[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 131 (Friday, October 1, 1999)]
[House]
[Pages H9210-H9217]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
WAIVING POINTS OF ORDER AGAINST CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 1906,
AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND
RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2000
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules,
I call up House Resolution 317 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 317
Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be
in order to consider the conference report to accompany 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. All points of order against the
conference report and against its consideration are waived.
The conference report shall be considered as read.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bereuter). The gentleman from Florida
(Mr. Diaz-Balart) is recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hall),
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. DIAZ-BALART asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks, and include extraneous material.)
{time} 1000
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 317 is the standard
rule waiving points of order for the conference report to accompany
H.R. 1906, the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug
Administration and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill for Fiscal Year
2000.
The rule waives points of order against the conference report and its
consideration and provides that the conference report shall be
considered as read.
I strongly support the rule. I also strongly support the underlying
conference report. There are many important programs which are being
funded. I commend the conferees for their dedication to their work and
to the American farmer.
Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record an editorial from the Miami
Herald.
The document referred to is as follows:
[From the Miami Herald, Sept. 24, 1999]
Food Sales to Cuba--Will Benefit Only the Repressive Regime
The idea of allowing U.S. firms freely to sell food and
medicine to Cuba seems unassailable from afar, a humanitarian
gesture toward deprived people, as well as good business for
American farmers.
But that's a huckster's pitch being promulgated by U.S.
business interests that either misunderstand the way Cuba's
politically regimented economy works, or that are trying to
break the U.S. trade embargo. Congress shouldn't fall for the
pitch to legalize unrestricted food and medicine sales to
Cuba.
This isn't about humanitarianism: Selling supplies to the
totalitarian regime responsible for so much human misery in
no way ensures that any benefits would trickle down to the
people of Cuba. This is about money--including money for the
regime's repressive machinery.
In Washington this week, the U.S. farm lobby is bringing to
a climax its orchestrated campaign against trade sanctions in
general and to open Cuba to grain sales specifically.
Dreaming about yearly sales that they think could reach $2
billion within five years, farm groups appear eager to extend
plenty of credits and take Cuban sugar or rum in barter.
Listen to David Frey, the Kansas Wheat Commission
administrator: ``With Cuba's stressed economic situation, we
are talking about a long-term deal before they are paying
cash for a lot of wheat. There will be a time when they will
be able . . . to pay cash.''
Mr. Frey and his allies are deluding themselves if they
believe that selling wheat to a government with no hard
currency and a history of stiffing business partners is going
to save America's farmers. Equally deluded are those well
meaning people who think that selling such materials will
alleviate the suffering of the average Cuban.
Remember that this is the regime that ruined Cuban
agriculture and other industry in the first place. While
Cuba's fertile soil and waters no longer produce enough to
feed its ration-card weary people, the regime serves lobster
to tourists. While Cuban children can't get asthma medication
on any given night, foreigners paying for surgery get first-
world medicines.
Measures to allow licensed sales of food and medicine were
attached to an agriculture appropriations bill by the Senate
last month. U.S. Reps. Lincoln Diaz-Balart and Ileana Ros-
Lehtinen, both from Miami, helped kill the deal by attaching
a provision that would make such sales contingent on Cuba
having free elections.
That should end it. Better access to food and medicine
isn't going to solve Cuba's biggest problem. Ridding itself
of an odious state will.
Mr. Speaker, as many of my colleagues will recall, this was the first
appropriations bill to come to the House floor for the fiscal year 2000
cycle. It passed the House in June. I think it is important and
appropriate that we commend the subcommittee chairman the gentleman
from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen) and the ranking member the gentlewoman from
Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) and all the conferees and those who worked so hard
along with them to move this process along. They have done an
extraordinary job. They have worked extremely hard to produce
legislation which provides approximately $60 billion in total budget
authority for agriculture. We know that spending levels are tight, but
I believe the conferees did a very good job of working within their
limits.
The agriculture appropriations bill funds programs that help benefit
each of us each and every day. From improving nutrition, to helping
ensure safe and nutritious food to put on our tables, to fund in this
bill so many programs. The reality is that less than 2 percent of the
American population provide food that is safe and nutritious and
affordable for the over 270 million Americans as well as for countless
millions of others abroad.
Much of the funding in this conference report goes towards food
stamps, over $21 billion; child nutrition programs, almost $10 billion;
farm assistance programs, $1.2 billion; the supplemental nutrition
program for women, infants and children, known as WIC, over $4 billion.
I have consistently supported agriculture, Mr. Speaker, and I commend
the hard work of the conferees. Again, I think it is so just and proper
that we thank the gentleman from New Mexico for his hard work on this
conference report. There are many, many programs that are being brought
forth that are important. It is important that this legislation be
acted on as soon as possible.
That is why, Mr. Speaker, I urge the adoption of both this rule
bringing forth this conference report and of the conference report
itself.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida
(Mr. Diaz-Balart) for yielding me the time, and I yield myself such
time as I may consume.
This rule makes in order consideration of the conference report to
accompany H.R. 1906 which is the agriculture appropriations bill for
fiscal year 2000. The rule waives all points of order against the
conference report.
Mr. Speaker, the conference report was not written by the members of
the conference committee. It was pretty much written by the House and
the Senate leadership. Frustration among Democrats is running so high
that a few days ago, the ranking Democrat on
[[Page H9211]]
the Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug
Administration, and Related Agencies, the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms.
Kaptur), took out a special order to detail this process for the
record.
The conference report contains many shortcomings. The measure fails
to include a Senate provision exempting food and medicine from
unilateral embargoes. This policy, I think, hurts the weakest and most
needy people in foreign countries, and we should never use food as a
weapon.
Leaving out this exemption also hurts the American farmers whom we
are trying to help through this bill. The $1.2 billion in natural
disaster assistance is inadequate for drought-stricken farmers and
victims of Hurricane Floyd. The drought was particularly hard hitting
for farmers in the Midwest and Northeast.
I am afraid the conferees, or whoever wrote this bill, missed a
wonderful opportunity to assist farmers and help the needy at the same
time. There is a natural link between support for farmers and the food
safety net, and this measure does little to strengthen it. By buying
commodities for humanitarian aid, we would boost prices for farmers,
provide new markets for America's agriculture industry, and help the
hungry here and abroad.
Despite my concerns about this bill, I think that the rule is in good
shape. It is a standard rule for conference reports. I urge adoption of
the rule.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Miller).
Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding
me this time. I am opposed to the agriculture appropriations bill. This
is a difficult issue for me as a member of the Committee on
Appropriations to stand before this body and advocate opposition to an
appropriation bill. Unfortunately, I have such great respect for our
chairman of the Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food
and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies the gentleman from New
Mexico (Mr. Skeen) and the chairman of the full committee is my
colleague from Florida who is just across the Skyway Bridge from me.
But unfortunately this conference report when we sent it over to the
Senate, it was a total of $60.7 billion. It has now grown to over $69
billion. There have not been any hearings on this. $8 billion. We are
trying to live with a budget that was agreed to back in 1997 with the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich) to live within some constraints. What
are we doing but spending $8 billion more without the hearings? They
are saying it is the disaster. I am not opposed to supporting disasters
in agriculture, if we have floods, if we have drought. I think we have
a responsibility to step forward. But that is not most of this money.
Most of this $8 billion in more spending is going to help destroy what
Freedom to Farm created, which was the marketplace. That is what is
unfortunate about this bill. It was approved last night, they got the
signatures, we really have not had a chance to really look at the
details in the bill, and that is unfortunate and disappointing. I
supported the Freedom to Farm back in 1996 because it was a giant step
in the right direction, so that the farmers were freed up from growing
for the government but growing for the marketplace. The idea was we
were going to have declining subsidies over the years to allow the
farmers to free up and address the marketplace. We are only talking
about approximately a third of the farmers in this country, because
over two-thirds of the farmers are not dealing with these issues.
For example, in my area, I have a lot of agriculture in my area, a
lot of citrus, Tropicana is headquartered in my area, we have lots of
citrus groves in my area, we are the largest tomato grower in the State
of Florida. We have two tomato crops a year in my area, November and
December and again in April and May. These crops do not get help from
the Federal Government. Two-thirds, as I say, of the farmers do not get
help. So what is happening is for the one-third, they are getting
dependent on the Federal Government when we try to develop a plan to
get them not dependent on the Federal Government. In theory it was a
good idea, but what we are doing now is we are just locking people in
to dependency on these programs. There are over 400 major crop products
in the Federal Government and only a few dozen get this subsidy.
Now, when this bill got into conference, it became a Christmas tree,
and everybody said, ``I want something of that pie.'' Let me give my
colleagues one illustration. Sugar. Sugar is the sugar daddy of all
corporate welfare. It is costing consumers over $1 billion a year. What
do they get? $80 million. Sugar, $80 million. They are the ones making
the most money. These sugar plantations in Florida are rolling in the
money and we give them $80 million. Because everybody deserves a piece
of this pie once the conference, which is a small group of people on
both sides of the aisle came together with.
It is unfortunate this bill was allowed to be brought to the floor
today especially so quickly. For those of us opposed to it we just
found out early this morning that it was going to be on the floor. I
plan to seek time in opposition to the bill when it comes up. I will
not be calling for a vote on the rule even though I will be voting
against it. I look forward to further debate on the appropriation bill.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 13 minutes to the gentlewoman
from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), who is the ranking minority member on the
Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug
Administration, and Related Agencies.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the distinguished gentleman
from Ohio for yielding me this time. I would say to my colleagues that
I rise in opposition to the rule and I urge my colleagues to vote
against the bill. For me, this is a very sad day personally, I think it
is a sad day for our committee, it is a sad day for this institution,
and it is really a sad day for the people that this bill is meant to
assist, the farmers in rural communities across this country that are
being pounded by the lowest prices in the last decade and a half, and
by horrendous weather conditions.
Now, why do I ask my colleagues to vote against the rule and this
bill? I believe that if we do this, the leadership of this
institution--that should feel very bad about what it has done in this
bill--the President of the United States, and the rest of the
membership of this institution will do what is necessary to meet the
needs of the farmers and rural dwellers of this country.
Let me tell my colleagues what the process has done over the last
week and a half. I have been here 17 years. This has never happened in
a committee on which I have served. Twice last week we were recessed
because the majority could not reach agreement on some of the
amendments that our committee was duly debating. And so we were sent
out into the woods, and we were never called back. And all of a sudden
the deal began to be brokered in the offices of the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. DeLay) and Speaker Hastert. There were a lot of special
interests that were accommodated as these discussions ensued, but the
truth is that the needs of the American people were shelved as people
took care of their regional interests.
I do not have a problem with milk. I do not have a problem with
citrus. I do not have a problem with hogs or specialty crops or corn or
wheat or beans. But the issue is really bigger than that. The issue
really is, will all interests of this country get a fair hearing in the
normal committee process? That has not happened. This rule and bill
were discussed after midnight last night up in the chambers here. Who
was really present to hear that? And members of our committees never
even had the text of the bill. Now, at some point, somebody has to say,
stop, this game ought to be over.
Members of our committee were appointed in good faith by the members
of this institution to discharge our duties. We have a crisis situation
in rural America where today the suicide rate is three times as great
as it is in urban America. The pain is really deep. So we have even
more of an obligation to produce a bill that meets the needs of our
country. I do not have a bone to pick with our chairman, the gentleman
from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen), because his members were divested of their
power, too, and that is not how this institution should work. Who is
really
[[Page H9212]]
afraid of open debate? Who is really afraid of that, and letting the
normal committee process work?
Let me just say, what are some of the issues that should have been
brought up, that cannot be brought up under the process under this
tourniquet rule and narrow-focused process that we have been forced to
go through? We should be talking about targeting this assistance to the
people that really need the help. At least 20 percent of the assistance
that is in this bill is going to go to people that really do not need
it. And people who really need it are not going to be able to get it
because we have not had an opportunity to amend. People who serve on
the Committee on the Budget ought to be concerned about that. Somebody
ought to be taking a look at these formulas. We never had a chance to
debate that in our committee.
{time} 1015
Now, what about adequate financing for victims of hurricanes and
natural disasters across our country? This bill is a fig leaf for them.
Yesterday in the Labor HHS appropriations the gentleman from North
Carolina (Mr. Price) whose district is devastated was able to tuck in
an additional $500 million in a Labor, Health, and Human Services
appropriation bill to try to make up for what is not in this bill.
Procedurally we cannot wed those two bills on this floor today, but
that was just another sign of how inadequate this bill really is.
The question really is, is it just North Carolina that needs help?
What about the bill's inadequacies in terms of covering those who raise
apples or specialty crops or vegetables or happen to be in the
livestock industry like up in my part of the country, in the hog
industry where they are on their knees? Are they second class
producers, that they do not get in this bill? They did not get in the
room with the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) and the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Hastert)? Somehow they were not in the line? Should we
close our eyes to their needs? Are we really going to take care of the
fundamental problem here, which is low prices and bad weather? There
are not provisions in this bill really to clear our markets and to lift
commodities off these markets through humanitarian shipments and
monetized sales to other countries at the level that is necessary to
begin to give some easing in prices in the markets here at home.
So, this bill will not meet the needs of our country. We do not have
any measure before us that will prevent the very same kind of chaos
today next year in the market. If I look at the numbers, in the
Commodity Credit Corporation over the last few years, we have spent
more in this year trying to plug holes in Freedom to Farm. Rather, we
should be going back and altering that, adding to it, changing it so we
are not hemorrhaging in terms of the budget next year in trying to plug
the holes in the dike in rural America.
Just in this year alone, 1999, we will spend $18.4 billion to try to
make up for the insufficiencies of Freedom to Farm. People are worried
about Social Security and everything else, and Mr. Speaker, I can tell
my colleagues the bill before us today is not going to do a thing to
change the fundamentals.
There were a host of other provisions that Members wanted us to
debate and, on the merits, vote up or down in the committee. We never
had a chance to do that. On economic sanctions relative to countries
like Cuba and others in the Middle East, in Africa, there was a royal
debate. And it should have continued, and we should have had a right to
vote. That did not happen. The democratic process was squelched by the
leadership of this institution.
In addition to that, we had Members who wanted to offer provisions
dealing with protection of the American people on imported meats,
making sure they were inspected and that plants were licensed in other
places. Guess what? They never had a chance to bring those provisions
up.
What about poultry inspections and all the outbreaks that we have had
across this country in salmonella and trying to get amendments in here
to deal with the health and safety of the American people? Could not do
it. Those were squelched too. Those Members left the committee room as
we were asked to leave.
Again I want to say we have no criticism of the gentleman from New
Mexico (Mr. Skeen). And I do not have any criticism of our subcommittee
staff because they were poised to do a good job, but they were disposed
of their duties. In many ways they are victims like the rest of us.
My parents always said to do good, do not ignore the needs of others
if you hope that some day they will respond when you have needs of your
own. This vital life lesson got lost in this whole process.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. KAPTUR. I yield to the gentleman from Vermont.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I hope that the Members are listening to
what the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) was saying about process,
and I hope that regardless of our political philosophy, we will oppose
this bill if for no other reason than we think the Committee on
Appropriations itself should be making the decisions and not a hand
full of people in the House leadership.
I would like to ask the gentlewoman a question. I am concerned about
dairy. All Members know that last week by a vote of 285 to 140, the
Members of this body overwhelmingly defeated the administration's
market reform proposal and voted for option 1 A. I wonder if the
gentlewoman will tell me how much time the Agriculture, Rural
Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations spent in debating and
discussing the bill that was passed on the floor of the House by two to
one; was it 5 hours? Was it 10 hours? I wonder if the gentlewoman could
inform our Members on this issue?
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I would just have to say that on the issue
of milk, the committee was dismissed. A private meeting was held
somewhere; I was not invited to that, and a decision was made. Do not
ask me what they did, but of course the issue never came before our
committee.
Mr. SANDERS. So what the gentlewoman is saying, that despite the fact
that 285 Members of this body, Democrats, Republicans, Independent,
voted overwhelmingly to reform our milk marketing order. The
Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and
Related Agencies Subcommittee did not spend 1 minute in discussing that
issue, and of course what we voted for is not part of the bill that we
are supposed to be voting on now.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for that comment.
I thank the gentleman, and I apologize for taking this many minutes,
but it is the only time I have been able to be unmuzzled through this
whole process, so it feels sort of good.
I just want to also want to state for the Record that in terms of the
way this committee functions, when I first got to Congress, and I used
to go to Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration,
and Related Agencies Subcommittee meetings, there would be people that
would come in and testify from around the country. They would talk
about the country's needs. In addition to that we heard from Members of
Congress, and they would come in, and they would talk to us about how
they view the situation, whatever it might be in their area. And then
we heard from people from the Executive Branch, and they would come in
and they would make their plea. I always thought that the Committee on
Appropriations ought to leave Washington and go out into the country
and hold some hearings out there too. We never did that.
But in the last 3 years, what has happened is all outside witnesses
have been asked not to come to our committee, and so we began to hear
from the narrower band of people. And then this year, even the Members
of Congress were not brought into our committee; they were told we will
just send a letter. And so we were left only, Mr. Speaker, with dealing
with people from the administration.
But the point is, whether it is the way this bill was handled or
whether it is the way we are receiving information about the needs of
rural America and agriculture in our country the viewing lens has
gotten extremely myopic, Mr. Speaker, and that affects the way a bill
looks when it comes forward here onto the floor of Congress.
[[Page H9213]]
So, Mr. Speaker, I would beg my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule
based on the way we have been treated. This is an emergency situation.
If the leadership hears us, we can produce a bill that meets the needs
of our country. We have had no conference report to look at. Members on
our side, and I would daresay I would guess Members on the other side
on our committee, have had no materials to really review. Then late
last night after midnight, the Rules Committee met and then we were
directed to come to the floor first thing in this morning. Members are
saying to us, ``Jeez, are you really up at 10 o'clock in the morning
with the agriculture appropriation?''
But yes, we are, and yet we have not had the opportunity even for an
orderly briefing by our own conferees. Then some members ask us to put
in the $500 million for natural disaster in that was inserted in the
Labor, Health, and Human Services bill yesterday into this bill, but
procedurally we cannot do it. So we are asking the Members to help us
produce a good bill.
We can do this. Give us the chance to do this. Please vote no on the
rule. Please vote no on the bill when it comes before the membership.
Mr. Speaker, with the crisis in rural America, the country knows we
need to do the right job here. Give us the chance to do it.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, I think that we have just seen in the last two
distinguished speakers a beautiful example of democracy genuinely at
work. The first speaker that we heard said that he was opposing this
legislation because he feels that it is spending approximately $10
billion too much; a very distinguished Member of this House, the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Miller).
We then heard another very distinguished Member of this House, the
gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) explain in detail why she is
opposing this legislation, one of the reasons being why, it is, in her
estimate, not spending billions enough.
There is obviously a disagreement, but that is democracy. Some feel
too much is being spent, others feel too little is being spent.
I think it is appropriate at this time, if I may, if I could take
just a few minutes to explain what the bill is doing. It has been on
line since we finished meeting in the Committee on Rules last night and
has been available for reading.
Thirteen, almost 14, billion dollars, $13.988 billion, are in this
conference committee report for agriculture; $8.7 billion to provide
emergency aid to help farmers, including 1.2 billion for natural
disasters; 5.5 billion for market loss payments, including 125 million
for dairy producers; 650 million for crop insurance premium subsidy and
for crop insurance associated costs.
With regard to supporting farmers in rural America, the Farm Service
Agency, salaries and expenses are increased by $80 million over last
year to continue the delivery of the farm ownership, farm operating,
and disaster loan programs. Total funding is $796.8 million, which is
the same as the President's request. Total loan authorization levels
for agricultural credit programs are increased by $798.3 million over
last year. Total loan authorization funding is $3.083 billion which is
74.6 million above the President's request. Rural housing loan
authorizations are increased by $337.7 million over last year,
including 334.7 million for single family housing. Total loan
authorization funding is $4.589 billion which is $14.3 million above
the President's request. Rental assistance programs are restored to the
fiscal 1999 level of 640 million, an increase of 200 million over the
President's request. The rural electric and telephone loans are 1.05
billion above the fiscal year 1999 levels. Total loan authorization
funding is $2.612 billion, which is 1.54 billion above the President's
request. The Distance Learning and Telemedicine Program loan
authorization is increased by $50 million over last year, bringing
fiscal year 2000 loan level to $200 million, which is the same as the
President's request. Agricultural research activities are increased by
$76 million over last year. Total funding is 1.837 billion, which is 12
million over the President's request.
Conservation operations activities are increased by $20 million over
last year, bringing them to 661 million, 19 million below the
President's request. Protecting human health and safety, the Food
Safety Inspection Services, increased by $32 million over fiscal year
1999 for a total of 649 million, approximately the same as the
President's request. The Food and Drug Administration is funded at
$1.186 billion, $83 million more than fiscal year 1999, $69 million
below the President's request.
Fulfilling commitments to important food and nutrition programs, the
child nutrition programs are funded at almost $10 billion, an increase
of $377 million over fiscal 1999, 11 million below the President's
request. The special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants,
and Children, WIC, is funded at $4.032 billion, an increase of $108
million, 73 million below the President's request. The Food Stamp
Program is funded at $21.073 billion. The Food For Peace Program is
funded at 976 million, an increase of 38.7 million above the
President's request, and yet a decrease of 105 million below the fiscal
year 1999.
{time} 1030
Title IX of the bill provides provisions regarding mandatory
livestock price reporting which will provide information regarding the
marketing of cattle, swine, lamb, and livestock prices that can be
easily understood by packers and will encourage competition.
My colleagues saw I had not mentioned the issue of sanctions, and I
feel very strongly about that issue. The authorizing committee feels
very strongly. The chairman, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman),
sent a letter saying that if there is one issue that should not be
dealt with in the Committee on Appropriations as a rider but that
should be dealt with by the authorizing committee, it is an issue as
sensitive as authorizing and financing sales to terrorist states. Yet
the issue has been brought up. I just want to make one point with
regard to Cuba, because the distinguished gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms.
Kaptur) mentioned it.
One word to those interests who feel that it is appropriate now to
sell to and finance to the Cuban dictatorship: irrespective and over
and above the ethical questions, which obviously are important, it is
not good business practice to do business, to make sales and finance
them, with the jailers of the Vaclav Havels and Lech Walesas of that
imprisoned island. They will be the future leaders of Cuba that will be
making the decisions that are of so much import, that are so important,
to so many interests.
If you do not want to base yourselves on ethics, base yourselves on
the fact that the future leaders of democratic Cuba, many of them are
in prison today, and it is not good business practice to be cozying up
and financing sales with their jailers. I bring that point up because
it was brought up previously; secondly, because the authorizing
committee made its views known very clearly; and, thirdly, because the
Committee on Appropriations as well voted earlier in the summer on that
issue and rejected it. So I wanted to bring that out on the Record.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from
Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen).
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
this time and also for the great leadership that he has shown on the
Committee on Rules.
I rise in support of the rule, Mr. Speaker, to the conference report
on the agriculture appropriations bill. I applaud the work of the
conferees in submitting a clean bill and one which upholds U.S. law and
furthers U.S. domestic and humanitarian priorities.
As the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart) pointed out, the
lifting of sanctions would not have really helped American farmers, but
would have helped to extend the suffering of people by providing a
lifeline to their oppressor.
As it stands now, the bill before us strengthens the position of
human rights dissidents and the expanding political opposition by
telling them that the world's remaining superpower supports their
struggle for freedom and that it stands firm in its commitment to see
democracy flourish; that it defends the human, political and civil
rights of all oppressed people, and that
[[Page H9214]]
dictators should not use food as weapons.
This bill underscores the humanitarian concerns enshrined in U.S. law
which allows for the donations of food and medicine, rather than
promoting the perception of greed at the expense of slave labor.
We look forward to the day when freedom reigns eternal and a
democratic government is in power everywhere. Then we will be proud to
trade and have relations with those in leadership.
This bill promotes America's interests, it helps America's farmers,
it helps the poor who are on food stamps, and I am proud to support it.
I thank the gentleman for his leadership. I especially thank the
gentleman from New Mexico (Chairman Skeen), the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. DeLay), and so many who have worked in the conference committee to
bring this agriculture appropriations rule and bill to the floor.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman
from Vermont (Mr. Sanders).
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by concurring with much of what the
gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) had to say a few minutes ago about
the process that we undertook.
I am very glad that our friend from Florida informed us about some of
what was in the bill. It is good to know some of the things that are in
the bill, because there is not a Member of the House who has yet seen
the bill.
Here is the bill. This bill is hundreds and hundreds of pages, and it
ended up on our desks this morning. I dare say that there is not one
Member of the House who has a deep understanding of what is in the
bill, and yet we are asked this morning to vote for it, which is why I
strongly oppose the rule and even more strongly oppose the legislation.
Mr. Speaker, there are two main issues involved: one is process and
one is content. In terms of process, I would hope that every Member of
this body, progressive, conservative, Democrat, Republican, believes
that there should be full and free discussion in a committee on
appropriations, a consensus reached, and the bill come back to the
floor for a serious vote by the Members.
That did not happen in the Subcommittee on Agriculture of the
Committee on Appropriations. This bill was dictated by the Republican
leadership, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Hastert). They are the ones who called the tune, and it
was not the members of the Subcommittee on Agriculture of the Committee
on Appropriations, whether they were Republicans or Democrats. Deals
were made in the back room; and at a time when the American people are
more and more cynical about the political process, that is not the type
of legislation we should be bringing before them today.
Mr. Speaker, my particular concern, coming from the State of Vermont
and coming from New England, is dairy. In the State of Vermont and
throughout the northeast, in fact, throughout this country, our dairy
farmers are going out of business because the price that has been paid
to them in recent years in real dollars is going down and down and down
while their expenses and their costs go up. The bottom line is that the
total number of dairy operations dropped by almost 26 percent in the
last 6 or 7 years.
Now, last week on the floor of this House we spent an entire day, six
or seven amendments came up. There was a major debate on dairy; and at
the end of the day, by an overwhelming vote of 285 to 140 the Members
of this House rejected the Agricultural Department's option 1-B, which
the Members believed would be a disaster for farmers in almost every
region of this country. And we said no, we do not want that. We want to
see the price that farmers get for their milk go up, we want stability,
we want to protect the family farmers.
All over, liberals, conservatives, people voted for that bill. I
would ask the gentleman from Florida, I would ask the gentleman from
Florida, after a full debate on dairy on the floor of the House, would
the gentleman tell the Members how much time was spent in the
conference committee discussing the 285 to 140 vote? My understanding
is not one minute was spent discussing that. I hear no response, so I
am assuming that the gentleman from Florida concurs. Of course he does;
he is an honest man.
I ask my friends on the Democratic side, how much time was spent
discussing the dairy issue that passed the House 285 to 140 that had
the votes to pass the Senate? Is anyone going to tell me that 1 minute
was spent discussing that issue? I am listening. I do not hear it.
So I say to all of my friends in this House, Republicans, Democrats,
those of you who believe in a fair process, those of you who voted for
option 1-A, reject this legislation. The gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms.
Kaptur) was right. Let us send a loud signal to the leadership and say
that is not the way we want to do business.
Now, all over this country family farmers are crying out for help. We
are seeing a tragedy of utmost proportions. From one end of this
country to the other we are seeing the struggling family farmers who
are maintaining rural America, who are maintaining our rural economies,
working 60, 70, 80 hours a week, they are going out of business. And
what does this legislation do for them? It does nothing.
Mr. Speaker, let me simply conclude by saying this: for those Members
of the body, Republicans, Democrats, who are concerned about the family
farmer, vote no on this bill. Send it back, and let us develop
legislation that can save the family farm and help rural America.
For those Members of this body who are concerned about the democratic
process, honest debate, real discussion, I urge you to vote ``no'' on
this legislation. Send it back and let us have a real debate, an honest
debate, as to how we can save family farmers.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. LaHood).
(Mr. LaHOOD asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Speaker, if you want to save the family farm, I
suggest that you vote for this rule and vote for this bill. This bill
helps family farms.
I represent one of the largest agricultural districts in the country,
14 counties in central Illinois, hog producers, corn producers, soybean
producers, people who have made their living for years and years and
years on the good black soil of central Illinois.
What I have been doing is traveling around my district throughout the
summer and the fall, and what I found is there are two economies in
America. There is the booming economy, where you drive around your
district and every fast-food restaurant says ``hiring for all
positions.'' Americans are doing well; they are investing in the stock
market. That is the one economy.
The other economy is the agriculture economy, which is in a
recession; and if you are a hog producer, you are in a depression. Many
of the hog producers in my districts have gone out of business, and
many of the corn and soybean producers in my district are hurting very
badly.
This bill helps them. Just because you feel you were shut out or you
were not a part of the final negotiations, why should we sell short
then those people who badly need this assistance? I say to all of you
who represent agriculture, all of you who represent hard-hit farmers,
this is the time to step up and vote for a bill that provides the
needed assistance.
Now, you can say all you want about Freedom to Farm. You can
criticize it. Many people have. I have not heard any criticism of
Freedom to Farm for the first 3 years that it was in existence. Not one
word have I heard.
This year we have. You know why? Because we got lousy markets. The
Asia market is lousy, Russia is a mess, we never passed Fast Track.
That is the reason behind Freedom to Farm.
One of the successes of Freedom to Farm is you have to have markets.
We do not have the markets. Every time I have met with Secretary
Glickman, Secretary Bill Daley, they ask, when are we going to pass
Fast Track to open up the South American market? We need trade. We need
markets in order for our farmers to survive.
So I say to the chairman of the Committee on Agriculture, the
gentleman
[[Page H9215]]
from Texas (Mr. Combest), thank you for agreeing to hold hearings next
year on Freedom to Farm. We are going to have a debate on that. But
because you do not like Freedom to Farm, do not vote against the rule,
do not vote against the bill.
We have farmers all over America, either because of a drought, which
we have not experienced in central Illinois, or because of lousy prices
because we do not have the markets which are in a recession, and this
bill helps them. So if you want to help hard-hit farmers, this is your
opportunity today to do it. Vote for the rule, vote for the bill, and
we will help them get out of this recessionary period.
This is an opportunity for Congress and the government to step up and
help those who need the help. I say vote for the rule, vote for the
bill, and we will help our hard-hit farmers.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from New York (Mr. Hinchey).
{time} 1045
Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, if the previous speaker has not heard any
criticism of Freedom to Farm, he has not been listening. The criticism
has been loud and clear from the moment that bill came to the floor. In
fact, so much so that over the past several years people in the farm
belt are calling it no longer Freedom to Farm but freedom to starve,
but that is not the issue before us today.
The issue before us right now is the rule governing the agricultural
appropriations bill. There are good things in that agricultural
appropriations bill, and they were put in there by the Committee on
Appropriations Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and
Drug Administration, and Related Agencies in this House and the other
body.
I want to say that I have the greatest respect for the chairman of
our Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug
Administration, and Related Agencies. I do not think there is a man in
this body who is held in greater affection than is the gentleman from
New Mexico (Mr. Skeen), but the process was wrested from his hands just
as it was wrested from the hands of all of the rest of us all who were
members of that conference committee; and the result is disaster and
this rule continues that disaster because it does not give us the
opportunity to offer to the full body here, all the Members of this
House, the opportunity to vote up or down on critical issues.
Ought we not open some of these markets? The market in Cuba alone
represents $800 million a year for agricultural producers in this
country. We are providing $5.5 billion of subsidies, some of it going
to people telling them not to grow anything, while we are depriving
them of an $800 million-a-year market right offshore. That is true of
other markets as well that are closed to us, open to our allies but
closed to us only because we adhere to an archaic principle founded in
the Cold War that is no longer relevant to anyone anywhere on this
planet, except for a narrow group of people in this country who are
controlling this process. It is the height of absurdity.
Furthermore, we are deprived from having the opportunity to vote up
or down on a dairy provision which will save dairy farms in New
England, in New York, in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and the coastal
Atlantic States. We are deprived of that because this is a bad rule.
Vote ``no'' on this rule.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 2 minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Miller), in the spirit of
democracy.
Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart) for yielding me this additional time.
Mr. Speaker, since I am not going to be able to get time under the
general debate on the conference report, I appreciate the opportunity
to speak once again. I think the process, I have to agree with my
colleagues on the other side of the aisle, it is very limited and
everybody gets what they want within that small group. I do not agree
with my colleagues on everything because I think one of the good things
in the bill is they did not put a dairy provision in there. That is the
utter nonsense of the whole agriculture program is dairy, and I am
delighted that that was not included in that.
I am also glad that the chairman of the Subcommittee on Agriculture,
Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies
will be having hearings on Freedom to Farm and I will be able to bring
up issues of sugar and peanuts and such.
One of the problems about this whole agricultural subsidy program is
that only one-third of the farmers in this country get to benefit from
this. I am not advocating that the other two-thirds get it. I think we
should open up to the free market.
Let me give some numbers we have here. The third that get benefit out
of this receive an average subsidy of $24,000 a crop year. Now they are
going to get $35,000 a year in subsidies, $35,000 a year per farmer for
just those one-third of the farmers.
Now, we had a debate under Labor-HHS and on the welfare issue that
the average welfare family of three gets $12,000 a year, but we are
going to give $35,000 a year to the farmer and the statistics will show
only 57 percent of it goes to families of limited resource and small
family farms; 43 percent of it goes to these big corporate farms,
retirement farmers, residential life-style, the hobby farmer.
So it is not really helping the small farmer as much because we are
just providing $8 billion. That is what is frustrating about this bill.
I voted for it, I believe, when it came originally on the floor of the
House, keeping the process moving forward; but we had $8 billion added
without any hearing, without any participation, getting it in the
middle of the night, and it is very frustrating.
So for fiscal conservatives, I urge their opposition to this
particular appropriation bill. I do this, as I say, with great
reluctance.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Maine (Mr. Baldacci).
(Mr. BALDACCI asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BALDACCI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall)
for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule. I rise in opposition
to this conference report. There is not a Member on either side of this
aisle that can go home and look their farmers in the eye and say that
we brought home a fair deal. There is not enough money in this
conference agreement to take care of all of the natural disasters
across the United States.
I know that some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle
think that they have the power to add an additional month to the
calendar year and in some cases have even invoked Scottish law in terms
of U.S. law. I know there has even been an attempt to try to change the
Constitution and say that the census is an emergency, but the fact of
the matter is that there are disasters and droughts that are going on
throughout this country that cannot be controlled, even though some
think that they can control the weather.
The drought and those disasters are impacting throughout this country
even to today, and just in the Northeast alone we are talking about
$2.5 billion in crop losses; Pennsylvania, $700 million, less than $3
million being allowed for in this bill; New York, $370 million. How
much money is in this bill to help New York? Maine, $31 million. Less
than $1 million is available in this legislation. Virginia, $200
million; Ohio, $600 million. Disasters that have occurred on the East
Coast in 13 East Coast States, very little, if any, assistance is being
provided or available to them. Those are natural disasters.
Those pigs that are floating in the waters in North Carolina are
real. We see them on our TV screens every night, and we talk to our
friends here in the House that have been impacted, not to say anything
of the toxic waste and the underground piles that are floating
throughout the country both in North Carolina and in the South.
We do not have enough assistance, and a promise that $500 million
additional in a Labor-HHS bill is going to be available for disaster
assistance is not good enough.
I am encouraging Members to vote against the rule, vote against the
conference report, and send this back.
[[Page H9216]]
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking minority member on the
Committee on Appropriations.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall) for
yielding the time.
Mr. Speaker, in the end I will be voting for the bill and the rule,
but before I do I would like to get some things off of my chest about
what I think the real problems are.
I do not think that the committee was wrong not to include dairy in
this bill because there were no provisions on dairy, and they would
have been not germane to the bill to begin with. I think the committee
made the proper decision.
I think a number of things happened in the conference that should not
have happened. Example: we had a serious debate on the issue of
sanctions. I think this country's sanctions policy is deeply flawed. I
think it makes no sense to use farmers as pawns in foreign policy. I
did not agree with the Senate language on sanctions because I thought
it was open sesame and I thought it was carelessly applied; and it
could have made available to a number of dictatorial regimes around the
world items which they could use to build their own foreign exchange,
and we do not want to do that.
I think we could have, if we had had the opportunity in conference,
worked out a recalibrated sanction program to meet the national
interests of the country without making farmers be the infantrymen in
every argument we have with a foreign power, but we did not get the
chance because the conference was shut down.
I think that the distribution of money under the emergency bill
should have been along the lines of the suggestions by the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Stenholm), because that would have guaranteed that the
aid would go to people who are actually farming; but we did not get a
chance to deal with that issue because the conference was shut down
before we were able to offer amendments.
I agree, there is not enough money in this bill for disasters, for
the Carolina region and for other areas. I think the basic problem in
this bill is not the Committee on Appropriations. All we can do is deal
with funding issues. The basic problem is that we are dealing with an
underlying law that makes no sense because it is based on ideology
rather than real-world economics.
Somebody said once that economists are people who spend their time
worrying about whether what works in real life could actually work in
theory, and that certainly is the case when we are dealing with
agricultural economics.
We have a law right now, the Freedom to Farm Act, which basically
says we are going to let the market work, but there is no true market
in agriculture for the most part. There is not a country on this globe
that does not play games with trade to the detriment of somebody else's
farmers.
Processors have a fundamental advantage in dealing with farmers in
the exchange of most commodities. Markets need to recognize that there
are weather problems, there are pest problems, there are disease
problems, and we need to try to use government to even out what happens
to farmers when they get hit with those problems. Otherwise, we are not
going to have family farmers left to produce any commodities in this
country.
What ought to happen is that the Freedom to Farm bill, which in my
opinion has become the freedom-to-lose-your-shirt bill, that bill ought
to be tossed out and we ought to start over and produce a bill that
makes long-term sense for American farmers.
Until that is done, the Committee on Appropriations cannot fix up the
problem.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, we saw a magnificent, as I said before, demonstration of
the clash of views in a democratic process. Again and again, we saw the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Miller) feeling so strongly about the fact
that in his view the bill spends too much money; and despite the fact
that it breaks usual tradition, I allowed him time to speak twice with
regard to that point of view. He believes it spends too much money, and
we had a number of speakers on the other side of the aisle say that
this bill spends too little money. That is a clash. That is what
democracy is about.
We had some allegations made which I think deserve reference, some of
which because I believe they were incorrect. For example, one of the
speakers mentioned that with regard to the Cuban market a billion
dollars of sales are possible there.
Let us remember that a few years ago, even after the Cuban dictator
had destroyed that economy, he was receiving $6 billion a year in
subsidies from the Soviet Union, and that is why he could maintain his
tyranny functioning and purchasing things. He does not have that
subsidy anymore. How could he now have a billion dollars from American
farmers? It would seem that any intelligent analysis would see how
illusory that is and how patently absurd that is, and yet we hear it.
Now, the distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) made one
point which was very important, and I disagree with his conclusion; yet
I think it is important to mention it. He said that while he disagrees
with our sanctions policy, the Senate language, the Senate rider which
was on this legislation, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey)
mentioned, I think correctly, it was very sloppily drafted and overly
broad and it would have facilitated terrorist states obtaining hard
currency.
That points to the fact of why the authorizing committee, the
Committee on International Relations that has hearings on this issue,
was so adamant, as made clear through a letter by its chairman, that
this rider-way of legislating on appropriations bills on such delicate
issues is not the appropriate way to proceed.
{time} 1100
So wisely I believe because of the point brought out by the gentleman
from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the sloppiness of the Senate language and
the underlying seriousness of the issue as brought out by the
authorizing committee why it was wise that legislating through a rider
was not permitted by the conference committee.
So I now close and urge support for this rule because of the
importance of the underlying legislation, Mr. Speaker. My colleagues
know very well that this legislation is needed by American farmers,
that there are a myriad of critical programs in this legislation that
are going to be funded; that there are many families that will benefit
directly and immediately in our country from this legislation.
That is why we need to bring it to the floor, and that is why we need
to vote for the rule, and that is why we need to vote for this
underlying legislation, and that is why I support it, and that is why I
urge my colleagues to vote for it.
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. Bereuter). The question is on the
resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not
present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 230,
nays 188, not voting 16, as follows:
[Roll No. 467]
YEAS--230
Aderholt
Archer
Armey
Baker
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Barton
Bateman
Bereuter
Berry
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Bliley
Blunt
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Boswell
Brady (TX)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Campbell
Canady
Cannon
Capps
Capuano
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Clyburn
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Cook
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Cubin
Cunningham
Danner
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dingell
Dooley
Doolittle
[[Page H9217]]
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
Evans
Everett
Ewing
Fletcher
Foley
Fowler
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Goode
Goodlatte
Goss
Graham
Granger
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill (IN)
Hill (MT)
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hobson
Hoekstra
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Isakson
Istook
Jenkins
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kasich
Kingston
Kleczka
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kuykendall
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
McCollum
McInnis
McIntosh
McIntyre
McKeon
Metcalf
Mica
Millender-McDonald
Miller, Gary
Minge
Mollohan
Moran (KS)
Morella
Myrick
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Obey
Ose
Oxley
Packard
Pastor
Paul
Pease
Petri
Phelps
Pickett
Pitts
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Regula
Reyes
Reynolds
Riley
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sanchez
Sandlin
Sanford
Schaffer
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Shimkus
Simpson
Sisisky
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stearns
Stenholm
Stump
Stupak
Sununu
Talent
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Toomey
Traficant
Upton
Walden
Wamp
Watkins
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wise
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NAYS--188
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Bachus
Baird
Baldacci
Baldwin
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Bartlett
Becerra
Bentsen
Berkley
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Boehlert
Bonior
Borski
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Camp
Cardin
Carson
Clayton
Clement
Condit
Conyers
Cooksey
Costello
Coyne
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dixon
Doggett
Doyle
Engel
English
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Forbes
Fossella
Frank (MA)
Franks (NJ)
Frost
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gilman
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green (TX)
Gutierrez
Hastings (FL)
Hinchey
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Hoyer
Hutchinson
Inslee
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kelly
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
King (NY)
Klink
Kucinich
LaFalce
Lampson
Lantos
Larson
Lazio
Lee
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Menendez
Miller (FL)
Miller, George
Mink
Moakley
Moore
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Oberstar
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Pickering
Price (NC)
Quinn
Rangel
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rothman
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Sabo
Salmon
Sanders
Sawyer
Saxton
Schakowsky
Scott
Sherman
Sherwood
Shows
Shuster
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Stabenow
Stark
Strickland
Sweeney
Tauscher
Thompson (CA)
Thurman
Tierney
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Vitter
Walsh
Waters
Watt (NC)
Weiner
Wexler
Weygand
Woolsey
Wynn
NOT VOTING--16
Bass
Berman
Chenoweth
Clay
Ford
Goodling
Hinojosa
Hooley
Jefferson
Levin
Meeks (NY)
Pomeroy
Rush
Scarborough
Waxman
Wu
{time} 1122
Mrs. CLAYTON, and Messrs. COYNE, CAMP, SHOWS and COOKSEY changed
their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mr. McINNIS and Mr. MINGE 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.
____________________