentleman from Oklahoma.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I want to address a couple of things that 
the ranking member of the committee said.
  First of all, my first comments were that I supported the research, 
that I planned on withdrawing this amendment, that I thought it was 
good that the American people knew where we were spending the money. So 
I want to put some of this in so that they can get some flavor of where 
we are spending the money.
  ``Sugarbeet research. The Committee is aware of the need for 
additional funding to adequately support the ARS sugarbeet research 
program at Fort Collins, Colorado, to strengthen sugarbeet research at 
the ARS laboratory. The Committee directs the ARS to fund this project 
in FY 2000 at least at the same level as in FY 1999.''
  But in fact what are the prices of sugar in this country and how much 
are we subsidizing sugar versus what the price is in the rest of the 
world?

                              {time}  1115

  There is no question we should be directing our research to improve 
our productivity, and I am for that. But now we are directing research 
to a program where we are subsidizing and falsely charging in this 
country a higher price for sugar than what the market would ever have 
us have.
  So it is not about not agreeing with the research. It is about 
sending money into areas where we have a market that is not working 
today because we have overproduction, and we are spending research to 
enhance that overproduction more, which means a lot more money is going 
to come out of the subsidy programs that are available for sugar beet 
or sugar.
  So the question is, should we not have a discussion about these 
things? And I am sure there is a defensible position for that. I am not 
saying there is not, and I am saying that I support without a doubt, 
and I will make a unanimous consent, and I hope that it is agreed to, 
to withdraw this amendment.
  But we still have a 6.5 percent increase in agricultural research of 
which most is directed to specific Members' requests and programs, and 
we ought to talk about what that is. Do we have a coherent, to talk 
about what that is. Do you have a coherent, cogent policy for research 
that is directed fundamentally at the basic needs that we have in this 
country?
  Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I would just like to 
interrupt for 2 seconds.
  For instance, I want to follow up with the brief comment he made on 
sugar because this issue of sugar makes my blood boil. The idea that we 
have a research system set up that costs a little guy a lot of money, I 
think is crazy.
  I mean, if we look at the sugar subsidy program that is in place, 
basically it costs the consumer $1.4 billion a year in the form of 
higher sugar prices. Our sugar prices domestically are about double 
that of world prices, and all that benefit goes down to the hands of 
truly a few.
  I mean, there are about 60 domestic sugar producers in the United 
States. One of those sugar producers is, for instance, the Fanjul 
family, who live down in Palm Beach. They are on the Forbes 400 list, 
they have got yachts, they have got helicopters, and they have got 
airplanes, and yet they get $60 million a year of personal benefit as a 
result of this program.
  So the idea of sending taxpayer money from somebody that is 
struggling in my district to help fund the life-styles of the rich and 
famous with the Fanjul family is, to me, not sensible.
  Now, as I understand it, he may actually withdraw this amendment, but 
to say there is not another dime that could be cut within ag research I 
think is a grossly inadequate assumption.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SANFORD. I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, was the gentleman suggesting that there is 
one dime in money in the agricultural research account that goes to the 
family that he is talking about, that he claims receives funds? Is he 
saying agricultural research funds go, or is he trying to distort this 
argument?
  Mr. SANFORD. The gentlewoman from Ohio is absolutely right; they are 
apples and oranges. The research goes toward sugar, and our sugar 
system, as

[[Page H3625]]

it is configured in the United States, Mr. Chairman, very much benefits 
this one particular family and basically about 60 other domestic sugar 
producers in the United States.
  Ms. KAPTUR. If the gentleman would just be kind enough, Mr. Chairman, 
I have farmers in my district that raise sugar beets. I would challenge 
the gentleman any day to come and put in the day of work that they do. 
That is one heck of a dirty job, to raise beets in this country, and if 
there is a better beet that can get them a little bit more at 
processing time, I am for them.
  Mr. SANFORD. Reclaiming my time, I think there is no question that 
there are some hard-working, sugar-producing, sugar-beet-producing 
families throughout the Midwest, but there also happens to be the 
Fanjul family that controls over 180,000 acres of sugar cane production 
in south Florida. That is not exactly the family farm, and the fact of 
the matter is that part of this research will benefit a family like the 
Fanjuls.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw this 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Oklahoma?
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I object.
  The CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 185, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn) 
will be postponed.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:
       None of the funds in the foregoing paragraph shall be 
     available to carry out research related to the production, 
     processing or marketing of tobacco or tobacco products.
       In fiscal year 2000, the agency is authorized to charge 
     fees, commensurate with the fair market value, for any 
     permit, easement, lease, or other special use authorization 
     for the occupancy or use of land and facilities (including 
     land and facilities at the Beltsville Agricultural Research 
     Center) issued by the agency, as authorized by law, and such 
     fees shall be credited to this account and shall remain 
     available until expended for authorized purposes.


                        buildings and facilities

       For acquisition of land, construction, repair, improvement, 
     extension, alteration, and purchase of fixed equipment or 
     facilities as necessary to carry out the agricultural 
     research programs of the Department of Agriculture, where not 
     otherwise provided, $44,500,000, to remain available until 
     expended (7 U.S.C. 2209b): Provided, That funds may be 
     received from any State, other political subdivision, 
     organization, or individual for the purpose of establishing 
     any research facility of the Agricultural Research Service, 
     as authorized by law.

      Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service


                   research and education activities

       For payments to agricultural experiment stations, for 
     cooperative forestry and other research, for facilities, and 
     for other expenses, including $180,545,000 to carry into 
     effect the provisions of the Hatch Act (7 U.S.C. 361a-i); 
     $21,932,000 for grants for cooperative forestry research (16 
     U.S.C. 582a-a7); $29,676,000 for payments to the 1890 land-
     grant colleges, including Tuskegee University (7 U.S.C. 
     3222); $62,916,000 for special grants for agricultural 
     research (7 U.S.C. 450i(c)); $15,048,000 for special grants 
     for agricultural research on improved pest control (7 U.S.C. 
     450i(c)); $105,411,000 for competitive research grants (7 
     U.S.C. 450i(b)); $5,109,000 for the support of animal health 
     and disease programs (7 U.S.C. 3195); $750,000 for 
     supplemental and alternative crops and products (7 U.S.C. 
     3319d); $600,000 for grants for research pursuant to the 
     Critical Agricultural Materials Act of 1984 (7 U.S.C. 178) 
     and section 1472 of the Food and Agriculture Act of 1977 (7 
     U.S.C. 3318), to remain available until expended; $3,000,000 
     for higher education graduate fellowship grants (7 U.S.C. 
     3152(b)(6)), to remain available until expended (7 U.S.C. 
     2209b); $4,350,000 for higher education challenge grants (7 
     U.S.C. 3152(b)(1)); $1,000,000 for a higher education 
     multicultural scholars program (7 U.S.C. 3152(b)(5)), to 
     remain available until expended (7 U.S.C. 2209b); $2,850,000 
     for an education grants program for Hispanic-serving 
     Institutions (7 U.S.C. 3241); $500,000 for a secondary 
     agriculture education program and two-year post-secondary 
     education (7 U.S.C. 3152 (h)); $4,000,000 for aquaculture 
     grants (7 U.S.C. 3322); $8,000,000 for sustainable 
     agriculture research and education (7 U.S.C. 5811); 
     $9,200,000 for a program of capacity building grants (7 
     U.S.C. 3152(b)(4)) to colleges eligible to receive funds 
     under the Act of August 30, 1890 (7 U.S.C. 321-326 and 328), 
     including Tuskegee University, to remain available until 
     expended (7 U.S.C. 2209b); $1,552,000 for payments to the 
     1994 Institutions pursuant to section 534(a)(1) of Public Law 
     103-382; and $10,888,000 for necessary expenses of Research 
     and Education Activities, of which not to exceed $100,000 
     shall be for employment under 5 U.S.C. 3109; in all, 
     $467,327,000.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Coburn

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Coburn:
       Page 13, line 11, after the dollar amount insert ``(reduced 
     by $1,000,000)''.

  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, throughout the Federal Government we have 
multitudes of agencies and departments and grants and billions of 
dollars that are being spent on global change and global climate 
change. We happen to have in this bill a million dollars in an isolated 
little pocket that is going to go to study, within the Department of 
Agriculture through a grant, global change.
  It makes no sense to appropriate any money for global change through 
the appropriations process in ag when we have the vast majority, 99.9 
percent of the rest of the money, being spent on this issue in other 
departments.
  The question that I would have is, should we be spending a million 
dollars of Social Security money on global change in such an 
inefficient way? A million-dollar grant on such a large area of science 
and research today can in no way be spent efficiently, and I would pull 
this back. Is this money that has to be spent, that needs to be spent 
at this time and in this manner, and is it the best way to spend this 
million dollars?
  As my colleagues know, we recently saw some of the results of some of 
the research on global change. We have a Kyoto Treaty that is being 
implemented by the administration that has never been approved by the 
Senate in direct violation of the Constitution of the United States. We 
have a Kyoto Treaty that is going to take jobs away from Americans 
because it is going to make us live at one standard and the rest of the 
world, developing world, live at a different standard.
  We are throwing a million dollars for a favor for somebody on global 
change, one isolated, small grant program that is going to make no 
difference whatsoever in the overall study and effect on this issue; 
and so my question and the reason I have this amendment is that this is 
not going to accomplish its purpose, this is not going to further our 
research on global change, it is not going to be a wise use of a 
million dollars of taxpayers' money, and in fact will encourage us to 
do the same thing in other areas.
  The next time somebody's constituent comes from my area, who wants 
something for a university for a grant, they are going to say, Well, 
they did it on this one; why will they not do it here? It is not a wise 
use of our money.
  As my colleagues know, we have a lot of seniors out there. There is 
no question we are going to provide them with their Social Security 
checks, and I do not want anybody to be able to say that I am trying to 
scare the first senior into thinking they are not going to get their 
Social Security. They are. We are going to meet that commitment. But we 
cannot say that to our children, and anybody in this body that says 
they can, they have to come up with a plan to do that, and the first 
plan to do that is to not spend the revenues that are coming into this 
country, into the Treasury, for Social Security.
  So I would ask the chairman and I would ask the ranking member to 
consider this amendment as a good amendment. This $1 million will not 
ever contribute positively to the situation on global change. What it 
will do is send a million dollars of taxpayers' money to somebody else, 
and it will generate some research; but will it in fact have an impact 
on the very thing that it was directed for? And I would challenge 
someone to tell me that out of the billions and billions of dollars 
that we spend in other areas through the EPA and other areas, how $1 
million for one grant system is going to make a difference in terms of 
global change.
  As my colleagues know, in World War II this country recognized that 
we had an obligation to fight that war, and we downsized every aspect 
of our Federal

[[Page H3626]]

Government because we had an emergency. Now we have a war going on, and 
it is not near the emergency that World War II was, but we have another 
emergency. And that emergency is whether or not our children are going 
to have the same standard of living that we have had the opportunity to 
have. Unless we address the issue of spending Social Security money, 
unless we address the issues associated with Medicare and Social 
Security, and unless we pay attention to that in every dollar that we 
spend, whether that comes out in one appropriation bill or all of them, 
or whether it is at the end of the year, unless we are good stewards of 
that money, that emergency will overwhelm our children. And everybody 
in this body knows that; they know that the baby boomer bust is coming 
as far as Social Security and Medicare.
  So we cannot deny it.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn) 
has expired.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent for 1 additional 
minute.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Oklahoma?
  Mr. POMEROY. I object, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard.
  Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn), the sponsor of the 100-plus 
amendments that have turned the ag appropriations bill into such an 
utter fiasco on the floor of this House has strong convictions. Good 
for him. I believe they are heartfelt, and he is certainly articulate 
in advancing his belief on these things.
  I have strong convictions, too. In fact, there are 435 of us in this 
body with strong convictions.
  Many of us believe that hijacking the floor of this House is not the 
appropriate way to advance our strong convictions, work within the 
process, plug along, and ultimately try and make our beliefs prevail.
  But to unilaterally tee off on America's farmers, as is the case with 
the 100-plus amendments sponsored by the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. 
Coburn), is fundamentally wrong and utterly unrelated to the concerns 
that he continues to tell us so much about.
  There is a budget. It has been adopted by this body. It provides for 
spending of general fund dollars. The Committee on Appropriations has 
made allocations to its subcommittees, and the gentleman from New 
Mexico (Mr. Skeen), dealing with the appropriation made to agriculture, 
came up with a bill that enjoyed bipartisan support coming out of that 
committee.
  I do not like the bill. I do not think there is enough response to 
the needs in agriculture funded in the bill brought forward. I believe 
we needed to do more.
  But to have the gentleman tee off on agriculture, slice and dice and 
try to make his ideological points at the expense of America's farmers 
is wrong.
  It is his prerogative. We all have our own ways of doing things.
  Ultimately, the blame for this fiasco falls upon majority leadership. 
Speaker Hastert, where is he? Majority Leader Armey, where is he? 
Majority Whip DeLay, where is he? America's farmers need their 
direction and they need your leadership, and they need it now.
  I believe that we need to assess what is taking place on this bill, 
and if Speaker Hastert cared about America's farmers, he would put a 
stop to it, and there are innumerable ways available to the Speaker of 
the House to get this bill from being eviscerated in the fashion the 
gentleman is attempting. Give him an opportunity to have his amendment, 
one amendment, and then let us get on and appropriate the money so our 
farmers know where they stand.

                              {time}  1130

  There is not a component of our economy that is hurting as badly as 
our family farmers, and we all know that. These are boom times. The Dow 
flirts with record levels every day it seems like, but in the heartland 
of American agriculture there is nothing but pain and despair. At a 
time when our farmers are suffering, and when prices are below the cost 
of production, to have the agriculture appropriations bill held up for 
mockery and ridicule and evisceration like the gentleman from Oklahoma, 
as seemingly endorsed by the majority leadership is doing, is wrong. 
Rural America needs this Congress to respond to its problems.
  Those of us that represent farm country, we cannot do it all on our 
own. We need the body to work together, Republicans and Democrats 
standing up for farmers, and ultimately that is going to take some 
leadership out of the leadership. That is what leadership is all about.
  So I wish Speaker Hastert would think about the farmers in Illinois. 
I wish Majority Leader Armey would think about his North Dakota roots. 
I wish Majority Whip Delay would reflect on the pain in rural Texas and 
put a stop to this process so that we might get on to voting on an 
agriculture appropriations bill and send some support to our farmers.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, the gentleman currently has this amendment and 10 other 
amendments that are pending at the desk. I have no doubt that the 
gentleman has many more such amendments that he will propose for this 
account. At this point they are all flawed, as was his amendment 
yesterday on the Department of Agriculture buildings and facilities.
  Each of them proposes to eliminate a single item, but does not reduce 
the overall total, and so there is no reduction accomplished by the 
amendment. In this series of amendments, each amendment proposes to 
eliminate a single special research grant within the Cooperative State 
Research, Education and Extension Service, and in almost all cases 
these are projects that have been ongoing for many years and were 
proposed to be eliminated in the administration's budget request, and 
that were restored by the committee at the same level of funding 
provided in fiscal year 1999.
  The special research grant that this amendment proposes to eliminate 
is described in detail in part 4 of the committee's hearing record on 
page 1,432, and the following is a brief description of the research 
performed under this grant:
  ``Radiation from the sun occurs in a spectrum of wavelengths with the 
majority of wavelengths being beneficial to human and other living 
organisms. A small portion of the short wavelength radiation, what is 
known as the Ultraviolet or UV-B Region of the spectrum, is harmful to 
many biological organisms. Fortunately, most of the UV-B radiation from 
the sun is absorbed by ozone located in the stratosphere and does not 
reach the surface of the Earth. The discovery of the deterioration of 
the stratosphere ozone layer and the ozone hole over polar regions has 
raised concern about the real potential for increased UV-B irradiance 
reaching the surface of the earth and the significant negative impact 
that it would have on all biological systems, including man, animals 
and plants of agricultural importance. There is an urgent need to 
determine the amount of UV-B radiation reaching the Earth's surface and 
to learn more about the effect of this changing environmental force. 
The Cooperative State Research, Education and Extension Service, 
CSREES, is in the process of establishing a network for monitoring 
surface UV-B radiation which will meet the needs of the science 
community for the United States, and which will be compatible with 
similar networks being developed throughout the world.''
  Grants for this kind of work have been reviewed annually and have 
been awarded each year since 1992, and the work is performed at 
Colorado State University.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a good project and it deserves the support of 
all Members, and I support the project and I oppose the gentleman's 
amendment to eliminate it.
  Mr. BASS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to say that I have nothing but the deepest 
respect and admiration both on a professional and personal level for 
the distinguished chairman of the agriculture subcommittee, as I do for 
every other member of the Committee on Appropriations. I have watched 
with amazement as the gentleman from Oklahoma has withstood the most 
withering criticism from other Members of Congress,

[[Page H3627]]

not so much for the content of the amendments that he has offered, but 
for his insistence upon exercising his right as a Member of this body 
to question the product that has been produced by a committee of this 
House.
  I think it is regrettable that Members of Congress get up and imply 
that a Member's right to debate line items in the budget is somehow an 
insult to the Committee on Appropriations or any other committee of the 
House. In fact, in my opinion it is an opportunity for individual 
Members of Congress to state their views and positions on issues, 
regardless. They may seem trite and unimportant and wrong to some 
Members of Congress, but they are important for other Members of 
Congress.
  And it may take a few hours to get through the agriculture 
appropriations bill, and I have no doubt that we will pass a fine 
product in the end. But I hope this body will give every Member of 
Congress the tolerance that we should exercise in allowing everybody 
the opportunity to debate their amendments. Because remember, you will 
be the person at some future date that will want to have that same 
respect shown for you. Scrutiny is painful, but it is good for the 
process.
  So I commend the gentleman from Oklahoma for what he is doing, and I 
rise in support of this amendment.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BASS. I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for those words of 
support.
  The gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy) said that the purpose 
of this is to make a mockery and to ridicule and to desecrate the 
agriculture bill. Far from it. The purpose is to ridicule money that 
does not go to our farmers.
  We had seven votes last night on money that is spent on bureaucracy. 
This is not going to slow down one penny of money going to our farmers 
because this bill is going to pass. I said when we first started this 
debate that this was a good bill. I said that I supported the research.
  The fact is we have a rule that allows us to debate these issues, and 
if one did not like the rule, one had an opportunity to vote against 
the rule. I voted against the rule because I think we spent money in 
the wrong ways and I wanted to change it, and I am here exercising my 
right as a Member of this body to try to change it.
  My whole goal is to free agricultural research from the shackles of 
personal political favors for Members, and to make sure dollars go to 
the farmers, not political whims to get somebody reelected. So there is 
nothing wrong with asking questions about how the money goes.
  The question of UV light, we are spending hundreds of millions of 
dollars on ultraviolet radiation in other areas of this government. 
This is a pork project, plain and simple, and it has been funded and it 
continues to be funded. It is $1 million that is going to do squat. And 
it is $1 million that could go to farmers instead of to research for 
something that is already being researched at a higher level in a much 
more thorough way in almost every medical university in this country, 
and to portend that this is a significant research that we cannot do 
without or not use somewhere else efficiently is not an accurate 
statement.
  I am not testing and going after the integrity of anyone here. It is 
the process that I object to and the fact that we have a lot of dollars 
in this agriculture bill that do not go directly to farmers. I come 
from a farm State. My district is rural. I have the support of my 
farmers. They do not want money spent in Washington that should be 
going to farmers. They do not want money paid out in terms of favors to 
get somebody reelected so that they will not have what they need when 
they go to farm their land.
  So the question is not about whether or not we should do research. 
The question is about whether or not we should do research in a way 
that gives us a result that does not pay somebody off for a political 
favor.
  So that may not be very palatable here, but there is a lot of that 
going on, and what I am saying is, let us free this agriculture bill 
from that type of thing and let us make sure that our research is 
directed in such a way that we get a benefit from it in this country.
  I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I think this debate is all framed in the sense that we 
are all here to try to make a better America. Well, a better America is 
not just the Social Security program, it is the totality of what we try 
to do here. A lot of that totality is regarded in quality of life. If 
one wants to have a better quality of life, which requires that one has 
healthier communities and strong economies, one has to remain 
competitive in the world, when America remains competitive in its 
research.
  I guess if we go through all of the research projects that we do, we 
would find that there are some that we like and some that we do not 
like. Certainly the gentleman from Oklahoma, who is a doctor, would 
agree that if we cut out medical research, one, we are not going to be 
competitive with the rest of the world and two, we are not going to 
provide for a better quality of life.
  The same is true with agriculture, this research issue, the ozone 
issue. It is a big issue in the world. It has become the number one 
issue for one of our competitive agricultural countries, Australia. 
They grow the same crops that we grow, only in reverse seasons. They 
are competitive in markets that we are in. They have made ozone one of 
the biggest issues in the country. They have made it a national policy. 
They have a saying there, slip, slop, slap. Slip on a T-shirt, slap on 
a hat, and slop on some lotion before you go outside. It is that big 
and that is everywhere, on billboards and everything.
  So the issue about research and quality of life and agriculture is 
that our bodies are what we eat. If we do better research in 
agriculture, we are going to be eating healthier foods and living 
healthier life styles.
  So I wish that the gentleman would really not attack agricultural 
research as some kind of big pork that is in here just for Members. 
This country was based on land grant colleges, on universities that 
were based on studying agriculture, training people for agriculture. We 
still honor those with research programs, and I can tell the gentleman 
the research that we are doing in our area is really a cutting edge 
issue.
  So I mean there has been a debate here, because this process of 
bringing in, as the gentleman told the desk, 114 amendments to an 
appropriations bill after never attending any of the hearings that the 
Committee on Appropriations had, if each Member offered, I just figured 
it out, if each Member, 435 of us, if each of us offered 114 amendments 
on an appropriation, we would have 41,590 amendments offered here. Mr. 
Chairman, the process does not work when we do it that way.
  So yes, there has been criticism of sort of the number of amendments 
and the style which the gentleman is going about, but in the end this 
bill, which I was involved in the markup and attended all of those 
hearings because I am a member of the committee, this bill really is 
about trying to make for a healthier America, trying to make for a more 
competitive agriculture, a more environmentally friendly agriculture, a 
healthier food product, all of the things that make America the great 
place in which we live and respecting our heritage in that.
  So yes, the gentleman is getting some negative responses to his 
amendments for the same reasons that I have indicated. I stand opposed 
to this amendment and to the others that the gentleman is offering.
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Some of the attacks on my friend from Oklahoma have been downright 
humorous, the fact that he was accused of unilaterally trying to tee 
off on America's farmers. I want to speak out for my friend from 
Oklahoma and say he is willing to tee off on anybody who goes over the 
budget.
  This is not about agriculture. This is about a process of how we are 
going to try to keep within our budget agreement.
  I want to say up front that I support this bill and furthermore, I 
believe we do not devote enough to agricultural research. Furthermore, 
I will add that I believe that in the specifics of much

[[Page H3628]]

of this agricultural research, much of it can be easily mocked and made 
fun of, but it is the backbone of the agriculture of this country.
  Furthermore, I do not know enough about this particular project to 
know whether this is indeed real research or whether or not it was put 
in because some Member of Congress had clout. It is naive for Members 
of Congress to walk up here and say that we, in fact, have to trust our 
leadership, trust our Committee on Appropriations. We should at least 
be willing to challenge occasionally.
  If the Members of Congress do not want their projects struck, they 
should come up here and defend them, as the gentleman from New Mexico 
(Mr. Skeen), the chairman of this subcommittee, eloquently explained 
what the intent of this was. Where are the Members who represent this 
particular university in this particular State explaining what it is? 
Because this should be an opportunity for those who favor agricultural 
research to explain why this is in the bill.
  A lot of this is a fight about the process. We hear that this is a 
``filibuster'' or that we have had over 100 amendments. We have not had 
over 100 amendments. We do not know how many amendments there are going 
to be. But if we are worried that this is going to slow our process 
down, we should have had more days in session earlier this year; we 
should not be taking four additional days next week, because this is 
what Congress is about. We do not presume to know when we go into the 
appropriations process. There has been a lot of discussion whether we 
should go to the subcommittee, whether we should offer amendments.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SOUDER. I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio.

                              {time}  1145

  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I took to heart what the gentleman said, 
that we should not bring bills to the floor in an ill-considered 
manner.
  The gentleman is from the State of Indiana. As I recall, I did not 
receive any letters from the gentleman regarding projects in the 
gentleman's State or anywhere in the country relative to this bill.
  Did the gentleman come before our committee to testify, or send any 
correspondence regarding any line item in this bill, yes or no?
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I would tell the gentlewoman, no, I had no 
line item in this bill.
  I reclaim my time because I did put, in fact, a request in to boost 
agricultural research spending, because I support an increase in 
agricultural research spending. I support this bill. I believe if there 
is any part of the overall spending process that we need to be careful 
not to tinker with, it is agriculture.
  I am not fighting with the specifics here, I am fighting on a 
process; that all the appropriations bills should be allowed to have 
amendments and a full-fledged debate.
  And whether it is one Member or a group of Members, they should be 
allowed to come here, because we are not trying to micromanage the 
subcommittees, but when we see the final report we have a right to say, 
as Members of Congress, that we do not believe that this full amount of 
money is legitimate; that we take apart pieces of this bill and say, 
defend this piece.
  In fact, the only way an amendment cannot pass this House is if the 
majority of this country does not favor that amendment. It is not like 
some kind of a game here where there is some kind of a trick that can 
get to a majority.
  Quite frankly, at least one of our leaders is threatening about this 
process, that we should not be allowed to offer amendments because it 
is uncomfortable. We are Members of Congress. We have a right. Not all 
of us are on a subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations, on the 
full Committee on Appropriations or its subcommittees. Some of us are 
on authorizing committees or on the Committee on the Budget. We would 
like to have the ability to come here and at least question.
  I will vote for some amendments. I am voting against some amendments. 
I am going to vote on the end bill. But I do not think it is fair when 
the attacks come to the floor and they are aimed at a generic, hey, 
this is an attack on agriculture, this Member is trying to tie up the 
House.
  It sounds to me like, thou dost protest too much. If there are 
particulars that Members want to defend, come down and defend the 
particulars, because Members should be able to. There are plenty of 
reasons; even if it sounds embarrassing on some of these research 
projects, there are scientific reasons why we are the best agricultural 
Nation in the world.
  If we do not do this research and if we let this get caught up in 
whether or not somebody had an inside deal, if someone's project cannot 
stand the light of day, if their research project in their district 
cannot stand the light of C-Span in this national debate, then it 
should not be in the bill. Members should be down here defending it, as 
the subcommittee chairman did.
  I commend my friend, the gentleman from Oklahoma, for challenging the 
structure; for making sure that each part of this bill can either be 
defended or not defended. I stand with him today because I think it is 
a healthy process for the United States Congress.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. Let me just 
say, in reference to something the earlier speaker said, when we do not 
follow regular order, which means when we do not come to the 
subcommittee and the full committee and do not make views known, and 
then try to come to the floor and repair it, that is not regular order.
  Regular order is making Members' wishes known to the committee as we 
go through the regular process, because we have to deal with 435 
Members.
  Now let me say, in reference specifically to this amendment, which is 
global climate change, in terms of global climate change, this is not a 
project that will be done in this Member's district. I know it will not 
be done in the chairman's district. But there is no issue more 
important to agriculture in this country and in the world than climate.
  I can remember one time walking into the office of the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Stenholm), the ranking member on the Committee on 
Agriculture, and he was watching television. But what was he watching? 
He was watching the weather as he was marking up one of the major 
authorizing bills for agriculture in this country.
  I kind of laughed, because the sound was not on. I said, Charlie, 
what are you really doing? He said, you know how important weather is.
  With changes in global climate, just a little bit of melt in any of 
the poles causes a change in the currents and the water. We have major 
research going on in terms of genetics, to try to make plants grow in 
deserts or where there is lack of rainfall.
  What about when we have major changes in climate, which happen at the 
edges, they certainly do, and how we get plant life to survive in those 
circumstances?
  What about the oceans? What about trying to do more in the way of 
production out of saltwater?
  There are all kinds of issues that we deal with relative to the globe 
and relative to climate. There is nothing more important for us to know 
about.
  Frankly, the Department of Agriculture is the department that farmers 
trust. They are not going to trust, with all due respect to the 
Environmental Protection Agency, but it has had a different view of 
what is in the air and a different perspective on climate.
  But in terms of plant life and animal life, the research depository 
and the intelligence is stored at the Department of Agriculture. We 
make it available to our farmers in the field through the modern 
wonders of technology, and frankly, we help the farmers of the world to 
the best of our ability feed the people of their own country.
  So I think to make any recommendation to eliminate this line item is 
certainly backwards looking.
  I would just say, and I am sorry that the gentleman left the floor, 
but I will bring it up again when he returns, if in fact he has a 
problem with special grants under the Cooperative State Research 
Extension and Education Service, I would recommend that the gentleman 
from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn) eliminate the grants that he asked for. In 
fact, I will list just three of them, totaling over $691,000.

[[Page H3629]]

  We have a letter in our possession that was sent to one of the 
Members in our committee in which the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. 
Coburn) asks for assistance to the State of Oklahoma, and asks for 
targeted line item funding through the agricultural appropriations 
bill.
  We do not have any discrimination against Oklahoma. We want to help 
Oklahoma. They include the following.
  Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. KAPTUR. I yield to the gentleman from South Carolina.
  Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding that the gentleman 
from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn) specifically asked that those be offsets. 
That is the heart of the matter that he is dealing with here today, and 
that is the issue of offsetting versus not. So I think every Member of 
Congress----
  Ms. KAPTUR. I would reclaim my time and just say that the point is 
that the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn) put three projects in 
this bill. There are actually five projects he put in the bill, 
totalling well over $1 million. My feeling is that if he wants to 
eliminate $1 million from the bill, let him eliminate the projects for 
Oklahoma.
  Frankly, this Member would not eliminate projects for Oklahoma, but 
let me say what the projects are:
  Expanding wheat pasture research, $285,000; integrated production 
systems for horticulture crops, $180,000; preservation and processing 
research for fruits and vegetables, $226,000. That is just $691,000 for 
those three projects alone under the very account that he is now trying 
to cut for global climate research, which affects every farmer in this 
country and their future.
  So I would just say that I think the gentleman is maybe not quite 
knowledgeable enough about these accounts, because in fact, why would 
he add funding to a bill and to a set of accounts that he is trying to 
cut? Why would he not cut his own projects, rather than trying to cut a 
project that deals with the entire Nation's needs?
  My apologies to the State of Oklahoma, because they deserve a voice 
here. I would not have recommended that their particular projects be 
cut. But the fact is the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn) sent a 
letter.
  THE CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) has 
expired.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for an 
additional 30 seconds.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman 
from Ohio?
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I object.
  The CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard.
  Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I would just pick up on our last conversation. That is, 
it seems to me fundamentally that the idea that the gentleman from 
Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn) and others on this House floor are trying to get 
at is not the idea of should we disenfranchise people within any of our 
respective congressional districts, but simply the idea of should we 
offset spending that takes place in the government.
  As the gentleman has consistently stated, his struggle is not so much 
with the agricultural bill, but the larger process we find ourselves 
in. That is a process headed towards a train wreck.
  I would say this, there was an earlier comment talking about how 
anybody who would offer amendments to this bill was basically one 
teeing off on agriculture. I want to associate my words with those of 
the gentleman from Indiana, because that is absolutely not the case.
  If Members simply think about the contrast that exists, when I think 
about the average farmer back home, he is getting up before sunrise, he 
is maybe having a cup of coffee in a fairly simple room in the back of 
his house, he is getting in a pick-up truck, he is going off, getting 
in a Massey Ferguson or John Deere tractor, and he is spending the day 
outside in the field. He ends up coming back covered with dust. That is 
one picture.
  We have another picture of somebody getting up and getting, let us 
say, in a Volkswagen Jetta or a Rabbit, going off to the administration 
buildings for agriculture here, and spending their day here. Those are 
very different days.
  The bulk of these amendments have been about trying to do something 
about this huge and bloated bureaucracy that happens to exist within 
the Department of Agriculture here in Washington, D.C. To me, when we 
think about the idea of downsizing government, with the Department of 
Agriculture we have over 100,000 employees, we have 80,000 contract 
employees. That works out to be one agriculture employee for every 10 
farmers.
  Most of the farmers that I talk to are real independent folks. They 
are hardworking folks. The idea of them needing a handholder or a 
babysitter to sort of accompany them, or at least to report on them, 
throughout the day is not something that makes common sense.
  One of the amendments that the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn) 
offered yesterday was in fact a proposal to cut simply 12 percent from 
an increase in administration here in Washington. That seems to be 
sensible to farmers that I talked to.
  Another had been to cut $400,000 from the Under Secretary of 
Agriculture. Mr. Chairman, why the Under Secretary of Agriculture needs 
another $400,000 does not quite fit with, again, the hard and simple 
lives that I see for so many farmers back home.
  Another amendment had been to trim $26 million from space planning; 
not actually construction of buildings, but just planning on space for 
the future.
  Again, these amendments have made sense when we look at the contrast 
that exists between the life that the farmer leads and the life that 
somebody in Washington leads working, for instance, for the Department 
of Agriculture.
  As to this amendment in particular, as has already been indicated, 
there are a whole number of different projects around this country, and 
in fact, I sit on the Committee on Science, and there are a number of 
projects related to ultraviolet research.
  So the issue here is this $1 million is duplication. It represents 
one 100th of 1 percent of the overall agriculture budget, and to say 
that it will cripple the agriculture budget is not exactly the case. It 
goes back to the heart of what these amendments have been all about.
  I have here a letter from Ms. Evelyn Alford, born in 1924. She writes 
me from Johns Island, South Carolina: ``It really is frightening when 
one thinks about what the Federal Government can get away with. If the 
politicians would keep their hands out of the social security fund and 
use it for what it was originally intended for there wouldn't be a 
problem with the fund. The government takes money from us and tells us 
that the money is designated for one thing and they use it for 
something else. Isn't there a word for that?''
  And a P.S., please read this letter. Ms. Alford, I read the letter.
  This is what these amendments have been all about. They have been 
about trying to prevent a train wreck that is most certainly headed our 
way if we do not adopt the proposals of the gentleman from Oklahoma 
(Mr. Coburn).
  Because as we all know, while agriculture has stayed within the caps, 
Labor-HHS, there is no way we are going to come up with $5 billion 
worth of trimming in that account; VA-HUD, over $3 billion worth of 
trimming in that account.
  Unless we come up with savings now, we are headed for a train wreck 
later on.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I came down to the floor with great respect for my 
colleague, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn). But I would say to 
the gentleman that I understand that this committee has met its 302(b) 
allocation; we are on mark, they met their budget.
  As I was listening to this debate, I thought that I would come down 
to discuss with my colleagues one of the programs that my friend's 
amendment will cut. I think it is important to know that these programs 
are not just some programs that are out there that no one knows about 
and that are not having an impact.
  The gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn) is indiscriminately 
attacking important programs in this bill without much discussion about 
the impact

[[Page H3630]]

of his proposed cuts. I want to take a moment to talk about the program 
that the gentleman is attacking with this amendment.
  The Cornell University Program on Breast Cancer and Environmental 
Risk Factors was launched in 1995, and responds to the abnormally high 
incidence of breast cancer in New York.

                              {time}  1200


                             Point of Order

  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I have a point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, the amendment that we are on is an 
amendment on UV research for $1 million. We have not attacked breast 
cancer research.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman have a point of order?
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, the point of order is, the discussion is 
not about the amendment at hand. It is not germane to the amendment at 
hand.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, if I may respond to the gentleman from 
Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn), it is my understanding that it is the same 
account, and the gentleman's amendment will cut indiscriminately that 
account.
  Mr. Chairman, if I may proceed, I would like to discuss another item 
in that account, because it will be impacted.
  The CHAIRMAN. Debate must be relevant to the matter before the 
Committee. The Chair finds that the debate so far has been so.
  The gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey) may continue.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding that this will 
impact the project. I think it is important for my colleagues to know 
that the Cornell University program on breast cancer and environmental 
risk factors was launched in 1995 in response to the abnormally high 
incidence of breast cancer in New York.
  The program investigates the link between risk factors in the 
environment like chemicals and pesticides and breast cancer. The BCERF, 
which it is called, takes scientific research on breast cancer, 
translates it into plain English materials that are easy to understand, 
and disseminates this information to the public.
  They have a web site that is filled with information on BCERF's 
activities, breast cancer statistics, scientific analyses, and 
environmental risk factors and links to other sources of information. 
They sponsor discussion groups that provide a public forum to discuss 
breast cancer. This amendment will destroy our ability to bring the 
important work of the BCERF program to more people around New York and 
around the country.
  Let me make this very simple, Mr. Chairman, if my colleagues oppose 
efforts to educate the public about breast cancer, if they think they 
have done enough to prevent breast cancer in this country, then vote 
yes on this amendment.
  But if my colleagues agree with me that we need to do more about 
stopping the terrible scourge of breast cancer in this country, if they 
agree with me that they cannot sit idly by while one in eight women are 
diagnosed with breast cancer over the course of their lifetimes, if it 
outrages them that approximately 43,000 women will die from breast 
cancer and 175,000 women will be diagnosed with breast cancer this year 
alone, then join me in voting no on this terribly misguided amendment.
  My colleagues, these are just some of the materials that they 
distribute, avoiding exposure to household pesticides, protective 
clothing, safe use and storage of hazardous household products, 
pesticides, and breast cancer risks and evaluations, and on and on and 
on.
  Mr. Chairman, we all want to spend money wisely. We all understand 
that the hard-earned dollars of taxpayers should not be distributed 
willy-nilly. But the gentleman from New Mexico (Chairman Skeen), the 
gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), our ranking member, have worked 
very hard to keep the numbers in this budget within their budget 
allocation.
  I think it is very important that we not get misled by the desire to 
cut and balance our budget, because we all want to spend wisely. But we 
have to look at what these potential cuts will do, what kind of impact 
they will have on the lives of our constituents.
  That is why, as I was sitting in my office, I decided to come down 
here. This is the kind of impact that this unwise, foolish cut will 
make.
  Mrs. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn).
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from Missouri for 
yielding to me.
  What the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey) does not know is my 
sister has breast cancer. My closest cousin just died from breast 
cancer. If the gentlewoman will look at this amendment, we do not cut 
total research. We cut a million dollars out of it, as the chairman 
just said, because we did not cut the total dollars. We redirected the 
money in there. This $1 million will say that $1 million cannot go for 
this, but the total number was not cut in our amendment. The chairman 
made that point earlier.
  I treat women, as the gentlewoman from New York very much knows. 
Breast cancer is a great concern for me. I do not believe that the 
gentlewoman's intention was to say that I was not concerned about 
breast research, because I am.
  If my colleagues will look at the amendment and how it is actually 
written, it is written to cut this spending, but does not cut the total 
and allows the committee to spend that money elsewhere.
  So the question is, we did not, in fact, attempt to cut that 
research. We attempted to withdraw an amendment after we had a 
discussion on total research.
  I want to take this time to answer another question that the 
gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) brought up in trying to say that I 
sought funding. I very carefully worded a letter to the gentleman from 
Oklahoma (Mr. Istook).
  I want to read very carefully the wording in it, because here is what 
I do with the research universities that come to my office. When they 
ask for money, I ask them, where are they going to get the money.
  Then I sent a letter to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook), and 
I said, ``They wish to receive funding.'' Then I said, ``What support 
do you plan to give for that funding?''
  The gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) represents this university 
as well. My promise to that group of university leaders was, I said, I 
would ask if he would do it. I did not make a request for funding.
  The other thing that most of the chairmen in the Committee on 
Appropriations will tell my colleagues is that when I make a specific 
request for something that I want funded, I send with it a request for 
something that I want cut. If my colleagues would kindly check with the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) on the bills, things that I have 
asked.
  So I want to make very clear that I support breast cancer research, 
that I support NIH research, that I support the research. But I want to 
make clear again, a million dollar grant on UV research at one 
university on ultraviolet radiation has little to do with global 
change, one.
  Number two, we are spending millions and millions and millions of 
dollars on this same subject in other areas. It is my feeling, as a 
prerogative, as a Member, to say this: I think that money can be spent 
better and elsewhere.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. EMERSON. I yield to the gentlewoman from New York.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to respond to the gentleman 
from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn). It is my understanding that the amendment 
of the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn) will cut $1 million from 
the research account. This research project for breast cancer is within 
that account. In fact, if his amendment will not cut from that account, 
then I am not sure what we are doing here debating it.
  Mrs. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I yield again to the 
gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn).
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, this amendment cuts $1 million from one 
specific account, but does not cut it from the total account, because 
we did

[[Page H3631]]

not lower the total amount in the research. Had we done that, we would 
have intended to cut the total amount. So it still leaves the money 
there.
  Actually what it does is, it offsets $13 million that was taken last 
night by the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), out of research, 
which we did not get, we had a voice vote on and not a recorded vote 
on, and actually makes $1 million of that go back into general 
research.
  So the gentlewoman from New York misstates the true facts of the 
amendment.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, if the gentlewoman from Missouri would 
yield, based upon the information I have, I believe the gentleman from 
Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn) has distorted the response, or there is a 
misunderstanding here between people on this committee. But it is my 
understanding that the gentleman's amendment does come from the special 
research account and that this breast cancer project is within that 
special research account.
  Therefore, although the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen) has 
supported it, and I thank him, our gracious chairman, and the 
gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) has supported it, it will have an 
impact in this project.
  So, Mr. Chairman, there must be a misunderstanding here. Because on 
the one hand, it will cut; on the other hand, it will not have any 
impact.
  Mrs. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I yield to the 
gentleman from Oklahoma.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I just want to say very specifically that I 
believe that they are mistakenly pointing this out. What this amendment 
really does is it will eliminate the million dollars and allow $1 
million to go back into the general research against the $13 million 
losses.
  Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to say, in the furtherance of explaining and 
giving clarity to what is intended and what is written, I yield to the 
gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), the ranking member of the 
Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug 
Administration, and Related Agencies.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding to me, 
and I wanted to clarify a couple of matters here for the Record in 
terms of this amendment.
  First of all, the amendment of the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. 
Coburn) is to page 13, line 11, which reads: $62,916,000 for special 
grants for agricultural research. The gentleman's amendment proposes to 
eliminate $1 million from that account. Am I correct in reading the 
gentleman's amendment? That is exactly what the gentleman's amendment 
states, page 13 line 11.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. CLAYTON. I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, if my colleagues will turn the page to page 
14, they will see that we did not amend the total amount of research. 
Therefore, the million dollars is reduced in that one area, but the 
total amount of research is left the same. My colleagues will notice, 
on line 19, on page 14, that we did not amend $467,327,000.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, if the gentlewoman from North Carolina will 
further yield, I thank the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn). That 
gets to my very point that he amends line 11, page 13, out of the 
special grant category. The project of the gentlewoman from New York 
(Mrs. Lowey) is in the special grant category.
  I wanted to get back to the letter that the gentleman from Oklahoma 
(Mr. Coburn) sent to the committee back on March 4. I am very glad that 
the gentleman brought it up himself here on the floor, because his 
letter says that Oklahoma State University met with him. They did not 
meet with another member of the committee.
  Through that meeting, the gentleman learned about the specific 
projects, and then I quote from the gentleman's letter, ``They have 
targeted to get line item funding through the Agriculture 
Appropriations bill this coming spring.'' This is the bill. This is the 
time we are talking about.
  The next paragraph goes through five different projects. The last 
paragraph the gentleman from Oklahoma says, ``They wish to receive 
funding,'' this is what he says to another member of the committee, 
``in a line item form.'' The gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn) even 
tells them how he wants it, for each one; each one of the projects, he 
means. Then the gentleman says, ``And I wanted to inquire as to what 
support you plan to give them in regards to these projects as they 
progress through the Committee on Appropriations.''
  I will tell my colleagues, when I receive a letter from a Member, and 
the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn) did not send this particular 
letter to me, I would take it that when the gentleman lists which 
projects he wants on behalf of his university, that is a request for 
funds.
  So, therefore, if this is not a request for funds, I go back to my 
original proposal to the gentleman, because I understand he wants to 
cut funds, why not take the special grants that he has asked for, 
$285,000 for expanded wheat pasture, $180,000 for integrated production 
systems for horticulture crops, and $226,000 for preservation and 
processing research for fruits and vegetables, which total $691,000, 
and let us eliminate those first.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman from North Carolina 
further yield?
  Mrs. CLAYTON. I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, first of all, this was not sent to the 
Committee on Appropriations. This was sent, one letter, to another 
Member asking his status on those projects.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, if the gentlewoman from North Carolina will 
further yield, which committee is that gentleman on?
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, if the gentlewoman will continue to yield, 
he is on the Committee on Appropriations, but he is also from Oklahoma, 
and he also would have to support that, should that come.
  When I make a request, and please go and look at my request, I 
specifically request things that I ask for. I mean what I say and say 
what I mean; I think the gentlewoman knows that. I am very cautious 
with how I do it.

  I want to answer one other point. We made legislative history when I 
specifically asked this amendment to take $1 million for a specific 
amendment. So that means no money is going to come out of breast cancer 
research; it is going to come out of that one specific amendment.
  I thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Clayton) for 
yielding to me.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, if the gentlewoman will continue to yield, 
let me say to the gentleman from Oklahoma, I take it, then, he does not 
wish to support the Oklahoma State University's request for these 
ongoing research projects. I think that the gentleman's representative 
from the Committee on Appropriations should know that from the State of 
Oklahoma. I hope that the people from the University of Oklahoma also 
would know that.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman from North Carolina 
yield? I just want to answer the last statement, if I may.
  Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman, if he can do it 
briefly.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I will be happy to support Oklahoma State 
research for that only if they can help me cut some spending from 
somewhere else.
  Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Chairman, when the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. 
Coburn) has a chance to respond, I hope he will respond as if he has 
written the amendment, if indeed it is designated not to come off the 
general special grant, because as it is written, it is not what his 
intentions are. The gentleman's intentions, as he stated, giving him 
the benefit of the doubt, he does not plan for it to come from cancer, 
but the result of his action means it will come from cancer.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn).
  The question was taken; and the chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 185, further proceedings 
on

[[Page H3632]]

the amendment offered by the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn) will 
be postponed.

                              {time}  1215


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Sanford

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Sanford:
       Page 13, line 11, after the dollar amount insert ``(reduced 
     by $5,136,000)''.

  Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is a very simple amendment. 
All it does is decrease research in education by $5,136,000 for wood 
utilization research. These are specific grants to seven States, 
basically throughout the Southeast.
  The real question that has to be asked with an amendment like this, 
and with wood utilization overall, is who does it best. If we think 
that the Federal Government, through grants to universities and private 
interests, is the best place to figure out where best to utilize wood, 
then my colleagues will want to vote against this amendment. If, 
however, we think private enterprise, free enterprise might be more 
capable at determining where and how wood utilization research ought to 
take place, then I think my colleagues will want to vote for this 
amendment.
  I happen to have a lot of experience in terms of wood utilization. I 
grew up on a family farm down south of Charleston. My dad died when I 
was in college and we converted the farm from basically a row crop and 
from cattle to pine trees. So over the course of my life, my brothers 
and I have been out behind a tractor, either mechanically or by hand, 
planting pine trees, throughout our whole life. And that has given me a 
lot of experience in this world.
  Because with improved loblollies down in the Southeast, a first thin 
can be had in 12 years. Now, improved loblollies did not come as a 
result of wood utilization research grants. In fact, $45 million has 
been granted in this category since 1985. It came about because people 
like Westvaco, people like Georgia Pacific, people like Union Camp were 
going out and doing research on what would create the fastest growing 
loblolly or slash pine down in the Southeast.
  Now, what we have in that part of the world are people like Joe 
Young. Joe Young is an independent timber producer based in Georgetown, 
South Carolina. And I would ask somebody like Joe Young if he thinks $5 
million ought to be spent on wood utilization research or does he think 
that he, with folks running skidders, folks out in the woods, would 
have a better idea of, for instance, harvesting the woods. We have 
people at Union Camp or Georgia Pacific, we have a big plant, actually 
a Westvaco plant in north Charleston, South Carolina, and the people 
there put literally millions of dollars each year into basically wood 
utilization research and coming up with the best ways to mill wood, the 
best ways to get wood from the stump to the home place.
  So this is an amendment that is largely a philosophical amendment 
about where do we think this kind of research takes place best. If we 
think it takes place best with government, through a Department of Ag 
grant, then we will want to vote against the amendment. If we think 
otherwise, we ought to vote for it.
  Going back to what this money would do, because again I go back to 
the original premise behind this series of amendments that the 
gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn) and others are offering, what this 
amendment is about is simply saying do we want to borrow from Social 
Security to pay for $5 million worth of wood utilization research; or, 
if we do not want to think about it in terms of Social Security, we can 
think about it with competing interests in agriculture itself.
  This $5 million would buy 250 tractors for farmers across the 
country. This $5 million would pay the taxes for 2,500 farmers for 
their taxes on a family farm for 1 year. This $5 million would buy 
about 500,000 bags of fertilizer for farmers across the country. And 
what I hear from farmers that I talk to is, if given the choice between 
an abstract grant that is already being handled by the private sector 
and money that could actually go to a farmer, they say they would take 
the second option.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The special research grant that this amendment proposes to eliminate 
is described in detail in part four of the committee's hearing record 
on page 1612. The following is a brief description of the research 
performed under this grant, and I will read from this:
  ``This research includes developing processes to upgrade low quality 
wood so it is suitable for higher value structural applications, 
catalyzing the formation of new business enterprises, and reducing 
environmental impact while improving systems for timber harvesting and 
forest products manufacturing.''
  Grants for this work have been reviewed annually and they have been 
awarded each year since 1985. There are eight locations where the work 
is performed: Oregon State University, Mississippi State University, 
Michigan State University, University of Minnesota-Duluth, North 
Carolina State University, University of Maine, University of 
Tennessee, and the University of Idaho.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a good project and it deserves the support of 
all Members. I support the project and I oppose the gentleman's 
amendment to eliminate it.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. COBURN. I yield to the gentleman from South Carolina.
  Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me, 
and I just want to follow up again on what I have actually seen in the 
field, because our family actually grows pine trees. And when I talk to 
people like Joe Young, they used to go out there with a chain saw and 
cut the wood. Now they have a thing called a feller-buncher, basically 
a cutter set up on top of a four wheel drive tractor that moves around 
through the woods.
  But these guys out in the woods, without government research grants, 
without government money, they are able to figure out how best to cut a 
tree rather than some researcher from the Department of Agriculture in 
Washington, D.C. telling them how.
  Mr. COBURN. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, again I would make the 
point that the purpose of this amendment does not cut overall research; 
rather it allows that money to go for something that we would deem to 
be more productive.
  Again, I would come back to something I said earlier. There is no 
question that our Agriculture Committee on Appropriations came in under 
the 302(b), and I have heard that thrown up several times. But the 
people who are bringing that point to the floor have to say if they are 
going to support the 302(b) for agriculture, they have to support the 
302(b) for Labor, HHS and Education. We all want to fund education at a 
higher level, and we are not one of us are going to tolerate a $5 
billion cut in Labor, HHS.
  So to use the claim that we met the 302(b) when it was set at a high 
level, none of the amendments that have been offered thus far have 
directly taken money away from America's farmers. Not one. Not one 
amendment has been offered that takes money away from American farmers. 
What it does is it takes away money from people who are on the gravy 
train and on the line, that take money out of this budget.
  If we care about American farmers, as the gentleman from North Dakota 
(Mr. Pomeroy) said, then we have an obligation to make sure that there 
is nothing in this bill that could not be spent better elsewhere. Our 
American farmers know how to do it. And they know if we will get the 
resources to them, and if we will direct it down to their level, that 
they will continue to lead the world in terms of research.
  I would also make the point that if we make the claim we are within 
the 302(b), then we are certainly going to support a $3.8 billion cut 
to housing and our veterans. There is not going to be a Member in this 
body that will support a $3.8 billion cut to veterans and our housing.
  So to claim that this process is working because this committee is 
under the 302(b) or is within the 302(b) is not an honest 
representation of where we are going with this process. And it is okay, 
if we all will admit that this process is going to end with us spending 
$40 or $50 billion of Social Security

[[Page H3633]]

money. We all voted to say we would not do that, and yet we are on a 
train that is going that way.
  So, yes, it is a process, and it is a process that is going to end up 
in this body not keeping its word to the American public about their 
Social Security dollars. That is why I am insistent on these 
amendments. That is why I am insistent on us persisting and looking at 
every aspect of this bill that does not do what it is intended to do 
for our farmers.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, Ohio, my own State, is a very large forested State, and 
though this particular proposal for wood utilization research does not 
impact us directly, I think indirectly it impacts us as well as every 
other State in the Union, and I thought I would read some of the 
accomplishments of the research that has been done under this program.
  Truly, one of the issues we face as a country is a need to provide 
wood product as well as fibrous product for various building needs and 
industrial needs, and yet those hardwoods that we used to have are 
really becoming extinct. In fact, we even have other committees here 
that deal with ancient forests, trying to save some of the last trees 
that we have in certain stands, and yet we still have to continue 
building homes, we have to replace what used to be wood with other 
products.
  I am sure if Members have seen some of the new homes being built 
around the country, they even use these laminated products where they 
take wood chips and put glues in it in order to create the fiberboard 
that is used. In some places we are growing sugar cane and other types 
of cane products and figuring out how to take the moisture out of them 
and laminate them and use them for wood construction, or what looks 
like wood but really is not.
  The new knowledge that is gained through this research program has 
been conducted through six centers around our country. Let me just read 
some of the new types of products that they have been able to bring to 
market.
  The design of glued laminated beams that are reinforced with plastics 
saves up to 25 to 40 percent of the wood fiber that would otherwise 
have to be used in that construction. So even our forests, and our 
privately-owned forests are not growing fast enough to meet the needs 
that we have domestically and internationally.
  In addition to this, they have been working on technology to apply 
those wood preservatives, using superfluids to reduce the environmental 
problems associated with present commercial treatments. When they put 
on these laminates and these various glues, this is a very difficult 
industrial process and they have been working on that.
  They have been working at better harvesting systems that are 
efficient and environmentally acceptable. Easy to say, hard to do.
  They have been looking at the increase of wood machining speeds and 
the reduction of saw blade widths to increase productivity and save raw 
material itself. The world of the 21st century and the new millennium 
will be one of shrinking natural resources and trying to use what we 
have in wiser ways.
  They have been working on a patented system to apply pressure and 
vibration to prevent the enzymatic sap stain which degrades hardwood 
lumber by $70 to $200 million a year. I know that because I have a 
little coffee table in my house, and I cannot get that sap to stop 
staining up through the covering that is on it. We need to find 
scientific answers to that so that wood can be fully utilized.
  They have been doing research on the reduction of the quantity of 
wood bleaching chemicals needed by wood pulp producers. In other words, 
to try to be more environmentally conscious.
  They have been working on the design and strength of wood furniture 
frames to minimize wood requirements. The wood being used today in 
furniture, if we were to take everything apart that used to use wood, 
we would be surprised at how that has been minimized. In States like 
Michigan, States like Ohio, where many industries use this new 
research, it has been immediately adapted.
  Also, they have been using the adoption of European frame saw 
technology to composite lumber to provide a new raw material source for 
industry. It is very interesting to look at some of the layered wood 
products that have been used across our country. Some of the glues did 
not work originally. Now they are doing much better at that, where we 
are using just the top coating is actual wood and what is underneath is 
various types of composite products.
  So I would say that this is extremely important. We are one of the 
largest forested nations in the world. We are having trouble with many 
of our softwoods, bringing them to market. People do not just want to 
live on plastic, they do like the feel and look of wood, and many of 
these wood utilization scientific studies and undertakings do have a 
direct commercial market application.
  So I just wanted to put that on the record, and I would support the 
chairman in his opposition to this amendment.
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Once again I want to state that I actually favor increased 
agricultural research, and having grown up in the furniture industry, 
as well as understanding a lot of this, I am not even sure I am going 
to vote for this amendment. I am listening to the debate on it.
  But I want to make an additional point, and that is there have been a 
number of comments about the amendment process and how we, in fact, as 
Members learn.

                              {time}  1230

  I am on seven different subcommittees. The idea that I am going to 
sit in every single appropriations subcommittee and listen as every 
single proposal comes up, to hear all the background, is ridiculous.
  What we have as a Member, the only option when we get the final bill, 
unless it is a high-profile event, is to deal with it after we get the 
appropriations bill, if we are lucky enough to get the appropriations 
bill before we vote, to look at it and see if there is anything here, 
if this bill exceeds the budget caps, that we believe should be looked 
at and debated on the House floor. And that is, in fact, what we are 
going through.
  There are Members who are proposing that we are supposed to sit, as 
though we do not have other committees, on every single debate item. 
Now, presumably, if the committee has done its work well, and the 
subcommittee, they will be able to defend particular things.
  But I have another concern and that is that one point that has been 
made on this floor seems to resonate a lot with me. And that is that 
agriculture, while I do not believe it is being picked on in the nature 
of all the bills, guess what the only bill that Members of Congress 
cannot reduce is? It is our own branch appropriations.
  We are not allowed to come to the floor and offer amendments to 
reduce expenditures on Congress because we might micromanage Congress. 
Now, we are allowed to come to the floor to micromanage other agencies 
under House rules. But under the Democrats and under the Republicans, 
we are not allowed to come to the floor and do our own.
  The reason this becomes important is because we keep hearing about 
these allocations to committee and how agriculture, which in fact has 
been very reasonable and stayed pretty much on an even keel in the 
budget, is getting battered in this process here, at least debated. But 
some, like Labor HHS, where our education and health expenditures are, 
have a $5 billion reduction coming.
  We all know that that is not going to happen. At a time of school 
violence and the pressures we have on education in America, we are not 
going to reduce it by $5 billion.
  And the Department of the Interior, our national parks and 
environment questions, is getting reduced by 18.7 percent in these 
great 302(b) allocations we are hearing.
  But guess what? The Members of Congress are going to get a 7.3 
percent increase for their personal offices. Members of Congress are 
going to get a 5.6 percent increase for their committees. In fact, the 
Committee on Appropriations is going to get a 14.9 percent

[[Page H3634]]

increase, meaning the committees are going to get a 7 percent increase.
  And the leadership is going to get an 8.4 percent increase, plus the 
660,000 they got in the supplemental bill, meaning they are going to 
get an 11.7 percent increase.
  When we come with 302(b) allocations that propose unrealistic cuts in 
environment and education, but have increases in it for this House, for 
our personal offices, for the committees, for the leadership, and then 
tell the Members of this House that we can amend everybody else's bills 
to reduce expenditures, but we cannot reduce the expenditures on 
ourselves, I believe we have a problem here.
  We are starting to act in many ways like the Congresses before us. I 
ran in 1994 because I wanted to see a change. Part of the debate we are 
hearing in the appropriations process and the patience we are hearing 
from the subcommittee chairmen and the committee chairmen have been 
magnanimous as we worked through Labor HHS and other things over the 
last few years. And we need to have this debate.
  But I am very concerned about double standards being put on the 
Committee on Appropriations vis-a-vis legislative branch appropriations 
and letting that go up but telling them they have to meet these 
unrealistic caps in many of the other subcommittees, particularly when 
we all know that at the tail end we are likely to bump into this so-
called train wreck in the supplemental.
  So I think we best not talk about whether somebody is in their 
302(b). The subcommittee chairman has no choice but to work with that 
number. But, in fact, this debate is far beyond the 302(b)s because 
they are not realistic. And there is no way to illustrate that better 
than that Members of Congress and their personal offices are getting 
5.6 percent, that Members of Congress will get 7.3 percent for their 
personal offices, the committees will get 7 percent, the leadership 
gets 11.7 percent, but these same allocations are reducing education by 
$5 billion, education and health and Interior, by 18 percent.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SOUDER. I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Indiana for 
yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, the gentleman made a reference to the point this it is 
not this subcommittee's fault, because there are unrealistic allocation 
numbers given through the budget process to each of the committees.
  Could the gentleman tell me who produced those numbers, then, that he 
is objecting to?
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder) has 
expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Souder was allowed to proceed for 2 
additional minutes.)
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, the gentlewoman is correct. It was not the 
Democratic side of the aisle that produced these unrealistic 
expectations.
  Many of us have concerns, as the gentleman from Oklahoma has pointed 
out, that these things should be done in an independent and bipartisan 
way. When we think our leadership is wrong, we will speak up, as when 
we think her leadership is wrong.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SOUDER. I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I guess, as one ranking member on one of 
the 13 subcommittees, we did our work and we produced a bill under the 
mark we were given. As my colleague can imagine, we feel somewhat 
troubled by the fact that we have been dragged out to the floor here, 
now 2 days, with every line item picked apart when, in fact, we 
produced a bill under the rules we were told to play by. And I guess we 
do not really understand why this is being fought out on the House 
floor.
  Mr. Chairman, is this their only measure to bring it to us? Can my 
colleagues not do it in their own caucus?
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, we in fact have been 
bringing it up. And our leadership, as my colleague well knows, has a 
very small majority and it is very difficult to work out. And when we 
cannot work it out, we have no choice but to bring it to the full 
Congress and debate it bill by bill.
  Agriculture has the misfortune of being the first bill up. My 
colleagues have basically stayed almost at a flat freeze. And the 
argument here is not with agriculture in particular, but the process. I 
believe we ought to air this through the entire process because the 
numbers are going to be greater variations in the future subcommittees 
than they are in agriculture.
  But agriculture was picked because it was supposed to be the least 
controversial. And what the American people are seeing and the Speaker 
is seeing and the Members of the House are, even this bill is 
controversial because it is a test of where we are going as far as our 
budget process and how we can try to reach those goals.
  But once again, I want to agree with the basic statement of my 
colleague. The problem is that we have unrealistic 302(b)s and my 
colleagues did indeed in their subcommittee stay within that, but that 
the overall category is fallacious and that is what we need to bring 
out.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I am here today to voice my support for the efforts to 
adhere to a freeze, to not increase spending this year.
  I empathize with the comments that my colleague has made and the 
difficulty that we are having in working some of these issues out 
through our own leadership. But I think that, as we have taken a look 
and heard the rhetoric in Washington this year, the President talking 
about saving 62 or 68 percent of Social Security, Republicans talking 
about 100 percent of Social Security, and I think we really believe 
that this is the year and this is the opportunity where we can move 
forward and have a surplus not only on the back of Social Security, but 
taking Social Security out of the equation and have a balance in our 
general fund, that that is the appropriate and the best way for us to 
go.
  It really then lays the foundation for us to move forward effectively 
and aggressively into the future, to start addressing some of our real 
priorities that we need to be looking at as we move into the new 
millennium.
  We need to be taking a look at paying down a portion of our debt. We 
need to be taking a look at reducing the tax burden on American 
families. The only way that we are going to be able to address those 
issues is if we hold the line on spending. And the only place that we 
can hold the line on spending is through the appropriations process, 
and that is why we are here and that is why this debate, as well as the 
12 other appropriations bills, that is why the debate on each of those 
issues is so critical, because it sets the foundation for saving Social 
Security, for reforming Social Security, for saving and reforming 
Medicare, and then to move forward towards paying down the debt and 
reducing the tax burden on the American people.
  I want to talk a little bit on this issue for just a second. I came 
out of the furniture business. I worked in the office furniture 
industry. I worked for the second largest manufacturer of office 
furniture in America. I have three of the largest office furniture 
companies either in my district or very close to my district, and I 
have got a lot of smaller office furniture manufacturers, many of them 
who use wood products. I am not sure that they need or want the 
government to direct or fund this research.
  As a matter of fact, we were just up in the Committee on Rules, and I 
told my colleagues what they really want is, they would rather not have 
us fund this research; what they really want to have is, they want to 
have the ability to compete.
  The amendment that we brought up in the Committee on Rules goes to an 
industry like this and says they cannot compete for business with the 
Federal Government. It is kind of interesting that we are saying we are 
going to give them $5 to $6 million to be more competitive, but at the 
same time, whatever they--earn--learn, they cannot compete for business 
with the Federal Government.
  Why is that? Because their largest competitor in the Federal 
Government for Federal Government business is Federal prison 
industries. Federal prison industries make $200 to $300 million

[[Page H3635]]

worth of office furniture each and every year.
  So I am sure that the office furniture business would say, let us not 
worry about the subsidies, let us move back to free market enterprise; 
and that they will take care of their own research, they will take care 
of new developments, new technologies, breakthrough technologies, they 
will fund that. Just give us the opportunity to compete for Federal 
Government business. We will more than earn our return in terms of 
profit and at the same time give the Federal Government a better 
quality product on a better delivery schedule and at a lower price.
  So I think that gets to be a very interesting kind of a trade-off. 
And I think it just shows us one of the ways that we can actually hold 
the line on Federal spending here in Washington where everybody can win 
and nobody really gets cut.
  So those are the priorities that I have.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I want to make two points because I think a 
lot of people have heard the word ``302(b).''
  When we pass a budget, we give an allocation of a certain amount to 
each of 13 spending bills, and that amount of money is what can be 
spent.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn).
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I just want to finish the discussion so the 
people who are watching this debate will understand that that number is 
arbitrarily assigned, and when it is assigned in such a way that means 
that we are going to spend Social Security dollars to run the 
government, when we should not, then it is an inappropriate assignment. 
So that is an amount of money that is given to each appropriations 
committee on what they can spend.
  The final point that I would make is that 10 hours of debate on $61 
billion worth of the taxpayers' money is not too little debate. As a 
matter of fact, it is not enough. And I find very peculiar, to use the 
word of the gentleman from Michigan, that we would be worried about 
discussing out in front of the American public where we are spending 
their money. And 10 hours of debate, which is what we have had thus far 
on this $61 billion, I think is far too little.
  So I find it peculiar that we do not want the light of sunshine o 
come on what we are doing.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, if I may, I just wanted 
to come to the floor to discuss all of this because I have some views 
on this that may be a little bit different than what we have heard. I 
support the particular amendment, as I have a number of these 
amendments, with respect to reductions.
  I have a tremendous amount of respect for the chairman of the 
committee and for the work that the staff has done. I think they have 
actually worked hard on this. But I have a huge problem with the way 
that we are managing the finances of the country today. I am not 
talking about just here in the House. I am not talking about the House 
and the Senate. I am talking about the House, the Senate, and the White 
House and the President of the United States.
  It is my judgment that there are sufficient revenues on hand today to 
do virtually everything that I have heard the people think needs to be 
done; that is, to help rescue the Social Security and/or Medicare 
systems; to make our expenditures proper, particularly in the areas of 
defense and education and other areas that we agree need a great deal 
of help, as well as agriculture, I might add; to live well within a 
balanced budget circumstance, and probably frankly to be able to have a 
tax cut.

                              {time}  1245

  But somehow we have gotten tied into the 302(a) allocation and the 
302(b) allocations. Everyone is unwilling to talk about doing anything 
different. Nobody is willing to get together to sit down and say, 
``What are we going to do?''
  I can tell you exactly what we are going to do. We might pass this 
particular bill and a number of the other appropriations bills, but we 
are going to end up with at least five of these bills, and maybe six or 
seven of them. We are going to have a train crash, and the train crash 
is going to be the same as the train crash we have had almost every 
year since I have been here.
  Sometime along about November, we are going to be in a circumstance 
in which we are not able to get the others passed. We are going to get 
into an omnibus situation, we are then going to break the budget caps, 
we are probably going to spend about $50 billion more than we should 
have spent otherwise because we did not sit down now and plan how we 
are going to manage the revenues and the budget of the United States.
  A lot has happened in the last 2 years since we came to the balanced 
agreement. There are a lot more revenues on the table now. I believe 
that I am fiscally conservative, as are many Members here, but I also 
believe that we have to make decisions which are astute and which make 
some sense.
  I think the distinguished gentleman from Oklahoma is making some very 
good points here, not just individually on each of the amendments which 
he is presenting but on the basic concept of what we are doing. For 
that reason, I think that we have to start to think outside of the box 
on the finances of the United States.
  I intend to take this up directly with the President, at least in the 
form of a letter, as well as with our leadership, to stress some of 
these points and to suggest that we are going down a road that we are 
not going to be able to complete and we are going to be casting votes 
here throughout the summer on a series of appropriations bills that are 
going to end up being very different when it comes to November. In a 
way it is a shame that somebody as distinguished as the present 
chairman is sort of at the brunt of the feelings of some of us who do 
not think the proper decisions are being made.
  It is very simple. Why wait until the end, when virtually everybody 
agrees that probably we are going to break out of these budget caps and 
the allocations will probably change in some way or another? Why can we 
not get together now? Why can we not get together with the White House, 
which has a major voice in this, sit down and make the decisions and go 
from there?
  That is what the people of the country want. They want our country 
managed well from a financial point of view and in a basically 
conservative way so that we are able to move forward. That is what I 
would like to do.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CASTLE. I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Could I ask the gentleman to clarify something for me? I 
heard what he said and that he wants an honest budget process. Our 
subcommittee came in exactly as we were told on the mark we were given. 
He does not like the marks the subcommittees were given?
  Mr. CASTLE. That is correct.
  Ms. KAPTUR. What would make the gentleman happy? This process cannot 
make him happy. He is nit-picking a bill apart on the floor. What does 
he want?
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, the gentlewoman is correct. I think that 
her subcommittee did fine. I have a problem with the allocations.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle) 
has expired.
  (On request of Ms. Kaptur, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Castle was 
allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I believe that her subcommittee has done 
just fine based on the allocations which are there. My problem is that 
I do not think we can live with the budget caps which are there and get 
everything in that we are ultimately going to have to do in the course 
of this year.
  You might be able to pass your particular appropriation bill, but, as 
I said, I think there are at least five and probably more than five, 
maybe six or seven which simply are not going to pass with these caps. 
You happen to be sort of in the upper end of that if you really look at 
it. You are not as high as Defense and a couple of others but you are 
in the top four or five. Therefore, you are probably in the best 
circumstance in terms of what you can do.

[[Page H3636]]

  But if you look down through these, VA-HUD and a series of others, 
Labor-HHS in particular and Interior and some others simply are not 
going to make it in this circumstance. We are going to come to the end, 
then it will all get rolled together, we will do it in the form of an 
emergency bill, taking money away from Social Security and other 
spending we could do; or we will roll it together in some sort of 
omnibus bill at the end of the year as we did last year with all kinds 
of extraneous spending.
  Unfortunately, you suffer the brunt of the conclusions of people like 
me and maybe some others who approach you from a different point of 
view. But because of that we need to express ourselves and try to get 
the attention of people all over Washington to try to pull this 
together and come up with some resolution of the matter.
  Ms. KAPTUR. But that is my question to the gentleman. Obviously there 
is a problem on your side of the aisle. What is the mechanism for you 
to solve that problem internal to your caucus without dividing us on 
this floor? You had a budget. You did 13 appropriation allocations. 
What went wrong?
  Mr. CASTLE. Reclaiming my time, it is not, and I say this 
respectfully--I do not want to pick a political fight today 
particularly--it is not just on this side of the aisle. For example, 
the OMB director, Mr. Lew, has said he is going to slam Republicans 
today for deep, unwarranted cuts in funding, yet he will insist that 
the GOP resist the temptation to raise the budget caps this year. That 
is probably a strategy that maybe your side of the aisle will use as 
well.
  The bottom line is it involves all of us. If we are going to resolve 
this problem, it involves all of us. Yes, I think my side of the aisle 
should be involved, they should go down to the White House, too, but we 
should all be talking about this.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle) 
has again expired.
  (On request of Ms. Kaptur, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Castle was 
allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
  Ms. KAPTUR. I do not know what the White House has to do with this. 
The budget process is for us, the Budget Committee of the House, the 
Budget Committee of the other body. We do our budget, we get our 
allocations. What I do not understand, nobody has been able to explain 
to me in 2 days, if you do not agree with the budget allocations that 
have been given, why do you not go back and do the budget?
  The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
DeLay), they were out here yesterday, they voted with the gentleman 
from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn) on the amendments that he brought up. And I 
am standing here thinking, ``Wait a minute, they gave us the budget 
marks that we used in our committee, so now why are they voting against 
their own marks?'' I do not understand. What is not working? Which 
committee is not working over there? The Budget Committee? They already 
did the work. They gave us the marks. How do we avoid what is going on 
here?
  Does the gentleman understand my question?
  Mr. CASTLE. I do understand your question. Reclaiming my time, I am 
going to try to answer your question.
  The system of budgeting in this country in general has failed in many 
ways. I believe that the emergency appropriations, in which the White 
House was very involved, was a series of expenditures beyond what we 
should have done, cutting into what could have been used for Social 
Security and what could have been used for other spending. I believe 
that the omnibus bill that passed at the end of last year, and the 
President is involved in that, I am not saying it disrespectfully but 
the President is involved in that, was a bill which went well beyond 
any dollars that we should have spent in the course of the year because 
the President wanted to spend more.

  I am cognizant of the fact that the President is going to want to 
spend more in my judgment by the end of this year. As I said, sometime 
in October or November, that is going to happen. The executive branch 
is always involved in decisions such as this. It is a political war 
going on. The White House is saying, ``Don't break the budget caps.'' 
And the House and the Senate are saying, ``Well, we're not going to 
break the budget caps.''
  But we are coming up with a methodology that is ultimately going to 
lead to that happening and it is going to have to happen at the end of 
the year. I do not think that is proper. I am not excusing what we are 
doing here, but I am also not going to say that the White House is not 
involved.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle) 
has again expired.
  (On request of Ms. Kaptur, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Castle was 
allowed to proceed for 1 additional minute.)
  Ms. KAPTUR. If the gentleman will yield further, I would forget the 
White House. My advice to your side of the aisle is: You have the 
majority. You do the budget you want to do. If you have got a problem 
with the other side over there, with the S-e-n-a-t-e, then deal with 
whatever that is. I do not know who is cutting the deals for you, but 
do not do this to our bill. I do not understand. The gentleman's party 
has the majority. You can produce whatever bill you want.
  Mr. CASTLE. To suggest that the President of the United States should 
not be involved in the resolution of the spending of the United States, 
including the budget allocations, as well as all other decisions which 
are being made on Social Security and Medicare and tax cuts and 
whatever else we do, is to presume that the President is powerless. And 
this President is not powerless. The White House is a major player in 
this.
  It is simply not just the prerogative of the majority here or even a 
majority and a minority together here. It is something that should be 
worked out with everybody sitting down to try to make a difference. I 
say that constructively. I do not say it in a political sense. I say it 
entirely constructively.
  Mr. BALDACCI. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  First of all, having only been here three terms, I do understand, 
though, the process with the budget, and the budget resolution is a 
document that is approved by both bodies of Congress and does not need 
to have the President of the United States' signature on it, and is a 
blueprint for then how the committees on appropriations should go about 
doing their work. It is at that point when the committees on 
appropriations are doing their work and working its way through 
Congress and approving those bills, they are sent on to the White 
House, and then the White House determines whether to veto it or sign 
it into legislation. So I do not want to get too far along in that 
discussion, but I thought it was appropriate for some of those that may 
not be as familiar with the process.
  I want to thank the gentlewoman and also the chairman of the 
subcommittee for the work that they have done in achieving the budget 
resolution and levels that they were given by leadership and by the 
Committee on the Budget. I appreciate the work that they put into it.
  I also appreciate the amendments by the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. 
Coburn) and those that seek to address the issue of the budget overall 
in agriculture, because I think frankly it gives the agriculture 
community an opportunity to talk about agriculture. Sometimes in our 
country we just take agriculture for granted. We think it is a produce 
aisle at Shop 'N' Save or some large chain, but it is families out 
there that are working hard, trying to make ends meet and carrying on 
from one generation to another. A lot are participating in a 4H program 
and a lot of other activities throughout rural America that I think 
make the quality of life second to none.
  I think though in proposing these amendments, and not being as 
familiar with the research that goes on at our land grant institutions, 
I wanted to come to the floor to better explain and to seek your 
understanding in regards to wood utilization research. Presently the 
State of Maine has an excess of over 22 million acres. The State of 
Maine has a small population and does not have a population base to be 
able to spend as much money on pavement as a lot of other States.
  So in the State of Maine we have a very good research and development 
entity at the University of Maine, and they have been studying wood 
utilization so that we would be able to use a

[[Page H3637]]

lower grade wood with a laminate added to it to be able to be used in 
bridge construction. We are looking at being able to use an awful lot 
of that because in the islands and traveling around the State of Maine, 
it is one thing to make sure the roads are smooth but it is another 
thing to be able to get from here to there. If you do not have the 
proper bridge and the stress that goes with all of that, then you are 
not going to be able to do that. The research at the University of 
Maine is allowing that to happen.
  It is also involved in doing environmental work to reduce the amount 
of chlorine that is used in processing. A lot of the wood that we do 
have in our State of Maine is of a higher grade and to be able to add 
value to that, we are creating a lot more in-State processing. By 
having a State which has natural resources be able to add value to 
those natural resources is reducing higher unemployment, which happens 
to be in more of the rural areas where we see a lot of our natural 
resources exported and processed elsewhere because of the processing 
that has been provided. We do not have that within our State and in a 
lot of rural States.
  So by being able to have the technology and the research, now 
companies are lining up around that research to then add to the 
construction and reconstruction efforts, to add to the employment and 
additional employment of better paying jobs in a part of rural America 
and rural Maine where there is higher unemployment. This research does 
mean an awful lot to the people who are working in those areas.
  At the same time, because of an environmental concern about the 
number of trees that get cut, by being able to add more value to what 
you are doing with your natural resources, you find yourself in a 
situation of not needing as many of those natural resources because of 
being able to add value on it. So that means that we have people who 
are not just out there cutting the trees to gain income but they are 
also working in the in-State processing and value added of that product 
to get a higher value out of it, better paying jobs and benefits. And 
more of that is occurring on our side of the border rather than on the 
other side of the border. So a lot of this research is being done and I 
think it is important.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Baldacci) has 
expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Baldacci was allowed to proceed for 1 
additional minute.)
  Mr. BALDACCI. So I think it is important, though, because at first 
blush it may not have the understanding that it would by reading it. I 
think it is important that we do explain it, not only for those that 
may wonder about it but there may be others that have some concern 
about it. I appreciate the opportunity and the work that has gone into 
this.
  (On request of Mr. Sanford, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Baldacci 
was allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
  Mr. BALDACCI. I yield to the gentleman from South Carolina.
  Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chairman, I would agree, there certainly is a lot of 
valid research in any of the land grant colleges. My particular reason 
for offering this amendment, though, ties to part of the research goes, 
for instance, into better harvesting methods. Though Maine does not 
have the mosquitoes that South Carolina has, I know that you have a few 
mosquitoes in the summer.
  The old saying is, necessity is the mother of invention. I cannot 
imagine a more resourceful person than that person laying under a 
logging truck or laying under a skidder, getting bit up by a mosquito--
you have those--we call them dog ticks in South Carolina, they will be 
the size of your thumb coming at you. That person is going to be pretty 
resourceful in coming up with the quickest way to move a tree from a 
stump to a mill.
  The reason for this amendment was not to in any way discount some of 
the valuable research that takes place but to say there is also some 
stuff that is probably extraneous and probably better done by the Joe 
Youngs of the world in Georgetown, South Carolina.

                              {time}  1300

  Mr. BALDACCI. Mr. Chairman, just gaining back an opportunity, I do 
appreciate that, and I would just like to say for public relations 
purposes the mosquitoes in Maine are not that big, even though they are 
called black flies, and so if my colleague is interested in coming to 
Maine rather than South Carolina, he can enjoy that.
  The second thing is that what the gentleman has helped to do as a 
Member of Congress, and many other Members, is that now all of a sudden 
it just does not go out and the research is done through this money, 
but this money is matched by industry and by private support, and it is 
actually in collaboration.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Baldacci) has 
again expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Baldacci was allowed to proceed for 1 
additional minute.)
  Mr. BALDACCI. Mr. Chairman, last year the University of Maine 
received about 890,000 in Federal funds, matched with 500,000 in 
programs support, and industry provided in kind support an additional 
250. So the collaboration is there, so it is not being just done by the 
university and by the money that is being provided here, it is a 
collaborative effort which has been forged, I believe recently, which I 
think is going to lend more value because there is actually going to 
also be an economic gain from that.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BALDACCI. I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to state for the record 
that the gentleman clarified something very important that I would like 
to put on the Record, and that is the industrial fund match in each of 
these centers: at Mississippi State, an average of $783,458 for the 
last 5 years; Oregon State University, over $670,000; Michigan State 
University, $605,000, and the list goes on. We will submit it for the 
Record.
  But the point is there are not only industry matches, there are also 
State matches. So this is truly a Federal, State, private sector 
cooperative program, and I thank the gentleman for coming to the floor.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the gentleman from New Mexico 
(Mr. Skeen) for his leadership on the floor and for holding this 
colloquy with me to clarify the Agriculture Research Service funding 
level for rainbow trout research.
  Is it correct that the chairman's amendment offered in subcommittee 
markup provided that within the funds provided to the Agriculture 
Research Service the committee recommends an increase of $500,000 for 
research at the University of Connecticut on developing new aquaculture 
systems focused on the rainbow trout?
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. DeLAURO. I yield to the gentleman from New Mexico.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, the gentlewoman is correct, and this is a 
typographical error. The amendment adopted in the subcommittee clearly 
stated $500,000. I regret the error, and I do welcome this opportunity 
to set the record straight.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New Mexico.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman, and I just wanted to say for the 
record there was some references made a little bit earlier to the role 
of this House and the other body in preparing a budget and approving a 
budget, the role of the White House. I just wanted to mention that 
normally the way government at the Federal level works is that the 
Congress prepares and passes bills.
  The President can propose, but it is our job to dispose, and when we 
finish our work, and it is ours to finish, we send it to the White 
House, and under the Constitution he has only two options: sign the 
bill or veto the bill.
  So I do not really understand all this extralegal negotiation that 
may be referenced here on the floor and so forth. We have our job to 
do, and we ought to do it, and if the President does not like what we 
do, then let him use his constitutional powers to veto and we will 
override, or we will come back to the drawing board and do this again.

[[Page H3638]]

  But truly we are not meeting our constitutional responsibilities 
through the kind of dilatory tactics that we have experienced now on 
the floor for over 2 days. I do not remember when I have seen a bill, 
an appropriations bill for certain, come to the floor with hundreds of 
amendments filed on one particular subcommittee like this one.
  So I just wanted to say to the leadership of this institution, ``Do 
your job, send the bill over to the White House, and if they don't like 
it, let them veto it. If they like it, let them sign it. But let's not 
be bound up by some sort of private conversations which none of us here 
on this floor are party to. Let's do our job. That's our constitutional 
responsibility.''
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. KAPTUR. I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma.
  Mr. COBURN. The objection to spending, now 10 hours of debate on a 
$61 billion spending bill in the Committee of the Whole, the House, the 
whole House; that is why we do appropriations, so we can have it in the 
Committee of the Whole.
  So my colleague's objection is that we should not spend this time, or 
our purpose in trying to keep us under the spending totals that we all 
made a commitment to? Which of those two does she object to, because I 
am having trouble understanding.
  My colleague knows what my purpose is. My purpose is to not to allow 
$1 of Social Security money to be spent when we have all said we would 
not spend it.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, if I might reclaim my time, I think the 
gentleman's purpose is to bring an interfamily fight within his party 
on the floor of this Congress. I am still having a little trouble 
understanding that fight.
  But we met the budget numbers our colleagues gave us in the bill we 
have brought to this floor. We dealt with hundreds of Members. We had 
all kinds of testimony. We dealt with every Member respectfully. We 
dealt with all kinds of interests across this country in crafting this 
bill.
  We are happy to have some attention, but it is interesting to me that 
there is just about a handful of Members with amendments to this bill. 
The gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn) has hundreds of amendments, 
and what I cannot figure out from what I have heard, and it is very 
confusing to me, people on his side saying he does not like the budget 
that his party prepared, so he is down here now trying to pick it apart 
and using our bill as the excuse.
  I do not understand. If my colleague has the votes, he should go back 
in his cloakroom and work out his own budget, and bring us back a 
repaired budget. But what he is doing is, he is making us a victim of 
some sort of squabble I still do not truly understand inside his party.
  Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. KAPTUR. I yield to the gentleman from South Carolina.
  Mr. SANFORD. What I find interesting about that is, let us assume it 
took 20 hours we have been on the floor, what the gentleman from 
Oklahoma is trying to do is basically save $200 million. I mean, that 
is over $10 million an hour that he would be saving the taxpayer. To 
me, that would be time well spent.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to say to the gentleman that 
under the budget they produced, we have done our job. We have met their 
budget mark. We are not the problem. He is making us a victim. He is 
anticipating the problem to come with some other bills. Well, if the 
gentleman does not like the marks on those bills, go fix that, but why 
is the gentleman making us the victim?
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, would the ranking member please yield?
  Ms. KAPTUR. I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma.
  Mr. COBURN. My intention is not to make the gentlewoman a victim, I 
promise her, and I cannot imagine, as well as I know her, that she 
would ever be a victim of what we are trying to do.
  Ms. KAPTUR. We are today, we were yesterday.
  Mr. COBURN. The process is the victim. And I agree with the 
gentlewoman, I agree that the process is the victim; and our intention 
is, there is nothing wrong with the budget, there is plenty wrong with 
the process.
  Ms. KAPTUR. What process? The gentleman's process?
  Mr. COBURN. The gentlewoman must know that I profess to be an 
Oklahoman and a conservative before I ever profess to be a Republican, 
but I will say to this woman the process is, and she has already 
readily agreed, that there probably are not a lot of these other 302(b) 
allocations, the amount of money that is allocated.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) has 
expired.
  (On request of Mr. Coburn, and by unanimous consent, Ms. Kaptur was 
allowed to proceed for 1 additional minute.)
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. KAPTUR. I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma.
  Mr. COBURN. They are probably not going to be agreeable to the 
gentlewoman because we are not going to be able to take care of our 
veterans under 302(b) allocations.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, within the gentleman's structure, he 
decided what those levels were. Now he is saying he does not agree. On 
this side of the aisle we have to act in good faith with the budget the 
gentleman's party has given us.
  I am saying to my colleague, if he does not like what he was given, 
other than coming down here and doing this, does he not have some other 
amending process he can do on his side, inside his caucus, to produce 
the budget that he wants?
  Mr. COBURN. If the gentlewoman would yield, if we had that 
capability, we would not be here.
  Ms. KAPTUR. But they prepared the budget. It is their budget.
  Mr. COBURN. The 302(b) allocations are prepared by certain groups 
within here, and those are the ones we object to. It is not the budget 
that we object to.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Well, which party are they in? Is it the majority party?
  Mr. Chairman, I would like the record to show it is the majority 
party that prepares the budget.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Sanford).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 185, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. 
Sanford) will be postponed.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Coburn

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Coburn:
       Page 13, line 11, after the dollar amount insert ``(reduced 
     by $300,000)''.

  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, Oklahoma is the leading producer in this 
country of Spanish peanuts. Last year peanut production in this country 
coming off the farm generated $1 billion in revenue. The cost of 
peanuts in our country and the products that come from there end up 
being twice as high as they are worldwide.
  Now, this amendment asks the question, we have a subsidized peanut 
program in this country that generates a billion dollars of revenue off 
the farm each year for peanuts. Why would we want to spend $300,000 on 
peanut competitiveness when we already know the reasons why we are not 
competitive in peanuts? It is because we have an oversupply and that we 
have tried to manage the problems with this oversupply through a 
subsidy program.
  Again, here is $300,000 that is directed for research on why we are 
not competitive worldwide on peanuts when we already know the answer. 
So I would again go back to the fact that here is $300,000 that could 
be better spent, that could be better directed at other areas of 
research, that could in fact be used to help farmers directly rather 
than to set up a competitive research program when we already clearly 
know the answer.
  The problem in peanuts is, we have to slowly wean away from this 
false market, and we all know that; and as my colleagues know, I do not 
want a peanut producer in my State to have to go out of business.

[[Page H3639]]

  I understand the friction and the rub associated with these big 
problems for our farmers, but to turn around and to spend that kind of 
money in terms of our subsidy programs, and then to turn around, and 
those are mandatory spending, to turn around and to spend $300,000 to 
tell us what we already know makes no sense.
  I would rather see that $300,000 go directly to farmers, corn 
farmers, wheat farmers, soybean farmers or cattle ranchers who are 
competing with a market that is coming in from Canada, that ignores any 
type of testing, any type of standards that the rest of our ranchers 
have to have.
  If we really want our ag research directed to help our farmers, then 
we will not have $300,000 set up for competitive peanut research, and 
instead we will spend that money somewhere else.
  We do. We are demonstrating that we trust the committee because we 
are not taking this total amount out of the research. We are saying put 
it somewhere else, but do not spend it on a program that keeps us at 
the seat of political favors rather than at the best efforts for our 
farmers.
  As my colleagues know, the real debate is, we have allocations of 
money set for agriculture that I think is really a little too much. 
That is what I have been trying to do, get $250 million out of this 
bill because I think that is the only way we are going to meet our 
commitment to the seniors of not spending their money. But colleagues 
cannot claim that they did their job for the whole Congress, we as a 
body and the Committee of the Whole, if we meet a 302(b) here knowing 
that we have no intentions of meeting those allocations, that 302(b) 
allocation, on the four biggest bills that are going to come before us. 
It is not intellectually honest for us to say that.
  We know that this committee has worked hard. I am sorry that we are 
where we are, but the fact is, if we made a commitment when the 
Democrat budget was offered, the commitment was made not to touch 
Social Security money. When the Republican budget was offered, the 
commitment was made not to touch Social Security. When the President's 
budget was offered, which I offered because nobody from the other side 
would offer his budget, two Members of this House agreed to spend 38 
percent of the Social Security money.
  They are the only two people in this body that have the right to have 
this process go through the way it is setting up, because they already 
said, ``We don't believe you can do that. We believe we ought to spend 
more money.'' The rest of us voted to say we would not spend one penny 
of Social Security surplus.

                              {time}  1315

  So for us to be in the position where we are going to allow a process 
to go forward that we know is going to deny the American people what we 
want them to have is the very thing that I am tired of in Washington.
  It is my hope that we will return to the American people the 
confidence they deserve to have in this body. And if we say we are not 
going to spend their Social Security money, we should not spend it.
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I am searching in the report for the language that 
would be stricken by this amendment. I am searching in vain. I wonder 
if the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn) could assist me in finding 
the line where this item exists. It says, page 13, line 11. However, we 
cannot seem to find it in the report.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HINCHEY. I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, the clerk has actually read the wrong line 
items. It is actually page 14, line 16. The Clerk read page 13, line 
11. Our amendment was actually page 14, line 16. They happen to have 
the same amount of money, and therefore it was read as an inappropriate 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw this amendment and 
offer the amendment as offered on the right line item.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Oklahoma?
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, if the 
gentleman chooses to withdraw the amendment, I will not object, but if 
he is planning to insert it elsewhere, then I will object because right 
now the amendment is basically void, am I not correct, Mr. Chairman, 
since it is an inappropriate amendment?
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will not interpret the substantive effect of 
an amendment offered by a Member.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, further reserving the right to object, I 
would inquire of the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn), is my good 
friend planning to offer this amendment elsewhere?
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KINGSTON. I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I have every intention of withdrawing this 
amendment and reoffering it. Whether the gentleman objects or not, I 
will still have the privilege of reoffering the amendment.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the gentleman is an 
incessant campaigner for his cause. With that, I will withdraw my 
reservation of objection and let the gentleman withdraw the amendment.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Georgia.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Oklahoma?
  There was no objection.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Coburn

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Coburn:
       Page 14, line 16, after the dollar amount insert ``(reduced 
     by $300,000)''.

  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. COBURN. I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I would like to speak to the intent of 
the gentleman's previous amendment, and I hope the gentleman is about 
to reoffer it so that I may do so and not move on to another section.
  Mr. COBURN. Absolutely, Mr. Chairman. I thank the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Kingston) for his courtesies.
  Mr. Chairman, I will be very brief in what I have to say about this 
amendment. We have a $300,000 expenditure for peanut competitiveness. 
We have a subsidized peanut program that produces $1 billion worth of 
raw peanuts off the farm a year. The prices of peanut-graded products 
in our country are higher than what they would be if we did not have a 
subsidized peanut program.
  I have voted in the past for the subsidized peanut program. I have 
lots of peanut farmers. That does not mean in the future that we should 
not try to change that and wean that to a competitive model where we 
have the appropriate amount of production and a competitive 
international model on that.
  My point with this amendment is we know why we are not competitive on 
peanuts; why would we want to fund $300,000 to answer that question?
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, as a representative from the great peanut State of 
Georgia, I rise to oppose the amendment as offered by the gentleman 
from Oklahoma.
  This National Competitive Center for Peanuts, one would envision by 
that title a building of bricks and mortar when it in fact is not. This 
goes into funding research at the University of Georgia, the purpose 
being to find out if there are more efficient ways to produce peanuts. 
It is legitimate agricultural research, as is the type of research that 
we do on a myriad of other crops and fibers and foodstuffs all over the 
country.
  One of the great challenges that we have on this Subcommittee on 
Agriculture is funding research which is open to easy ridicule. For 
example, if this committee funds something that has to do with the 
mating habits of the screw, it is a great sound bite for Jay Leno and 
it is a great article for the Reader's Digest to say ``Look at what 
these idiots are doing, they are researching the sex life of bugs.''
  And it is funny, and we all have a big laugh about it, and somebody 
from the other body says to the President, veto this obvious pork. Yet, 
to the families

[[Page H3640]]

of America who eat groceries every day, it is very important.
  They might not think this immediately benefits them. But I can 
promise my colleagues that agriculture research benefits every American 
household. Because, unlike some folks in the media and some folks in 
the other body, our constituents in this side of the legislature have 
to eat. And the more one knows about food, the more one can effectively 
and inexpensively produce it. That is why we do peanut research. That 
is why we do corn research. That is why we do bug research. This is 
part of a bigger picture.
  Mr. Chairman, we know that the learned and distinguished and 
conservative gentleman from Oklahoma's real purpose here is to cut 
spending. But we also know that this bill, while it can be nickled and 
dimed here and there and questioned here and there, and things can be 
pulled out for micro inspection and therefore ridiculed, we know that 
this bill is within the spending budget.
  This bill is within the bipartisan agreement that was signed off by 
the President of the United States, that was signed off by the House 
leadership: The gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), the gentleman 
from Georgia (Mr. Gingrich). It was signed off and adhered to by the 
ranking member and the chairman of this subcommittee and all of the 
Democrat and all the Republican members. We have fulfilled our mission. 
We have come in at goal. We hope that other subcommittees do the same 
thing.
  The objective of the gentleman from Oklahoma is not necessarily to 
pick on peanuts, but it is to criticize this bill. We are saying, you 
know what? The bill might not be perfect, but it comes in at the right 
price, and it is about 80 percent as good as one can get it in a 
legislative body of 435 people coming from all over the United States 
representing the great 260 million people in America.
  With that, Mr. Chairman, I would strongly urge my colleagues to 
soundly reject this amendment. Not for the sake of peanuts, not for the 
sake of peanut competitiveness, but for the bigger future, the bigger 
purpose of putting food on the family breakfast, lunch and dinner 
tables across America. Because we, unlike other nations, only spend 11 
cents on the dollar on our groceries. Other countries spend 20, 25 
cents, 30 cents, 40 cents. Other places even less fortunate than that 
spend all day long scratching out a living only to get food on their 
table.
  Agriculture research, Mr. Chairman, is very important. It is part of 
our agriculture picture, and fortunately, we have very few people as a 
percentage of our population going to bed hungry at night, but it is 
because of important agriculture research, as well as this farm 
program.
  Now, the gentleman talked about peanut subsidies. I would remind him 
that peanut subsidies are not there anymore. The peanut program is a 
program, and yes, it is an elaborate program, and no, it is not the 
model for capitalism and free market. But what it does do, it allows 
young people to go back home and farm for a living, because they know 
if they can make a profit on peanuts, then they can also grow corn, 
soybeans and hogs/pork which they cannot make a living off of.
  Protect America's farmers. Vote ``no'' on this.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. The Federal 
Administration grant that this amendment proposes to eliminate is 
described in detail in part 4 of the committee's hearing record on page 
1701. The following is a brief description of the research performed 
under the grant.

       The grant supports an interdisciplinary research and 
     education program to enhance the competitiveness of the U.S. 
     peanut industry by examining alternative production systems, 
     developing new products and new markets, and improving 
     product safety.
       The project helps peanut producers be more competitive in 
     the global market. In the first year of the project, 1998, a 
     computerized expert system was adapted for hand-held 
     computers that were used to help farmers reduce pest control 
     costs. In addition, economic factors were added to a 
     computerized disease risk management system which includes a 
     large number of factors involved in the onset of a very 
     destructive wilt. For every one-point improvement in the 
     ``wilt index,'' a farmer's net income is increased by $9 to 
     $14 an acre. USDA funds were used to leverage an additional 
     $124,000 for research by the Center for Peanut 
     Competitiveness.

  Thank goodness that they do not use smaller print on this thing, 
nobody could read it.
  Grants for this work have been reviewed annually and have been 
awarded each year since 1998. This work is performed at the University 
of Georgia and involves cooperation from Auburn University in Alabama.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a good project and it deserves the support of 
all Members. I support the project, and I oppose the gentleman's 
amendment to eliminate it.
  Mr. EVERETT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, the Center for Peanut Competitiveness is in its third 
year for a program that provides critical research addressing several 
aspects of the peanut industry, including production development, 
production practices, safety, economics, and other areas that 
contribute to the competitiveness of the U.S. peanut farmer. At a time 
when profit margins for farmers are collapsing, at a time when farmers 
are choosing whether they will sell their family farms or not, it is 
incomprehensible to take research money from a center that works for 
the universities in Georgia and in Alabama to help farmers help 
themselves.
  I say to my colleagues, in case we have not noticed, we are in a 
global economy, a complicated system where information and technology 
is our key to survival. In my district alone, information on how to be 
more competitive or how to market one's product more effectively can be 
the difference between the bank taking your grandfather's farm or being 
able to keep it.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote on this in support of the American 
farmer. I would like to point out that I have listened to this debate 
for over 10 hours, and the lack of knowledge on the part of the people 
offering these amendments is startling.
  First of all, there is no peanut subsidy. There has not been for a 
number of years. It is a no-cost program. In addition to that, it 
provides $83 million in deficit reduction through the year 2002. In 
1996, the peanut farm bill made major changes in the program. We have 
done that. The program supports 30,000 American jobs.
  I am just appalled at what has gone on, frankly, in this House for 
the last few days. People are nitpicking this appropriations process. 
What for? At the end of the day do they want to say ``I told you so''? 
This is a self-righteous indulgence by a very few people in this House 
and ought not be happening.

                              {time}  1330

  Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, if there was ever a sensible amendment, this one is it. 
I do not know what could be more clear cut.
  How many think it would be a good idea to put $300,000 to efforts to 
study democracy in Cuba? How many think it would be a good idea to put 
$300,000 to study the democracy that exists in Iraq? How many think it 
would be a good idea to put $300,000 to study good government in Libya? 
None of them exist. That is exactly what this amendment is about.
  This is a study of $300,000 for competitiveness in peanuts, which is 
something which does not exist. We have a market quota system. If you 
have a quota, you basically get to sell your peanuts for double, more 
or less double the price of anybody else.
  For instance, I grew up on a farm down in Beaufort County, down in 
South Carolina. I am trying to pass on a few of those traits to my 
boys.
  Can I imagine my boys raising peanuts in the backyard, and then being 
penalized simply because they do not have a quota? What this quota 
means, if you happen to live in Los Angeles, if you happen to live in 
Chicago, if you happen to live in New York and you have a quota, you 
can sell that quota. So you have fat cat quota owners that basically 
get double what somebody else does simply because they have the quota.
  That is not something that makes sense, but more significantly, what 
it says is this amendment does make sense, because to spend $300,000 
studying competitiveness in something that is fundamentally not 
competitive is big government, at best.

[[Page H3641]]

  That is what this amendment does. It makes common sense. It 
highlights, I think, the lunacy of some of the quota systems we have in 
place.
  Can Members imagine a watermelon quota system? If you have a quota 
with watermelons, you can sell your watermelons for what my boys can 
raise them for in the backyard.
  Can Members imagine a cantelope quota system? If you have the quota 
you can live in New York City, you can sell your right to produce quota 
cantelopes to somebody who is down struggling on the farm. This is 
something that penalizes the family farmer.
  Again, this is not something that makes sense. It is the equivalent 
of saying let us spend $300,000 studying the democracy that exists in 
Cuba, $300,000 studying the democracy in Iraq. We do not have 
competitiveness in the peanut program. This simply says, let us admit 
that and not spend $300,000 of taxpayer money on something that does 
not exist.
  Mr. BOYD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to associate myself with the remarks of my 
friend, the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Everett). Having listened to 
the last speaker, my friend, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. 
Sanford), I want to reiterate the problem that we have here in many of 
us not understanding the issues.
  Just the instance that my friend, the gentleman from South Carolina 
(Mr. Sanford) talked about with the absentee owners of quotas, he 
should know that the 1996 farm bill that he voted for changed that 
system in the peanut program. It was wrong to have it that way, and it 
was changed.
  Mr. Chairman, I wanted to say, I have been listening to the debate 
over the last couple of days of some of the amendments that we have 
before us. As I went home last night and began to think about the 
bigger picture, this thought came to my mind.
  This country is the greatest country in the world because of the 
technology that we have developed, the money we have spent on research, 
in every aspect of our lives, whatever it be.
  We are the greatest military power in the world because our research 
and development has developed technology that enables us to be that. We 
have the greatest medical community in the world because of the medical 
research that has been done in this country, mostly in our public 
universities with public money, to establish us as the greatest 
provider of medical services in the world.
  Our agricultural industry is the greatest in the world because of the 
research and development, and most all of it has been in our public 
universities over the years. Our industrial basis the same way.
  What we have seen in the last couple of days is an attack on our 
research and development to develop new technology to continue for us 
to advance into the 21st century.
  I would strongly urge that Members defeat the amendment which is 
before us as it is simply another attack on research dollars which will 
enable us to continue to advance and be the greatest Nation in the 
world.
  Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, the last couple of days have been somewhat frustrating 
for a number of us who find that due to some of our committee 
responsibilities and some of our interests in agriculture, we are 
finding ourselves going through this.
  I need to make it clear to the gentleman from Oklahoma that I have no 
qualms whatsoever with his rights to do what it is that he is doing.
  I have heard a lot of comments here. The gentleman from Indiana (Mr. 
Souder) mentioned earlier, and I do not know if he is on the floor, but 
that Members need to be sure to come over and support or defend the 
attacks that were being leveled on various projects in various 
districts, as if they were all personal and the work would not be done 
if it was not being done in that particular district.
  It has to be done somewhere. I think probably it is done a lot better 
out in the communities, rather than it is in Washington, always.
  I do not have any defense that I need to make of this particular 
amendment. We do not do any peanut research in my district. But I do 
want to say that I do not feel terribly comfortable in the fact that if 
each person came over and did defend an attack that was being made, 
that that would be sufficient to some of the proponents of some of the 
amendments to make dramatic cuts.
  I was the chairman in the last Congress of the Subcommittee on Risk 
Management, Research, and Specialty Crops, the first time that that 
title had been reauthorized in a number of years.
  We spent a great deal of time looking at the value and the 
significance and the importance, not only to American agriculture but 
to the entire American population that eat, about the strides and about 
the accomplishments and about the progress and the success that 
agriculture research has made. I think it probably is some of the best 
money that is spent.
  Now some people have said, well, we could best take this and give it 
to farmers and buy tractors or whatever. That is not part of the 
proposal. The proposal is not to take, in this case, $300,000 and give 
it to anybody, it is to simply eliminate it. So that argument in itself 
is somewhat hollow.
  I do not believe that intentionally people are trying to do harm to a 
significant number of very important programs that the chairman of this 
subcommittee and the ranking member of this subcommittee spent hours 
deliberating over to try to come up with a balance within what they 
were told they had to work with.

  Some people do not like that, but that is what they were told they 
had to work within, and they did it. They did a very good balance of a 
number of very longtime continuing programs and some new programs. But 
I hope that we do not totally limit ourselves just to things that have 
always been done in the past; that we look at how we can do them 
better, that we look at new programs that ought to be brought into 
place, that we look at things that should be done on behalf of American 
agriculture with a very, very limited budget and the very, very small 
amount that is expended on agriculture.
  I would hope that while the gentleman may continue for as long as he 
can hold out offering his amendments, that this body, that this 
committee, and that in the full House, we would take a very close look 
at a very well-defined product, and not let one and two and three here 
nitpick and pull this thing apart and totally disrupt what it is that 
we are trying to do, not only on behalf of American agriculture but the 
American people, who have the best quality food, the safest quality 
food, and the cheapest food of anybody in the world.
  Mr. WATKINS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise reluctantly, because I have the greatest respect 
for my fellow colleague, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn), and 
he is one of the brightest men I have ever met, and one of the men that 
is committed to a lot of different causes.
  But I could not let this debate go by without taking a few moments to 
make some remarks about agriculture. I grew up on a peanut farm. I have 
no financial interest in peanuts, except I do like peanut butter and 
have Oklahoma peanuts in my pocket. I have studied peanuts most of my 
life and agriculture most of my life. Because I have a couple of 
degrees in agriculture, I have an emotional tie about the agriculture 
position in this country, not just a political one.
  Years ago our Founding Fathers set the Morrill Act, which established 
our land grant universities. One of the most important things they did 
with the land grant universities is they set up research farms, and 
those research farms were connected with other private sector farms and 
private sector research facilities.
  Those land grant universities, through that research coupled with the 
extension agents or county agents, and also with our agriculture 
teachers, allowed us to make agriculture a role model for transferring 
technology to use on the farm.
  What happened was we had the greatest technology transfer ever 
recorded in the history of our country, as we developed a food 
production system, unmatched by any country in the world, which is 
allowing us today to stay somewhat competitive in world trade.
  It was caused to happen because of the dollars in research that came 
about

[[Page H3642]]

through our land grant universities, like Oklahoma State University. 
They have done a tremendous amount of research with peanuts and the 
peanut program.
  The peanut program has changed a great deal in the last few years. If 
a lot of other of our agriculture programs were set up like the peanut 
program, it would not be costly to the government at all. But 
unfortunately, that is not the case.
  I predict to the Members that somewhere in the near future in 
agriculture we will be producing a quota for this country, and then we 
will have a nonquota amount for the international marketplace.
  As an agriculturist I was taught how to grow four blades of grass 
instead of one. We have done that in production agriculture in America.
  On April 9, I had a meeting of the Agriculture Round Table leaders in 
Oklahoma. We talked about what were the policies we were faced with and 
what were the problems. It was not production. That was not even scored 
as a problem. It was not the actual finances that many were confronted 
with. It was the agricultural policy of our government, and also the 
marketing. We have got to be able to learn to market through value-
added activities, to meet the markets around the world.
  We are in a global competitive world. The European Union spends 
nearly 75 percent of their budget on subsidizing agriculture, in the 
production of E.U. agriculture and also subsidizing export markets. We 
do not have free markets in agriculture. We have to be able to market, 
and research has to allow us to be competitive in those markets around 
the world.
  I stand in support of, agriculture research dealing with peanuts. 
Probably not too much of peanut research is done with the land grant 
universities in Oklahoma anymore, but we do a lot of agency 
interchanging with other land grant universities in order to try to 
meet the needs of the peanut farmers in Oklahoma and helping them be 
competitive in the international market.
  We have a value-added program at Oklahoma State University today that 
through research, we are being able to do more and more to allow our 
farmers and ranchers to benefit with greater profits, instead of just 
being efficient in production. I wanted to stand in support of this 
research for peanuts. It is important to Oklahoma agriculture
  Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I will be brief. I will not take all the time. I think 
most of us know where we are going to be on this bill or this 
amendment. It is a lot like a lot of the others. The proponent may have 
his own agenda, but I think we need to have the agenda for America.
  If we did away with all the research in every bill that makes a 
difference in America, where would America be today? Where would we be 
without research for transportation, research in medical technology, 
research that comes from our science programs, and all the research for 
our farmers? Where would we be today in terms of opportunity for food 
and fiber?
  I strongly oppose this amendment. The peanut farmers are really the 
backbone of our economy in some of the poorest counties in the southern 
and eastern part of this country. For people to come to this floor and 
say that they are not going to hurt farmers, they just do not 
understand what they are talking about, or otherwise they are 
attempting to mislead.
  This Congress, this Congress in 1995, when some of the very Members 
were offering these amendments to distribute to farmers the research to 
help them stay in business, passed the farm bill, they entered into a 
contract with the farmers. They said, for 7 years we are going to keep 
stable prices and they are going to go down. And they said to the 
peanut farmers, we are going to lower the rates. Where you are getting 
cut off, quotas are going to be reduced. Number three, the program will 
be open to new producers. Number four, out-of-State quota holders will 
be eliminated.

                              {time}  1345

  They voted on that, and now they want to come to this floor and 
eliminate that contract. In my opinion, that is a breach of faith, and 
this Congress ought not to do it. I do not think we are going to do it.
  In return, they gave the farmers a farm bill that had virtually no 
safety net. We are seeing what is happening now across America; our 
farmers are in deep trouble.
  Let me speak very quickly to peanut farmers and what this research 
money does. Peanut farmers face many obstacles and should not have to 
worry about paying the bills the way they do. If we get too much rain, 
they get soggy peanuts, and there is a loss. If they get a drought, 
they get dust instead of peanuts. There is no one there to help them.
  They are hardworking people. They take great chances. They are the 
foundation of this country like every other farmer, whether they be in 
the Midwest, whether it be in the West or whether it be in the East or 
the South.
  As I said yesterday when I took this floor very briefly, I am 
embarrassed for this Congress that we would take a bill that is here to 
make a difference for agriculture, and we are talking about research to 
make a difference in our future and the future of our children, to 
produce food and fiber at a cheaper price with less disease to help not 
only our people, but to help the people around the world, and we are 
saying we are doing it to save money.
  I learned a long time ago, we can be penny wise and pound foolish. 
When my colleagues cut research, they are penny wise and pound foolish. 
If they do it in research for medical technology and everything else, 
we could carry ourselves right back to the Stone Age. I am opposed to 
this amendment, and I ask every Member in this body to vote against it.
  Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to make a few comments. Obviously peanuts 
are not a big crop in Iowa. But it just struck me, I just spent a half 
an hour outside on the steps here with a group of FFA students from 
Ocheyedan, Iowa. We had a good conversation, and they asked a lot of 
questions about Congress, about the agriculture.
  One young lady asked me, ``What is the future of agriculture?'' It is 
a difficult question to answer. I have to kind of go back in my own 
mind and see what has transpired.
  When I graduated from high school in 1966, there were 50 kids in my 
class. When my daughter graduated from that same high school in 1995, 
there were 17 in her class. We are seeing a huge change in agriculture, 
in rural America. We are seeing communities shrink. The section where I 
still live, there used to be four families living on that section; now 
there is one. It is a huge change.
  To try and answer the question of this young lady about what is the 
future, really the answer is that agriculture today is a business, and 
it has to be treated that way. The people who will be successful are 
people who are agribusiness people, not just farmers.
  The only way that one can make good, sound decisions is to have 
adequate information. Mike Earl, the leader from Ocheyedan, Iowa, was 
talking about how that they are getting computers in their FFA classes, 
and they are learning how to use those computers, how to manage risk in 
the future.
  But a key part of that is the information that will come in from our 
universities, unbiased information for these agribusiness people of the 
future to make sound decisions.
  When I looked at that group, I did not just see 36 FFA kids from 
Ocheyedan, Iowa, I see the youth of America that is looking to us and 
asking what is agriculture's future for me. Whether it is in Georgia 
and they want to be a peanut farmer, whether they want to raise rice, 
whether they want to raise corn or soybeans or hogs or cattle or 
chickens or emus, whatever they want to do, it is a matter of getting 
good information, sound information, unbiased information.
  The only place that one can find that, that is people believe, is 
from our university researches. That is why it is extraordinarily 
critical that we maintain our commitment to agricultural research, that 
whether it is peanuts, whether it is corn or soybeans or hogs in my 
district, we have got to maintain our support.

[[Page H3643]]

  The future of agriculture, the future of sound agricultural policy 
for our young people, for a future for them, of safe food, ample supply 
for all Americans and for the rest of the world, depends on a lot on 
what we do here today.
  So I would just ask everyone in the House here, this may look like a 
good little cutting amendment, but when my colleagues vote today, think 
about maybe those 36 FFA kids in Georgia who maybe will not have the 
kind of future that a lot of us hope we have in agriculture.
  I am a farmer myself, and this means a great deal to me. But think 
about all of them; do not just think about one little amendment here. 
We have lived within our budget constraints. We have done everything to 
try and focus this research where it should be.
  It is about the future of this country. It is about the future of 
safe food, of the supply that is available. It is for the success of 
our young people. Please do not do this.
  Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LATHAM. I yield to the gentleman from South Carolina.
  Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chairman, there is no greater friend of the farmers 
than the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Latham). He has been a consistent 
advocate of farmers; I profoundly respect that.
  I think the particular amendment, though, of the gentleman from 
Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn) in no way cuts overall research funding, but 
simply cuts out what seems to be an oxymoron, and that is $300,000 for 
competitiveness research in a quota-based system.
  Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, you are going to hurt 
the future of agriculture with this amendment and all these other 
amendments.
  Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I wish to associate myself with the remarks of the 
preceding speaker, my Republican friend and colleague, the gentleman 
from Iowa (Mr. Latham).
  I think that Members watching this debate ought to pay special 
attention to the bipartisan nature of the concern we are expressing. 
The House is, by its very nature, an urban institution, apportionment 
allocated by population. That means, those of us representing the 
country side have a particularly difficult task trying to convey why 
our issues matter.
  I do not think anyone watching this spectacle continue to unfold has 
to have any doubt whatsoever that it is another case of urban 
interests, this time Republican urban interests, ganging up on 
agriculture. What is so astounding to me is that the majority 
leadership continues to let this debacle unfold.
  I would ask all of my colleagues how they would feel if that which 
they care about most in the appropriations bills would be taken apart 
on the floor, like the agriculture budget is being taken apart here. 
Bear in mind that this is an appropriations report, brought out by the 
gentleman from New Mexico (Chairman Skeen), that is within the 
allocation. We have a distinguished Member that has done everything 
right in bringing his appropriations bill forward.
  But now we have some Members indulging themselves in trying to play 
appropriators. They want to turn the floor of the House into an 
appropriations subcommittee. The thing that is most alarming is, they 
know not what they do. Will Rogers once said, ``It is not what the 
gentleman does not know that scares me, it is what he knows for sure 
that just ain't so; that is the problem.''
  That is the problem with this slew of amendments, however well-
intentioned they may be brought by the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. 
Coburn). He might be trying to make some point, some broad macro budget 
point, some highly principled ideological point, but the real fact is, 
he is tearing apart the budget for agriculture at a time when family 
farmers are in the deepest hurt I have ever seen.
  I have spent all my life in North Dakota. Agriculture is something 
that has been a part of me from the time I first formed any cognitive 
impressions of anything. This is not the time for the Congress of the 
United States to turn its back on the American farmer.
  My colleagues can say what they want to about this being the fiscal 
year 2000 budget. We are talking today about something that is not 
going to apply for several months. To the American farmer, in their 
hour of need, my colleagues are playing politics, and they are 
trivializing that which they care about the most, their bread and 
butter, agriculture, family farming. This should stop.
  As Members come to the House in a few minutes for votes, I hope they 
will stand with me and express just how they feel about this nonsense. 
It is our appropriations bill today; it could well be theirs tomorrow. 
I urge my colleagues to think about that.
  To the majority leadership, as they come to the floor to vote, I hope 
they will sit and take stock of the spectacle that they have turned the 
floor of the House into. They are the leaders and they control this 
place.
  To the extent that they allow a Member today to totally tie up this 
institution, they are unleashing a very unpredictable future course for 
the rest of this Congress, because what is important to the gentleman 
from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn) this afternoon, there will be another issue 
of equally pressing importance to someone else further; and every 
appropriations bill about to be considered will be subject to this kind 
of debacle.
  The Nation needs to have its work done. We do not need to turn the 
floor of the House into a debating chamber for a very narrow spectrum 
of interests.
  Finally, and for me most importantly, the American farmers need help, 
and it is wrong for the majority to turn its back on them in their hour 
of need.


                      Announcement By The Chairman

  The CHAIRMAN. Members are reminded that they are to direct their 
remarks to the Chair and not to other persons.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Wolf was allowed to speak out of order for 
3 minutes.)


               Do Not Lift Embargo on Gum Arabic in Sudan

  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I apologize to the Members to come, but I 
have been listening to the debate, and I support the bill, and I 
support the gentleman's efforts, but I just found out that the 
administration is getting ready to lift the gum arabic restrictions 
that are currently on Sudan.
  This is a picture of a young boy that I took in 1989 in southern 
Sudan, and this young boy is probably dead, but if he is not dead, he 
has had a terrible life because almost two million people have died in 
Sudan since that time.
  I supported this administration's efforts, some of their efforts in 
Kosovo with them going to the refugees. I voted to increase the amount 
of money for the refugees. But what about the Christians in Sudan? 
There is slavery in Sudan. This young boy's parents may have been in 
slavery and others.
  I now find out that this administration and, I understand, John 
Podesta at the White House and powerful lobbyists that have been hired 
by special interests, are now trying to get this administration to lift 
this embargo with regard to gum arabic in Sudan.
  So I urge, whenever this administration thinks of doing it today, not 
to do it on behalf of this boy, who is probably dead, but may be alive. 
Do not lift the embargo on gum arabic, because it is fundamentally 
immoral if they do. If they care about Kosovo and do not care about 
Sudan is doubly immoral.
  I apologize to the Members, but I just heard this was coming up. I do 
rise in support of the bill.
  Mr. SISISKY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I do not represent any universities in this bill.

                              {time}  1400

  The gentleman knows where I am from, he used to live there, and we 
are good friends. The gentleman from Oklahoma, that is. Eighteen years 
ago when I first ran for Congress, I remember very vividly standing in 
a debate with my opponent and my opponent saying, ``This guy comes out 
of the business world. What does he know about agriculture?'' And I 
agreed with him, I did not know much about agriculture, but I knew one 
thing: that anyone who spent a dollar to grow

[[Page H3644]]

something that they got 95 cents back on, they were in a rotten 
business. And I kept saying that over and over again.
  Now, I happen to meet with my farmers, and they are very small 
population-wise. They are very large geographically in my district, but 
very small as it relates to population. And when I go to meetings, 
whether it is the Farm Bureau or my farmers' advisory board, or 
whatever it is, guess what I see? Gray hair. Now, it is better than no 
hair, but it is gray hair that I see. I see very, very few young 
people.
  Now, whether we knock out $300,000 from this budget for research, 
whether that is going to do any harm to peanuts or not, we will just 
lay that aside. But let me tell my colleagues what it does do harm to, 
and this is why I came over here to get into this. It does harm to 
young people and to new people that want to farm.
  I have to tell the people in the urban areas when they ask, ``Why are 
you so interested in farming?'' I tell them if we do away with the 
family farm, the people in the urban areas are going to know the real 
price of food, the real price of food, and that is why I worry. This is 
a symbol amendment. A symbol amendment, but I think it sends a message, 
and I would ask my colleagues to please vote against this amendment.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SISISKY. I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma.
  Mr. COBURN. The gentleman does realize that this does not decrease 
total agricultural research by one penny. It just says we should not 
spend this money here. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. SISISKY. Reclaiming my time, I would still say it sends the wrong 
message, and that is what I am concerned about.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment and just wish to 
say that the accumulation of amendments over the last 2 days, and I 
agree with my good friend, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Sisisky), 
ultimately results in a negative message to agricultural America and 
questioning whether or not we have made the right decisions.
  Any Member has a right to question what any committee has done inside 
this Congress. However, one after another, after another, it is like, 
drip, drip, drip, in a situation today where rural America is in 
depression. The gentleman from Virginia made a good point. People are 
not getting 95 cents on a dollar. Farmers raising hogs in America 
today, it costs them 40 cents to break even, and last December they 
made 9 cents, and last March they made 28 cents; yet we go to buy chops 
in the store and they are going to run us $2.26 to $4 a pound and more. 
Who is making the money off that?
  We end up with an agricultural system in this country where the 
person at the bottom of the totem poll, the producer, the farmer, his 
or her access to market is controlled, if they are trying to sell pork, 
by six companies; if they are trying to sell beef, it is three 
companies; if they are trying to get something on the shelves of a 
supermarket today, they have to pay a slotting fee of $20,000 or 
$50,000.
  I ask my colleagues, why when we go down a supermarket aisle and we 
look at the names of the soda pop on the shelves, why do only certain 
names reach us right in the eye? If there are local producers, why can 
they not get on those shelves? It is an interesting system. And why 
would America be in a condition today where imports are coming in here 
faster than exports going out? In fact, 25 percent of the market in 
this country in agricultural products now is comprised of imported 
goods. Why would that be, in the most productive Nation in the world?
  It is because we have not paid enough attention to those who are 
actually doing the work of producing. All of the weight has gone to the 
processing and the distribution ends of the equation, but we have not 
paid attention to those who are really still struggling down on the 
farm and losing equity every day.
  It does not matter whether we are talking about upland cotton or rice 
or hogs or wheat or oats or cattle or poultry. It really does not 
matter today because every single sector is hemorrhaging. Farmers are 
losing equity. Farm values have started to drop. Prices, probably this 
year they expect to be 27 percent below last year, and here we are 
nitpicking a bill that has come in within budget, within the allocation 
that we were given.
  So I would just say to my colleagues, please, let us get back to the 
business of doing the work of this Congress, and particularly for that 
sector in America which is hemorrhaging today, which is rural America. 
Let us move this bill.
  I understand today we are going to pull the bill and perhaps deal 
with it later. Further delay, adding to the delay that has contributed 
to all of the difficulties in rural America today, when the Department 
of Agriculture cannot get the paperwork properly processed because the 
supplemental came in so late last year, and the supplemental this year 
that was just passed came in months late and agriculture got tied up in 
that, unfortunately.
  Let us deal with this bill with dispatch. If there is a budget 
problem, get rid of it. Deal with it in some other way, but do not make 
the farmers in America pay any heavier price than they have already 
paid. The average age of farmers in this country today is 55 and 
rising. The gentleman from Virginia was right, every young person who 
is still thinking about farming is saying, is that really worth my 
time?
  So today I rise in opposition to this Coburn amendment. It is just 
one of many being offered to delay this bill. Why this is in the 
strategy of the leadership of this Congress to delay this bill is 
beyond me. They have to power to fix everything. Let them go do it, and 
let the farmers of America have their presence felt here in this House.
  I ask the membership to vote ``no'' on the Coburn amendment.
  Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, despite all of the protests, this bill will not even go 
into effect until October 1. So no one is going to miss a payment, no 
one is going to miss a program, no farmer is going to be injured by 
delaying this process just a little bit.
  And the issue, of course, is not whether or not farmers will 
ultimately be treated equitably by this Congress. The bipartisan 
agreement that we see here today means that we all want to help our 
farmers. But the real question before us is will we live within those 
spending caps; will we, in fact, balance the budget; will we, for the 
first time in my memory, perhaps in my lifetime, not actually steal 
from the Social Security Trust Fund? That is the issue that we are 
talking about. That is the issue we ought to focus on. And, ultimately, 
I think that is what a number of us want to see happen.
  In fact, I believe that all of us want to see that happen. So if it 
means this bill is delayed by a day or two, that is regrettable, but I 
think in the end we will all be happy if we get a better product 
through the entire appropriation process, that abides by the spending 
caps, that saves Social Security and for the first time says to our 
kids, we mean what we say; we are going to try to preserve the Social 
Security system.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GUTKNECHT. I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. I 
want to reiterate what was said at the start of this debate; that this 
is a good bill. We are trying to make it better. That is number one. 
And that we believe in ag research. We are not trying to cut. Matter of 
fact, $13 million was cut from ag research not by me but by the 
gentleman from Vermont last night. So we believe in those principles.
  We also believe in another principle, and that is keeping our word. 
And keeping our word means we are not going to spend the first dollar 
of Social Security money anywhere else in this country except on Social 
Security. And so as we do that, this is a painful process, and I 
understand that it is not very tasteful for the Members of the 
Committee on Appropriations, but it is not directed towards them.
  There is a benefit, however. There is nothing wrong with the American 
people finding out what is in these bills. And to say that there is 
something wrong with us talking about what is in the bills, discussing 
how we spend their

[[Page H3645]]

money, is a little bit arrogant for us as a body. This is the people's 
House. We should allow them to have all the light that they would like 
to have on what we do here, how we do it and where we spend our money.
  So I want to just say I thank the gentleman for yielding me some 
time. This is about process and whether or not we are going to keep our 
word to the American people. We are going to keep our word to the 
American farmer. We are going to have the bill. We just passed $12 
billion in super, above-budget supplementary spending this last year 
for the farmers, and I voted for those. We just passed in the last 
month a comprehensive bill, and I agree with the gentlewoman from Ohio, 
we did not offset anything except in ag, and that is inappropriate. And 
when that bill came back to us, I voted against it because of that.
  So we are going to do what we need to do by our farmers, but we are 
also going to do what we need to do for our seniors and for our 
children.
  Mr. GUTKNECHT. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, and I am sure the 
gentleman from Oklahoma knows that sunshine is the best antiseptic, and 
allowing a little sunshine to shine on the appropriations process here 
in the Congress is not a bad thing. If it takes an extra day or two, so 
be it. In the end, I think we will all have a product that we can be 
more proud of, that we can defend when we go home to our constituents, 
and ultimately will keep that promise all of us have made to our kids, 
and that is that every penny of Social Security taxes should go only 
for Social Security.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 185, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn) 
will be postponed.


          Sequential Votes Postponed in Committee of the Whole

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 185, proceedings will now 
resume on those amendments on which further proceedings were postponed, 
in the following order:
  Amendment offered by the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn) 
beginning on page 10;
  Amendment offered by the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn) on page 
13;
  Amendment offered by the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Sanford) 
on page 13;
  Amendment offered by the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn) on page 
14.
  The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote 
after the first 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 ayes 
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 35, 
noes 390, not voting 8, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 158]

                                AYES--35

     Barr
     Bass
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Cannon
     Chabot
     Collins
     Cox
     Crane
     Delahunt
     Doggett
     Duncan
     Franks (NJ)
     Hayworth
     Hostettler
     Luther
     McInnis
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Paul
     Petri
     Ramstad
     Rogan
     Rohrabacher
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Smith (WA)
     Sununu
     Tancredo
     Taylor (MS)
     Toomey

                               NOES--390

     Abercrombie
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Bliley
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Castle
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coburn
     Combest
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill (IN)
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     Kuykendall
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Largent
     Larson
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Ose
     Owens
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pease
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Regula
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shaw
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Snyder
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Tierney
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watkins
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Ackerman
     Brown (CA)
     Kasich
     McCollum
     Morella
     Myrick
     Oxley
     Young (AK)

                              {time}  1432

  Messrs. KINGSTON, WELDON of Florida, LARGENT, BERMAN, SCARBOROUGH, 
and FOSSELLA changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. GARY MILLER of California and Mr. SUNUMU 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. Coburn

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote

[[Page H3646]]

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 CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 93, 
noes 330, not voting 10, as follows:

                             [Roll No 159]

                                AYES--93

     Archer
     Bachus
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Biggert
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bono
     Burton
     Campbell
     Cannon
     Chabot
     Chenoweth
     Coburn
     Collins
     Cox
     Crane
     Delahunt
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Doolittle
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Franks (NJ)
     Gibbons
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Largent
     Linder
     Luther
     Manzullo
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     Metcalf
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Myrick
     Paul
     Petri
     Pombo
     Ramstad
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rogan
     Rohrabacher
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryun (KS)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scarborough
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Smith (MI)
     Spence
     Sununu
     Tancredo
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Toomey
     Upton
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)

                               NOES--330

     Abercrombie
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Andrews
     Armey
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barcia
     Barrett (NE)
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Bliley
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Castle
     Chambliss
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Combest
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goodling
     Goss
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hansen
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hill (IN)
     Hill (MT)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     Kuykendall
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Larson
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Ose
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pease
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Regula
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Ryan (WI)
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schaffer
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shaw
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Walden
     Walsh
     Waters
     Watkins
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Ackerman
     Brown (CA)
     Hutchinson
     Kasich
     McCollum
     Morella
     Oxley
     Packard
     Simpson
     Young (AK)

                              {time}  1441

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Sanford

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. 
Sanford) 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 CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 79, 
noes 348, not voting 6, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 160]

                                AYES--79

     Archer
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Burton
     Buyer
     Campbell
     Cannon
     Castle
     Chabot
     Coburn
     Collins
     Cox
     Crane
     Delahunt
     DeMint
     Doggett
     Ehrlich
     Foley
     Fossella
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Ganske
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (TX)
     Hall (TX)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Istook
     Johnson, Sam
     Kelly
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Largent
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Manzullo
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     Miller (FL)
     Myrick
     Paul
     Petri
     Reynolds
     Rohrabacher
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scarborough
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (WA)
     Stark
     Stearns
     Sununu
     Tancredo
     Terry
     Tiahrt
     Tierney
     Toomey
     Upton
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)

                               NOES--348

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Andrews
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barcia
     Barrett (NE)
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Bliley
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Combest
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Fletcher
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fowler
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hansen
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hill (IN)
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick

[[Page H3647]]


     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     Kuykendall
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Larson
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Ose
     Owens
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pease
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Reyes
     Riley
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schaffer
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shaw
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Snyder
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watkins
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Brown (CA)
     Gejdenson
     Kasich
     McCollum
     Oxley
     Young (AK)

                              {time}  1449

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                    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 119, 
noes 308, not voting 6, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 161]

                               AYES--119

     Baird
     Ballenger
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Berkley
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Brown (OH)
     Burton
     Buyer
     Campbell
     Cannon
     Castle
     Chabot
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Cox
     Crane
     Crowley
     Davis (VA)
     DeFazio
     Delahunt
     DeMint
     Doggett
     Doolittle
     Duncan
     Ehrlich
     English
     Eshoo
     Fossella
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Ganske
     Gillmor
     Gordon
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Inslee
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Kelly
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Largent
     Lazio
     Lee
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Manzullo
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     Meehan
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Neal
     Obey
     Olver
     Paul
     Petri
     Porter
     Portman
     Ramstad
     Reynolds
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rohrabacher
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Souder
     Spence
     Stark
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tancredo
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Tiahrt
     Tierney
     Toomey
     Upton
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)

                               NOES--308

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Andrews
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Berry
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Bliley
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (FL)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Combest
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Cubin
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Deal
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Engel
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fowler
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hill (IN)
     Hill (MT)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     Kuykendall
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Larson
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Napolitano
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Ortiz
     Ose
     Owens
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pease
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Regula
     Reyes
     Riley
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Rogers
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shaw
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (TX)
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Walden
     Walsh
     Waters
     Watkins
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weller
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Archer
     Brown (CA)
     Kasich
     McCollum
     Oxley
     Young (AK)

                              {time}  1457

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

                              {time}  1500

  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I wanted to engage in a colloquy with the chairman of 
the full Committee on Appropriations, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Young) regarding the anticipated schedule on the agriculture 
appropriations bill. We understand that on our side there are few 
amendments that remain to be offered, but it is unclear to us what the 
desire of the majority is in moving this piece of legislation. If the 
gentleman could clarify for our side, we would greatly appreciate it.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. KAPTUR. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, it is the plan that we would rise 
at this point on further consideration of the agricultural 
appropriations bill and go to the lockbox issue. We would anticipate 
that the lockbox issue, considering the time for the rule, two hours of 
general debate, there will be no amendments under the rule, so I

[[Page H3648]]

would anticipate a vote on final passage and/or possibly a vote on a 
motion to recommit, should that be the case.
  After that, the majority leader will reassess where we are, what time 
of day it is, and then make an announcement at that time as to what the 
further activity would be on this bill or any other bill that would 
come before the House this evening.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the chairman 
for that clarification. I notice that the majority leader is on the 
floor and able to engage in this colloquy. I wonder if he would do me 
the great honor of giving those of us on our side his view of what the 
schedule for the remaining part of the day will be like and how the 
agricultural appropriations bill will fit into the schedule later 
today.
  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. KAPTUR. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Chairman, obviously we are, as often has been the case 
over the years, the week before a district recess and we have a lot of 
work that is pending that is important. We obviously have, and have 
already indicated that we have a high priority for agriculture, and we 
want to move back to the agricultural appropriations bill as soon as we 
can, and we still have high hopes of completing that work tonight, or 
at least perhaps this week.
  But I think it is time now for us to make sure that we move on, 
complete the other work which we know we can complete on the lockbox. 
We will have a chance to assess everything on the agriculture bill 
later on in the day, perhaps earlier. As soon as I have a clear picture 
of things, I will contact the gentlewoman and let her know.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman will let us know perhaps by 
5:30 whether or not the agricultural appropriations bill will be coming 
to the floor later this evening so our Members could be ready?
  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Chairman, as soon as I can know something that would 
be helpful and reliable, yes; 5:30, 4:30, as soon as possible. But I 
understand the gentlewoman's point about the time line and I will try 
to respect that.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman.
  I would just advise our membership that if we do have Members 
listening or on the floor who have amendments, call our office no later 
than 6 o'clock and we will try to let our Members know whether there 
will be additional votes this evening or not on the agricultural 
appropriations bill.
  I would just ask the forbearance of the leadership of the majority to 
please treat our Members with respect, and I am sure they will, but to 
allow us the time necessary to prepare our Members for the floor. If we 
are not going to bring the bill up tonight, if we do not hear by 6 
o'clock, I will assume it will not be coming up.
  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Chairman, if the gentlewoman will yield, as an old 
economist let me just say we should be careful what we assume, but I 
will try to keep the gentlewoman as informed as possible.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the leader.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, today I would like to express my support 
for H.R. 1906, The Agriculture Appropriations Act of 2000. Our nation's 
farmers are by far the most productive in the world and we should 
continue to support their efforts.
  Our nation's farmers often experience accomplishments reached through 
the struggles and achievements of past agriculturists. H.R. 1906 will 
allot the necessary funds to help increase agriculture research which 
in turn will help our farmers achieve the level of commodities needed 
to feed a hungry world.
  I would like to specifically acknowledge the provision which allots 
funds for pesticide and crop disease research. This will directly 
benefit Southern California floriculture and nursery crop producers. 
With over 20 percent of the total agriculture share, California farmers 
rank first in the nation in overall production of nursery products. 
This research can positively impact rural and suburban economies, and 
increase international competitiveness by helping prevent the spread of 
pests and diseases among nursery and floriculture crops.
  Mr. Chairman, I would also like to commend Chairman Skeen for once 
again producing an Agriculture Appropriations bill that is beneficial 
for the American farmer. Farming is still one of the toughest jobs in 
America, and I share Mr. Skeen's wish to make sure that is not 
forgotten here in Washington.
  Mr. PHELPS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the FY 2000 
Agriculture Appropriations bill, but I must also take this opportunity 
to express my concern that many needs in the agriculture community will 
remain unmet under this legislation.
  I know that all of my colleagues are by now aware that American 
agriculture is in crisis. We provided some desperately-needed 
assistance by passing the Emergency Supplemental bill last week, and 
this appropriations measure will offer still more help. But I caution 
my colleagues that it will only help so much, and we must not allow 
ourselves to be lulled into thinking that agriculture's problems are 
over.
  I applaud the House appropriators for crafting a good bill under 
extremely tight budget constraints. They have the unenviable task of 
allocating scarce funds in a reasonable manner, all at a time when the 
needs in the agriculture community are greater than ever. While I plan 
to support the legislation, it nonetheless falls short in a number of 
respects, and I would be remiss if I failed to point them out.
  First and foremost, the bill does almost nothing to address the farm 
crisis. It does not provide for any continuation of the emergency 
assistance provided in last year's Omnibus Appropriations bill or in 
the recently-passed Supplemental, and it contains no initiatives to 
support farm incomes or remove surpluses from markets. And although the 
bill funds farm credit programs and Farm Service Agency staff at the 
level requested months ago by the President, this package simply does 
not reflect the economic conditions that face farmers and the current 
needs that could not have been accurately anticipated at the beginning 
of the year.
  Furthermore, nutrition programs do not fare well under this bill, 
particularly the Women, Infants and Children (WIC) program. WIC is one 
of the most successful and important federal programs ever undertaken 
and serves millions of pregnant women, nursing mothers, infants and 
young children. Unfortunately, although H.R. 1906 does include a slight 
increase over last year's funding for WIC, the bill provides over $100 
million less than the administration's request for this critical 
program. The legislation also fails to incorporate the requested $10 
million increase for elderly nutrition programs, and other programs 
receive no funding at all, including the school breakfast pilot program 
and the Nutrition, Education and Training (NET) program.
  I am also disappointed by the funding levels for many conservation 
programs on which farmers in my district and around the country rely. 
Unfortunately, in trying to stay within tight budget caps, the bill's 
authors have included a number of limitation provisions that produce 
savings from direct spending programs. For example, the bill cuts the 
Wetlands Reserve Program and the Environmental Quality Incentives 
Program below authorized levels. These are extremely popular programs 
which help farmers while protecting our environment, and I am 
disappointed that they have been sacrificed.
  Having said all that, let me point out again that I understand the 
tough decisions the appropriators were forced to make, and although we 
all have different priorities, this bill does provide critical funding 
for a number of very valuable programs. We have to start somewhere, and 
I cannot emphasize enough how sadly America's farmers need our help and 
our continued attention. I will support the bill and I urge my 
colleagues to do the same.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Chairman, I hope my colleagues will join me in 
strongly opposing the Coburn amendment to eliminate funding for the 
National Center for Peanut Competitiveness.
  It is no secret the peanut is a very important crop to Georgia and 
Southern agriculture, and this program is critical to ensuring that 
peanuts hold an attractive, competitive position in the global 
marketplace of the 21st century.
  The 1996 Farm Bill reformed the federal peanut program; it is now a 
no-net-cost program to the government. It provides consumers with ample 
supply of one of the safest, most nutritious foods.
  The National Center for Peanut Competitiveness is a broad-based 
research program that includes product development, economics, and the 
fundamental aspects of reducing production costs; additionally, it 
enhances consumer appeal and improves product safety. This program also 
encompasses research into nutrition, biotechnology, peanut allergies, 
and trade liberalization through the World Trade Organization.
  Eliminating funding for the National Center for Peanut 
Competitiveness would be detrimental for both peanut farmers and the 
peanut industry.
  Mr. Chairman, the FY 2000 Agricultural Appropriations bill contains 
critical funding for agricultural research, and I urge my colleagues to 
vote against cuts to the National Center for Peanut Competitiveness.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

[[Page H3649]]

  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
LaTourette) having assumed the chair, Mr. Pease, Chairman 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. 1906) 
making appropriations for Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug 
Administration, and Related Agencies for the fiscal year ending 
September 30, 2000, and for other purposes, had come to no resolution 
thereon.

                          ____________________