[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 129 (Wednesday, September 29, 1999)]
[House]
[Pages H8973-H8977]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2559, AGRICULTURAL RISK PROTECTION
ACT OF 1999
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 308 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 308
Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this
resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule
XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of
the bill (H.R. 2559) to amend the Federal Crop Insurance Act
to strengthen the safety net for agricultural producers by
providing greater access to more affordable risk management
tools and improved protection from production and income
loss, to improve the efficiency and integrity of the Federal
crop insurance program, and for other purposes. The first
reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of
order against consideration of the bill are waived. General
debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one
hour equally divided and controlled by the chairman and
ranking minority member of the Committee on Agriculture.
After general debate the bill shall be considered for
amendment under the five-minute rule. It shall be in order to
consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment
under the five-minute rule the amendment in the nature of a
substitute recommended by the Committee on Agriculture now
printed in the bill, modified by the amendments printed in
the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this
resolution. That amendment in the nature of a substitute
shall be considered by title rather than by section. Each
title shall be considered as read. All points of order
against that amendment in the nature of a substitute are
waived. No amendment to that amendment in the nature of a
substitute shall be in order except those printed in the
portion of the Congressional Record designated for that
purpose in clause 8 of rule XVIII and except pro forma
amendments for the purpose of debate. Each amendment so
printed may be offered only by the Member who caused it to be
printed or his designee, shall be considered as read, and
shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question
in the House or in the Committee of the Whole. The Chairman
of the Committee of the Whole may: (1) postpone until a time
during further consideration in the Committee of the Whole a
request for a recorded vote on any amendment; and (2) reduce
to five minutes the minimum time for electronic voting on any
postponed question that follows another electronic vote
without intervening business,
[[Page H8974]]
provided that the minimum time for electronic voting on the
first in any series of questions shall be 15 minutes. At the
conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the
Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with
such amendments as may have been adopted. Any Member may
demand a separate vote in the House on any amendment adopted
in the Committee of the Whole to the bill or to the amendment
in the nature of a substitute made in order as original text.
The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the
bill and amendments thereto to final passage without
intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or
without instructions.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Nussle). The gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Sessions) is recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost); pending
which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration
of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.
Mr. Speaker, the legislation before us today is a modified open rule
providing for the consideration of H.R. 2559, the Agriculture Risk
Protection Act.
The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the
bill.
The rule provides 1 hour of general debate to be equally divided
between the chairman and ranking minority member on the Committee on
Agriculture.
The rule makes in order the Committee on Agriculture's amendment in
the nature of a substitute as an original bill for the purpose of
amendment, modified by the amendments printed in the report of the
Committee on Rules accompanying the resolution.
The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the
amendment in the nature of a substitute, as modified.
The rule provides that the amendment in the nature of a substitute
shall be open for amendment by title.
The rule makes in order only those amendments printed in the
Congressional Record and pro forma amendments for the purpose of debate
only.
The rule provides that the amendment may be offered only by the
Member who caused it to be printed or his designee, which shall be
considered as read and shall not be subject to a demand for division of
the question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole.
The rule allows the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole to
postpone votes during consideration of the bill, and to reduce voting
time to 5 minutes on a postponed question if the vote follows a 15-
minute vote.
Finally, the rule provides one motion to recommit with or without
instructions.
Mr. Speaker, passage of this rule will allow the House to consider
this very important piece of legislation, the Agriculture Risk
Protection Act. The Agriculture Risk Protection Act is the right
legislative response to the current plight of our Nation's farmers and
ranchers.
It is no secret that agriculture commodity prices are down. Natural
disasters, including hurricanes, floods, and droughts have only added
insult to this injury. We must give agriculture producers the tools to
manage risk in a responsible way. This bill is a large step in that
direction.
This legislation provides better insurance coverage at a lower cost
for our Nation's farmers. It provides affordable coverage at every
level, with strong incentives to purchase higher levels of protection
and new flexibility for producers to choose the level of coverage that
best meets their needs.
Additionally, this legislation, for the first time, creates a pilot
program that offers insurance assistance to livestock farmers and
ranchers who suffer the same problems of volatile weather and markets
that hurt crop farmers.
This legislation empowers those who understand the kind of insurance
that farmers need, instead of government bureaucrats. Under this plan,
new programs are developed by reimbursing universities, farm
organizations, co-ops, and even individual farmers who research and
develop a policy that is successful.
As many of my colleagues know, this is also an important issue to me
as a Texan. In Texas, we have experienced historic droughts during 2 of
the past 4 years. During these droughts, I have worked actively with
not only my farmers and ranchers, but also with State, county, and
local officials to find ways to survive these dry conditions.
Unfortunately, there is no easy way to manage crops and livestock
once these severe drought conditions are experienced. After living
through these droughts, I have made a conscious effort this year to get
my district ready for the potential of the dry weather that we knew
would happen. Through proactive planning sessions held in each county
in my district, I made plans to try and make sure that my farmers and
ranchers were prepared. However, it is common sense for us to know that
being prepared is better off than reacting to the weather.
This legislation makes sure every farmer and rancher has the tools
necessary for this preparation. Clearly, proactive steps such as these
are needed at the Federal level. Under current conditions, too many
farmers are unable to afford crop insurance. When natural disasters
strike, the Federal Government assists victims with taxpayer dollars.
By increasing Federal contributions to tax insurance, such insurance
becomes more affordable, and there is less need for taxpayer dollars
for reactive solutions.
The Agriculture Risk Protection Act is a common sense, fiscally
conservative way to properly prepare for natural disasters that impact
agriculture production. I urge my colleagues to support this rule.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule, which provides for
consideration of crop insurance reform.
Mr. Speaker, farmers across this country are facing a disaster. The
bill, as far as it goes, makes improvements in crop insurance that will
probably provide some relief. But, unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, this
bill misses an opportunity to make substantial changes in the crop
insurance program that could yield long-term relief and provide a real
safety net to the agricultural sector.
However, this bill can be improved, and the rule allows for the
consideration of amendments that seek to accomplish that end. While
Democratic members of the Committee on Rules might ordinarily object to
a rule that requires preprinting of amendments, in this case, because
of the tactical nature of agriculture programs, we will not do so.
Mr. Speaker, my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Stenholm), will offer a significant amendment that seeks to provide
assistance to those producers who are the most in need and which
addresses the long-term problems of the cyclical nature of agriculture.
That assistance would come in the form of a supplemental income payment
program, which squarely addresses the issue of price disasters. His
amendment deserves serious consideration and support of the House.
Mr. Speaker, this rule will allow the consideration of amendments
which can improve this legislation, and I urge its adoption.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the chairman of the Committee
on Rules.
(Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my very good friend from Dallas for
yielding me this time, and I congratulate him on his fine statement and
his work on this.
I mention that he is from Dallas. I feel compelled to bring at least
a modicum of geographic balance to this debate. As I look at the
manager of the rule, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions), and the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost), the manager on the minority side, the
other gentleman from Dallas; and then once we pass the rule, we look at
the chairman of the Committee on Agriculture, the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Combest), and the manager on the minority side will be the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm).
So I am pleased to bring some geographic balance to this debate and
say this, obviously, is an issue which transcends simply our friends
from Texas
[[Page H8975]]
and is, in fact, a very, very important issue.
I think that the statement that was made by the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Sessions) is right on target when he says that it is better to be
prepared rather than simply reacting to weather. And we clearly know
that, as we have been dealing with disasters that have hit throughout
the past several weeks and months here in this country and the
tragedies that we have witnessed around the world.
Obviously, this legislation, which enjoys strong bipartisan support,
as does the rule, is designed to ensure that we have better risk
management and those tools that are essential to an industry which
obviously is dependent on the weather.
{time} 1045
So I simply want to congratulate my friend and say that I am pleased
to join in support of what is obviously a very, very important step to
make sure that we maintain a continuity for ranchers and farmers in
this country.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Lubbock, Texas (Mr. Combest), the chairman of the
Committee on Agriculture.
Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the
time.
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr.
Dreier) for bringing a regional balance to this, as well as for his
great work on the Committee on Rules in providing this rule. I thank
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) and the other gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Stenholm).
Mr. Speaker, I just would like to say I rise in support of this rule.
I think it is a process by which all Members should have an opportunity
if they have desires to discuss this subject. It should give plenty of
time for that. There are some amendments. We will be dealing with
those, as well.
To the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) I would say, I appreciated
his opening comments and statement. I just wanted to make the point,
Mr. Speaker, that while the $6 billion additional money for crop
insurance that was provided for in the budget which passed this House
several months ago is in itself very significant in that this is, I
think, the largest increase in crop insurance, that alone is not what I
believe is probably the best part of this bill.
One of the major problems that we have confronted with farm policy
for many, many years is the lack of adequate risk management. To
actually begin to move toward adequate risk management, it is important
to make some major changes. This bill does that, and I think there are
very positive changes.
We saw a disaster package last year of $6 billion. There is one being
considered today and may be considered this week that is going to be
probably in excess of $8 billion. While this alone does not solve that
problem, nor would I want to lead any of my colleagues to believe that
it would totally solve it, I do believe that this is the first major
step in a right direction to help provide adequate protection and much
needed protection.
To my colleagues who may not have an opportunity to deal in
agricultural policy or who do not have a lot of farmers maybe in their
districts, I would like to just make a brief explanation of why this is
so important.
Almost in every endeavor of life, Mr. Speaker, whether they are
buying homeowner's insurance, whether they are a businessman or
businesswoman that happens to have a small business or a large
business, it is possible for people to protect themselves by buying
insurance. They can buy it to protect their home. They can buy it to
protect their inventory.
If the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) and I are in business side
by side and my inventory costs more than his inventory, I buy more
insurance. It costs me more, but I can buy that. And if something
happens to that inventory through some disaster that is covered by the
insurance policy, then the insurance policy pays and I buy insurance on
my next warehouseful of inventory.
Unfortunately, one the real fallacies in crop insurance has been that
farmers cannot cover their capability. As an example, if my colleague
is a farmer, and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) is a farmer
and can grow 50 acres of wheat on a normal year on a normal basis and
he puts his input costs in to grow 50 bushels of wheat on his farm but
because of past problems that have occurred, there are some antiquated
historical data information that is used to determine how much
insurance the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) could buy and he
might only be able to buy insurance to cover 25 or 30 bushels of his
crop but his input costs are to produce a 50-bushel crop of wheat, it
is not advantageous, even under the maximum amount that could be
purchased, for him to buy insurance. It is not cost effective. It does
not adequately cover him. And there is no incentive.
So what we are trying to do in this proposal is to give him an
opportunity to have his actual production capability or movement toward
his actual production capability to be able to insure for.
This bill also is a major step in the right direction for revenue
assurance, and that is very important to people that farm in areas that
do not have historical natural disasters and generally always make a
crop. Because the revenue aspect or the downward turn in revenue aspect
are one of the reasons we are looking at disaster and emergency
packages today, farm assistance, because of low market prices, some of
the lowest we have seen in many, many years.
So this does have a good program in it to provide insurance for
revenue loss. It does increase the subsidy substantially that the
farmer receives for buying insurance. We believe that this creates real
incentives, albeit not as far as I would like to see it.
I will tell my colleagues that, in the next couple of years, we
intend to even move forward with a second phase of crop insurance
reform. But it is important for there to be a risk management tool
available to farmers that is, number one, economically feasible and,
number two, it covers their crops in an adequate fashion and creates an
incentive to buy rather than disincentive, which I think today is the
case.
Mr. Speaker, I think that this is a major move in the right direction
for risk management that I think will lessen the impact of natural
disasters or low commodity prices in the future, and I would commend it
to my colleagues and ask for their support.
Again, I am strongly in support of the rule, and I appreciate the
Committee on Rules for its efforts.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, we reserve the balance of our time.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Montana (Mr. Hill), who comes from a huge agriculture State.
Mr. HILL of Montana. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas
for yielding me the time.
Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the two gentlemen from Texas who
are managing the rule for a good rule and the two gentlemen from Texas
who will be managing the bill for a good bill.
Mr. Speaker, as our colleagues are listening to the debate, they will
be able to distinguish the difference between the Texans and the rest
of us because the Texans will say ``insurance'' and the rest of us will
say ``insurance'' when we talk about this. So that is one of the ways
we can tell the difference.
Crop insurance is the primary risk management tools that producers
have. It helps them and has historically helped them manage the
greatest risks they have and that is, of course, the loss of crop, a
catastrophic loss of their crop. But as we have asked producers to
produce for the marketplace, it has been apparent that we need to make
some changes in the risk management tools that we have to help them do
a better job of doing that. We need to do that in a fashion that does
not distort the marketplace, and that is not easy to do. But this bill
goes a long way in helping us address those concerns. I want to just
touch on some of them.
One of them, for example, is to make it more accessible for those who
would produce alternative crops to get crop insurance. One of the
things we are asking producers to do is to diversify their production,
to reduce their risk to the catastrophic potential that weather might
have on an individual crop or that prices might have on an individual
crop. This bill makes alternative crops more accessible for insurance.
[[Page H8976]]
One of the problems with the existing program is that the amount of
support the Government gives to lower levels of insurance is greater
than the amount of support we give to higher levels of insurance. And
the consequence of that is that it actually discourages many producers
from participating in the crop insurance program and then it reduces
the effectiveness of it.
This bill increases support for the highest levels of guaranty,
actually across the board, which should encourage more producers to
participate. Many producers will tell us that crop insurance is not
affordable, and this bill will help that by adding more support across
the board, as I mentioned.
Without this bill, the crop insurance premiums for producers is going
to go up about 30 percent, which would be a catastrophic thing to occur
given the hardship that is out there in ag country right now. Without
this bill, we will have a 30-percent increase. This bill avoids that
increase.
The current program hits producers when they are down. If they have a
number of bad production years, the amount of insurance that they can
buy goes down based upon their average production. This bill allows
them to take on some of those bad years to be able to keep their
insurance level high enough so that they can get enough insurance to
cover production costs and to cover their loan.
The program also now introduces the idea of premium discounts. If
they have a number of good years where they do not have a claim and
they have good production years, they can actually get a discount on
their premium, which will help it be more affordable to producers.
It also expands the principle of revenue insurance. One of the things
we discovered is that production loss is not the only loss that
producers need to be able to manage the risk of. There is also the
potential of price loss. This bill allows producers to insure their
revenue, which covers both price and production risks.
Lastly, the bill allows livestock producers for the first time to
participate in the crop insurance program and the risk management
principles that are associated with it.
I just want to again congratulate the ranking member and the chairman
for bringing forward a very good rule and a very good bill, and I would
urge all my colleagues to support both the rule and the bill.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
North Carolina (Mr. Hayes).
Mr. HAYES. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Sessions) for bringing a great rule to the floor.
Mr. Speaker, as many people know, we have heard from California and
Montana and Texas, now we go to the East Coast, North Carolina, where
floods have inundated our farmers and our families.
I come to the floor today to voice my strong support for a good rule,
for a good bill, H.R. 2559, the Agricultural Risk Protection Act.
I want to thank the gentleman from Texas (Chairman Combest) the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Ewing) and others for the work that they
and the staff have done with Members, farm constituents, and
agricultural associations to put together this thoughtful, far-sighted
crop insurance bill which is covered by this rule.
Over the past several months, I have traveled around my district, the
8th of North Carolina, and spent dozens of hours listening to farmers
and ranchers telling me about the state of the farm economy.
In February, I, with the help of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr.
Ewing) and the Committee on Agriculture, hosted a field hearing in
Laurinburg, North Carolina, to learn farmers' concern about the current
crop insurance program and what changes they felt needed to be
implemented to achieve meaningful reform.
The Committee on Agriculture took the comments of my farmers and the
comments of other farmers around the country and passed a bill which
addresses their concerns and strengthens crop insurance and provides
better risk management tools for farmers and ranchers. Crop insurance
is just one recent example of how the Committee on Agriculture takes a
grass roots approach to learning about a problem and then, with a
bipartisan effort, efficiently works to solve it. We are now looking to
our colleagues here in the full House and the Senate to help us
implement this reform and pass this rule.
H.R. 2559 is a good bill created, for the most part, by our own
farmers. This bill will provide long-term assistance badly needed. I
urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this rule and the bill.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my colleague, the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith).
Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from
Dallas, Texas (Mr. Sessions) for yielding me the time.
Mr. Speaker, this is a modified, open rule. It is a good rule. It
allows us to discuss federal agricultural policy as we deal with
dramatic changes in agriculture.
Last February, I served on the Committee on the Budget as well as the
Committee on Agriculture, and last February we decided in the Committee
on the Budget that we were going to include in the budget $6 billion
from the year 2001 to 2004. The Budget Resolution funding would be to
help farmers adjust to the challenges of survival that Americans now
face. The 1996 Freedom to Farm legislation provides a phaseout of the
old Government programs.
The challenges now facing farmers, include subsidies to farmers in
other countries that put our farmers at a disadvantage, reduced exports
and Washington's lack of efforts to be more aggressive in expanding our
trade. Certainly the greatest challenge this year are record-low prices
that farmers receive for their commodities. So farmers today are
receiving record low prices. For example, soybean price is the lowest
in the last 30 years. Corn lower than the last 15 years.
This bill helps farmers adjust.
{time} 1100
What we are suggesting in this legislation is that insurance be more
available to farmers that would add to their tools of reducing risk.
This insurance covers two areas: One, insurance for some commodity
price protection. Secondly, is what I call sunshine insurance,
insurance to cover those farmers against loss in case of natural
disasters.
I think the challenge before us, as we revisit federal agricultural
policy is how do we make sure that we keep a strong agricultural
industry in the United States? If consumers want to continue with the
high quality, low cost that they now pay for food in this country, if
we want to continue to know the food is safe because we know how it was
produced, then we are going to have to save and maintain and make sure
we keep strong, stable agriculture in the United States.
We'll examine some other ways that we can help farmers in the future
years. Crop insurance deserves taxpayer support because we do not know
what the risks are, because those people that are selling that
insurance do not have the experience. It is appropriate, it is proper,
it is necessary that government support some of those premiums as we
get more experience as we encourage farmers to take out crop insurance
in the new freedom to farm environment.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, like my other colleagues who have spoken, I have spent a
great deal of time visiting with the farmers and ranchers in my
district down through central Texas in recent months. Clearly there
needs to be a long-term solution to the crop insurance situation. The
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) has an amendment which he may or
may not offer today, it has been made in order by the Committee on
Rules, but the gentleman from Texas as the ranking member on the
Committee on Agriculture will be offering a long-term approach to this
situation in the months ahead. While today's bill will offer some
short-term relief to farmers, there will need to be a more
comprehensive approach down the road which the gentleman from Texas
will offer at the appropriate time.
Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of the rule so that we may proceed to
consideration of this legislation today.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
[[Page H8977]]
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
As my colleague the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) has suggested, I
would like to thank the participants from the Committee on Agriculture,
including the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Combest) and also the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) not only for their leadership but for their
care and consideration of the men and women who are involved in
agribusiness.
Mr. Speaker, I support this rule. I am asking for each one of our
Members to support this bipartisan rule and piece of legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the
previous question on the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Nussle). The question is on the
resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not
present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
This 15-minute vote will be followed by a 5-minute vote on the
question of the Speaker's approval of the Journal.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 422,
nays 1, not voting 10, as follows:
[Roll No. 458]
YEAS--422
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Allen
Andrews
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Baldacci
Baldwin
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Barrett (WI)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Becerra
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilbray
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
Cannon
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Condit
Conyers
Cook
Cooksey
Costello
Cox
Coyne
Cramer
Crane
Crowley
Cubin
Cummings
Cunningham
Danner
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
DeLay
DeMint
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
Engel
English
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Ewing
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fossella
Fowler
Frank (MA)
Franks (NJ)
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
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill (MT)
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoeffel
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Hooley
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inslee
Isakson
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kasich
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)
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Manzullo
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Metcalf
Mica
Millender-McDonald
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Morella
Murtha
Myrick
Napolitano
Neal
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Ose
Owens
Oxley
Packard
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Pease
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Phelps
Pickering
Pickett
Pitts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Reyes
Reynolds
Riley
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Rothman
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Rush
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sabo
Salmon
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sanford
Sawyer
Saxton
Schaffer
Schakowsky
Scott
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shows
Shuster
Simpson
Sisisky
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Souder
Spence
Stabenow
Stark
Stearns
Stenholm
Strickland
Stump
Stupak
Sununu
Sweeney
Talent
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Thune
Thurman
Tiahrt
Tierney
Toomey
Towns
Traficant
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Velazquez
Visclosky
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Waters
Watkins
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Weygand
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wise
Wolf
Woolsey
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NAYS--1
Vento
NOT VOTING--10
Dixon
Hill (IN)
Istook
Jefferson
Nadler
Scarborough
Spratt
Thomas
Watts (OK)
Wu
{time} 1124
Mr. HILLIARD and Mr. RAMSTAD changed their vote from ``nay'' to
``yea.''
So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated for:
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 458, had I been present, I
would have voted ``yea.''
____________________