[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 118 (Thursday, September 28, 2000)]
[House]
[Pages H8426-H8431]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
APPOINTMENT OF CONFEREES ON H.R. 4461, AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT,
FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT,
2001
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the
Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 4461) making appropriations for
Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and
Related Agencies programs for the fiscal year ending September 30,
2001, and for other purposes, with a Senate amendment thereto, disagree
to the Senate amendment, and agree to the conference asked by the
Senate.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Barrett of Nebraska). Is there objection
to the request of the gentleman from New Mexico?
There was no objection.
Motion to Instruct Offered by Ms. Kaptur
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to instruct conferees.
The Clerk read as follows:
Miss Kaptur moves that the managers on the part of the
House at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two
Houses on the Senate amendment to the bill H.R. 4461 be
instructed to hold a full and adequate public meeting at
which managers have the opportunity to debate and vote on all
matters in disagreement between the two Houses, and be
instructed to fully resolve all differences between H.R. 4461
and the Senate amendment as part of this conference.
{time} 1245
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Quinn). Pursuant to the rule, the
gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) will be recognized for 30 minutes
and the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen) will be recognized for 30
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, this is a very important motion to instruct for members
of the Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug
Administration and Related Agencies, of which I am ranking member. But
it goes beyond just the need of our particular subcommittee.
We have 13 appropriations bills that we must pass in this Congress in
order that the Government of the United States be allowed to operate.
The Republican leadership of this institution, 3 days before the end of
this fiscal year, has not completed work on but two of them, which
means that we have 11 bills hanging out there that are not complete.
Our bill is one of them.
What we understand might be happening to us is that, in spite of the
fact that we in the House operated under regular order and passed our
bill over 60 days ago, now, 2 days before the end of the fiscal year,
we are told that conferees are going to be appointed.
Now, may I remind the membership that a year ago conferees were also
appointed but then we never met. What I am very concerned about and the
purpose of this motion to instruct is that we ask that full and open
conference committee hearings be held at which managers have the
opportunity to debate and vote on all matters in disagreement between
the two Houses and that we be instructed to fully resolve those
differences and that this not be done behind closed doors by a couple
of the top leaders of this institution.
We are very, very worried that the House provisions, for example on
prescription drugs and the ability of the American people to obtain
safe pharmaceuticals from nations like Canada, may be jerked from the
bill and, unless we have an opportunity to fight in an open forum for
our amendments and to resolve our differences with the other body, that
that issue may all of a sudden just disappear.
And so I want to explain to the Members that, if they vote for the
motion to instruct, they are voting to give us the opportunity to deal
with the prescription drug issue on the table in public with all
members of our subcommittee participating.
The issue of sanctions, and no one has fought harder to bring that
issue before us to allow American firms to sell their products around
the world than the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano). That is
another issue that, unless we meet together in open, public conference
committee hearings, could be jerked from our bill and we would not know
who would do it but all of a sudden it would disappear.
So this motion to instruct says we want to be able to hold the House
position on sanctions, we want an open conference committee meeting,
and we do not want a few people in this institution to take our
rightful responsibilities away from us, as has happened before.
Finally, in the important area of disaster assistance, we are hearing
all kinds of rumors. Our committee is the one charged with the
responsibility of meeting the emergency needs of America's farmers and
ranchers.
I do not think that people who necessarily come from just one or two
districts who may happen to be the leaders of this institution should
have the right to tinker around with those provisions without the full
participation of the members of our committee who represent the farmers
and ranchers across the wide spectrum of industries in this country,
whether it is dairy, whether it is grains, whether it is livestock. It
does not matter what it is. All those concerns need to be aired
publicly in an open conference committee meeting.
So the purpose of this motion to instruct is to say we do not want
any hanky-panky; we want to be able to conduct our business under
regular order. We are very concerned based on our inability to get
clear answers over the last several weeks and now, even worse, over the
last few days. We do not want our bill to be stuck on some other bill
and then we not have the opportunity to deal with the issues that are
there and that we have worked so hard on in this Congress.
And again just three of them: prescription drugs and the ability of
the American people to obtain those pharmaceuticals at competitive
prices even if those drugs come from Canada or
[[Page H8427]]
from Mexico and they are safe and marked so according to our Food and
Drug Administration; the issue of sanctions, whether it is Cuba,
whether it is Libya, whatever country we are talking about, we want the
ability to debate that in our subcommittee; and finally, the level of
disaster and emergency assistance to our farmers.
We do not want to leave anybody out. If they are out there in the
country, they have tried to earn a living and they have been hurt by
the present economy, we do not want a few deal makers to write our bill
for us behind closed doors.
So the purpose of this motion to instruct is to ensure regular order
in this institution and not to disenfranchise our Members.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Obey), our very, very distinguished ranking member of the full
committee, for further elaboration. And I want it thank him from the
bottom of my heart for being a voice for our subcommittee and for the
rights of our members, every single one of them, to participate in open
conference committee deliberations.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me the
time.
Mr. Speaker, what I want to say is directed to one simple question:
How much self-respect does each and every individual Member of this
body possess? Does every one of the 435 Members who belongs to this
body believe that they have a right to participate in the process by
which major decisions are made, or do they believe that year after year
these major decisions, especially if they are politically difficult,
will be made by a few people in a room somewhere? That is the issue.
Now, the way this place is supposed to do business is that the
President's budget comes down to the floor each year, it is divided
into 13 appropriation bills for discretionary spending, and one by one
those subcommittees containing members who specialize in these issues
and actually, lo and behold, know something about them, are supposed to
deal with these issues on a bill-by-bill basis.
The gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen) has spent years developing
an expertise on agriculture. So has the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms.
Kaptur) and every other member of the Subcommittee on Agriculture,
Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration and Related Agencies
has spent hours and hours learning to do their craft.
And yet, what is now happening? We have a lot of major issues in this
bill. We have the issue of Cuba. We have the issue of what kind of
embargo policy we are going to have and how that is supposed to impact
on our ability to export agriculture products. We have issues involving
agriculture conservation. We have issues involving emergency disaster
payments and all the rest.
Those issues ought to be decided by the people who are a member of
the committee that knows something about them. But we have been told in
the last day or so that there is a new game plan floating around, and
that game plan calls for all of these issues to be solved at a staff
level with an occasional consult with a member.
And then the agriculture bill is supposed to be dumped into the
transportation appropriations bill and the conferees who will actually
bring that bill to the floor would be the members of the transportation
subcommittee.
Well, I do not know how many members of the transportation
subcommittee know a Guernsey from a Holstein, but I bet the gentleman
from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen) does.
It seems to me, therefore, that every single Member of this House who
respects the rights of rank and file Members to decide what ought to
happen on these issues, and every Member of this House who has a
reverence for what this institution is supposed to be and a reverence
for some semblance of context, process, and order so that we know what
we are doing as we do it, it seems to me every single one of them would
vote for this motion to instruct regardless of party.
The only reason, the only reason that the Subcommittee on
Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration and
Related Agencies might not be allowed to make these decisions is
because the majority party leadership has a problem. They lost two
votes on this House floor on the issue of agriculture exports and the
Cuban embargo and so they want to reverse by fiat what the House did;
and so they are, in the process, willing to run roughshod not just over
the Committee on Appropriations, not just over the Subcommittee on
Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration and
Related Agencies, but over the right of every single Member in this
House to know who they are supposed to talk to if they want to get
their two cents' worth in about resolving these issues. That is what is
at stake here.
What is at stake here is whether this is still a body of 435 people
who belong to committees who develop expertise on these issues or
whether we are just going to have this whole House run by an anonymous
set of staffers with a few general dictates laid out by their bosses
with no ability of the House to really shape the choices that we will
be asked to vote on.
That is why, regardless of party, this motion ought to be supported.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Boyd), a distinguished member of our subcommittee.
Mr. BOYD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Ohio for yielding
me the time.
Mr. Speaker, I first want to say what a deep and abiding respect that
I have for the appropriations team that has developed and passed 13
appropriations bills off the House floor, our ranking member, the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey); ranking member on the
subcommittee, the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur); my dear friend,
the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), chairman of the full committee;
and the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen), ranking member of the
Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug
Administration and Related Agencies.
I sit on the Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and
Drug Administration and Related Agencies, as the gentlewoman from Ohio
(Ms. Kaptur) said, and have worked hard to understand the issues in the
bill and to have some input into them.
Some issues I won, and some issues I lost. I understood that was the
democratic process and the process of the rules that we govern
ourselves by in this House.
{time} 1300
I assumed that we would move forward and have a vote on the House
floor and some we would win and some we would lose. I want to remind,
Mr. Speaker, the rank and file Members and our constituents that the
House and the Senate passed this appropriations bill out of their
respective Chambers over 60 days ago, before we broke for the August
recess. Under the rules, normally you would think after you pass a bill
like that and you have differences that you would have a conference on
that. Well, we were noticed this morning that the leadership of this
body is thinking about appointing conferees over 60 days later. Now we
are 2 days from the end of the fiscal year.
I understand there are problems, that there are differences on the
Cuba embargo and there are differences on the prescription drugs, but
that is why the Members of this Chamber were elected, to resolve those
differences. The people of this Nation understand those two issues and
the people they sent up here to represent them understand them. Let the
body work its will. Let us have an up and down vote. Those are two very
important issues.
Obviously the Cuba thing is important, more important to the State of
Florida than it is to some other States. So what is wrong with having
the Members of the United States House of Representatives who were
elected and sent here to decide those issues have a vote on that? What
is wrong with letting them have a vote on the prescription drug issue,
the reimportation issue which is another hang-up in this bill that the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley) and the gentleman from Vermont
(Mr. Sanders) have so ardently advanced. It is an issue which is very
important to our constituents. I do not understand this process where
we are going to bottle things up and we
[[Page H8428]]
are going to have some staff in the back room with occasional
consultation with a couple of Members make these decisions and then you
have an up and down vote later on. I think the conference is designed
to resolve those issues and we ought to follow the regular order and
let the conference work.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I want to thank our very able subcommittee member the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Boyd) for speaking out on behalf of the entire rights of
the House and the Members of the House as well as the needs of
agriculture. We could not have a harder working member of our
subcommittee.
I also wanted to say, Mr. Speaker, that there are many issues that we
want to resolve in open dialogue with our colleagues in the other body.
What is at issue? Rules that expand opportunities to import
prescription drugs from countries where prices are lower. This is of
interest to every single family in America. What we do not know is if
our bill gets rolled into the transportation bill, what provisions get
selected, if any, unless we have an open dialogue in full conference
with our colleagues in the Senate. The House provisions? The Senate
provisions? No provisions?
We are very concerned about that. In addition to that, the design of
and funding levels for emergency assistance to deal with drought, with
floods and with disastrously low prices around this country. We know we
have a terrible situation where even under current law many farmers and
ranchers who have been harmed do not get any help. How are we going to
try to deal with that in the conference committee? Who do we trust but
a broad array of Members to represent the various segments of
agriculture in our country in open conference hearings?
Several of the Members have talked about the trade sanction issue
that would affect the shipment of food and medicine from our country
and the circumstances under which future sanctions can be imposed,
whether it is Cuba, whether it is nations in Africa, whether it is
nations in the Middle East. These are all issues that are highly
charged and ones that we really believe we should be able to dialogue
with our colleagues in the other body. We have not even had a chance to
do that.
Also, funding levels for meat inspection and other food safety
inspections that are so critical at the Food and Drug Administration
and the Department of Agriculture. Frankly, I just do not want some
leader who may be from Mississippi in the other body picking a funding
level. Our Members have a right to participate in those discussions.
They have worked for over a year on this bill. They have a right to be
heard. All of the issues dealing with concentration and anticompetitive
practices in today's agricultural markets, all those issues are in this
bill. These are vital to agriculture in America. What is going to
happen to those provisions when there are disagreements between the
House and the Senate? Who is going to decide, particularly if we are
rolled into a transportation bill where our Members are muzzled and
have no ability to participate in the dialogue?
The funding for our programs for the elderly, our nutrition programs
for the elderly, our nutrition programs for women, infants and
children. All these are on the table. All of the funding levels for our
conservation programs, our natural resource programs and certainly our
rural development programs. All these programs require the involvement
of our Members in full and open conference.
Mr. Speaker, in carrying out the responsibilities of our subcommittee
this afternoon, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Hinchey), an extremely able member of our subcommittee who
singlehandedly was able to assure that the fruit and vegetable growers
of our country got recognition in this bill.
Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the ranking member of our
subcommittee, the gentlewoman from Ohio, for allowing me the
opportunity to speak on this bill.
I want to say, first of all, it gives me no pleasure whatsoever to
find myself criticizing the appropriations process at this late stage
of this Congress. Both the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations
and the chairman of this subcommittee, the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Young) and the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen), have been great
gentlemen and efficient and effective leaders throughout the process.
However, now, at the end of the session, we find ourselves in a
position where all that has gone before us is now in the process of
being corrupted and lost. Why? Because the normal procedure of
conference committees meeting together and resolving important
differences between the House bill and the Senate bill has been
abandoned. It has been abandoned and in its place we have people who
are in some cases faceless and unknown making decisions that affect the
constituencies of virtually every Member in this House.
Furthermore, important amendments which were adopted on the floor of
this House have been and are in danger of being removed from specific
appropriations bills of specific subcommittees as a result of this
corruption of the normal and effective process. That is something that
I do not believe every Member is aware of, and I think they would be
deeply concerned to the extent that they become aware of it.
So the motion to instruct that we have before us is in every sense a
sensible and reasonable initiative. It simply says the conference
committees ought to meet. Decisions about specialty crops which are
important to a number of Members here, apples and other specialty
crops, decisions affecting those specialty crops ought to be made by
the elected Members of the House of Representatives in conference.
Specific decisions with regard to the importation of prescription
drugs, which is an important part of this agricultural bill, ought to
be made by the elected representatives of the House in conference, duly
appointed. That is not happening under the present system and under the
present process that we have. Those decisions and others are being made
by people apparently who are not elected and to the extent that we have
elected people in the room, it is only a handful of the normal
conferees.
Now, that is not the way we ought to be doing business. These are
critically important issues. We were elected to come here in this House
of Representatives and resolve these issues on behalf of the people of
the United States from the point of view of our various constituencies.
We are being denied that right.
Now, I know that the chairman of the subcommittee does not condone
this. I know that the chairman of the committee as well as the
subcommittee, neither of those chairmen condone this process. But the
process is occurring nevertheless. And the only way that we can change
this process, the only way that we can alter it, the only way that we
can get back on the right and appropriate track in this particular
context is to pass this motion to instruct.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Crowley) who has absolutely moved this prescription drug
issue into center stage in our country. We thank him for his
participation today and we thank the voters of New York for sending
such an able Member to us.
Mr. CROWLEY. I thank the gentlewoman from Ohio for her kind remarks.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the motion to instruct. This
process needs to be an open process. The people of both houses have
spoken on a myriad of issues that should not be hidden behind closed
doors and vetted out by the leadership alone. Whether it is the issue
of Cuba and sanctions or the issue that is very near and dear to my
heart and to many Members of this body's heart, the issue of the
reimportation of prescription drugs. If you are going to appoint
conferees, then let them do the work. Let them meet. Do not pull the
ultimate charade by appointing conferees and then go behind closed
doors and letting the leadership itself work out or take out, more
appropriately, take out issues that they do not want to have in final
passage.
It was the Crowley amendment that got the ball rolling again and
jump-started much of the work that was started by my good colleague and
friend from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) and others on the issue of the
reimportation of prescription drugs. It is
[[Page H8429]]
too important and vital an issue to Americans in this country, senior
and nonseniors alike, but to most importantly senior citizens, that
they have the opportunity to purchase prescription drugs at least at
the same rate that their Canadian and Mexican counterparts are
purchasing those drugs at. If this is taken out of the agricultural
bill, seniors in my district and across this country will not see a
reduction in their price of prescription drugs anywhere between 30 and
50 percent. If we do not do this, seniors will continue to struggle.
In and of itself reimportation is not enough, but it is the first
step. We need to do more. We need to pass a prescription drug measure
under the Medicare system. But by passing this provision, we will be
going a long way to reducing the overall cost of prescription drugs.
Do not hide behind closed doors. Meet in conference. Let the
conferees meet. Let all of us vote on this very, very important issue.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), a member of the subcommittee who has worked
diligently all year and whose voice should be allowed to be heard in
full conference and open public hearings.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this motion to
instruct. We were promised that in this Congress under this Republican
leadership that the trains were going to run on time. Well, not only
has the train not run on time, it has completely derailed. To tell
members of any committee that they are not even able to sit as a
conferee on their own bill in fact undermines the credibility of this
House. It is an affront to each and every Member. This does not protect
the decisions that were made by the members of the subcommittee. I am a
member of this subcommittee. I take the job very, very seriously. This
conference report was negotiated in the dead of night by a few members
of the Republican leadership behind closed doors.
Let me say that we worked hard with our colleagues on the other side
of the aisle up until this point, the gentlewoman from Ohio and the
gentlemen from New York, California, and Florida and myself, we were
engaged. My God, we have been left out of the process. This is not a
democracy. This is capitulation.
Do you know what is in this bill? Vital things, incredibly important
to people in this country. The prescription drug reimportation piece of
it is vital to our seniors.
{time} 1315
It says we are going to bring down the cost of prescription drugs to
people in this country, to seniors in this country.
Sanction reform for our farmers, it says let our farmers sell their
products overseas, alternative fuel source, food stamps, nutrition
programs for women and children, help for hard-working families and
their families.
Connecticut leads New England in farm income, in fruit, and milk
production. As a Member of Congress, it is my responsibility to
represent my constituents. This report denies my constituents a chance
to be heard.
Too much is at stake. Let us allow the conferees to sit down, to
review the issues, to make their determinations. Let them do their job.
When you lock Members of this House out of the conference, when a
handful of people decide to cast votes, then you shut my constituents
out of this process. That is not the message that this House needs to
be sending.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from the
State of Vermont (Mr. Sanders), who has moved the issue of prescription
drugs and fair pricing to all Americans to center stage.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend for yielding me
time. I appreciate and congratulate her on the work she does as the
ranking member, and the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen) on the
work he does.
Mr. Speaker, there is not much I can add to what the gentleman from
New York (Mr. Crowley) and the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms.
DeLauro) have already said. There is a lot in the agricultural
appropriations bill which concerns me, but the issue that concerns me
most is something that I have been working on for the last 14 months,
and that is an effort to substantially lower the cost of prescription
drugs in this country.
I made a trip with folks from northern Vermont over the Canadian
border over a year ago, and what we discovered on that trip is that
prescription drugs could be purchased in Canada for substantially lower
prices than they are in the United States. The widely prescribed breast
cancer drug Tamoxifen was selling in Canada for one-tenth the price
that it sells in the United States.
In fact, at a time when the pharmaceutical industry last year saw $27
billion in profits, they are charging the American people by far the
highest prices in the world for prescription drugs, most of which are
made right here in the United States of America.
Now, why is this motion that we are discussing now so important? I
will tell you why. The issue is the reimportation bill, which passed
the House, which passed the Senate. Is that bill going to be written by
representatives of the American people, or is it going to be written
behind closed doors by the pharmaceutical industry, the most profitable
industry in this country?
The pharmaceutical industry has 300 paid lobbyists in Washington,
D.C. The pharmaceutical industry has spent $40 million in opposition to
this legislation. The pharmaceutical industry has contributed millions
and millions of dollars to both political parties, and last night, not
last week, last night, they held a fund-raiser for the Republican Party
where millions of dollars were raised.
The question is, do we have an open debate in order to pass serious
legislation without loopholes, without impediments, without the drug
companies putting in little language which will make our legislation
unenforceable or meaningless, or do we have serious legislation that
representatives of the United States Congress participate in writing?
The pharmaceutical industry should not write this bill behind closed
doors; the elected representatives of the American people should write
this legislation. Let us pass this.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Florida (Chairman Young).
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding
me time. I want to compliment the gentleman for a good job in getting
the bill passed.
Mr. Speaker, as my friend from Florida (Mr. Boyd) said, over 60 days
ago we passed this bill in the House, and we have passed all 13 bills
in the House. But as I listen to my friends on the other side, it looks
to me like they are trying to create an issue that is not there,
because my friend and colleague from New Mexico, the chairman, has said
that he does not have any objection to this motion to instruct. So I do
not understand the arguments, because they seem to try to make an issue
that is not even there.
As far as debating, as the last speaker said, we have spent more time
in this Chamber and in the Committee on Appropriations this year
debating matters that are extraneous and have nothing to do with
appropriations bills. We have spent more time this year in genuine
debate on those extraneous issues than we have in many, many years in
the past.
So I say again, I am glad they pointed out the fact that we have
passed all of our bills, and I am glad to repeat what my friend the
gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen) has said, we do not object to
this motion. So what is the issue?
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I have the greatest respect for the
gentleman from Florida, and I wonder if he would be willing to answer a
question.
The Chairman has a tremendous weight on him, and I have some
understanding of that. I do want to ask the gentleman, however, seeing
as how he says that the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen) has no
objection to this motion, does that mean that if the motion passes, the
members, the full set of members of the Subcommittee on Agriculture and
Rural Development will be able to meet in full and open conference to
deal with our disagreements with the members in the other
[[Page H8430]]
body? Or does it mean, as last year, that our members would be
appointed, but then the conference never called and the bill written in
the back rooms here and brought to the floor?
Could the gentleman describe the process forward?
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I would
respond to the gentlewoman that, yes, we would intend to meet in
conference, and to suggest that we have not done that is erroneous.
We have a very intense conference meeting underway right now on one
of the other conference reports. I have spent, as have many of our
colleagues on both sides of the aisle, many, many hours in conference
with the other body, and, in fact, with representatives of the White
House, trying to iron out the differences between the House bills, the
Senate bills and the position of the administration.
So the truth is, we have spent a massive amount of time in conference
trying to resolve these differences. I understand that the agriculture
bill is an extremely important measure and there are some strong
differences between the House and the Senate. They will have to be
worked out, and I would suggest to the gentlewoman that they will be
worked out in a regular conference.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield further, so the
gentleman would agree that our full membership would participate, the
full membership of the subcommittee, in those discussions?
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I would
respond to the gentlewoman by saying that is why we do not object to
this motion to instruct.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, when the other body acted on the agriculture
appropriation bill, they added a great amount of new matter, items that
are within our subcommittee's jurisdiction as well as many items in
other areas. All of the new matter is in addition to the routine
differences we have every year on the basic bill.
We have been working hard on the differences between the House-passed
bill and Senate-passed bill. We need to proceed one step at a time, and
I think the step we need to take right now is to appoint the House
conferees. So let us get on with it and do that.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the very distinguished
gentleman from Maine (Mr. Baldacci).
Mr. BALDACCI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me
time. The gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) has been working very hard
and done a very good job in her leadership on the Committee on
Agriculture, and I have enjoyed working with her, as well as the
gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen) under his leadership, and the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) and his leadership and the gentleman
from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
Mr. Speaker, recognizing that as we get down to the final days of
this session and the need and interest to be able to discuss and debate
and to analyze these issues, as we move these things along, we want to
make sure that we do move these things along, I want to encourage both
sides to get together.
As far as the debate and the discussion of these issues, there is a
very important measure as it pertains to the reimportation issue, which
I have worked with the Members on the other side on very diligently, in
trying to do it in a bipartisan fashion and have safety first. We want
to make sure that that measure certainly has the safety, protection and
safeguards necessary for public health, but, at the same time, that we
do not create enough roadblocks and obstacles where it would be
rendered meaningless.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from South
Carolina (Mr. Sanford).
Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Speaker, I would simply like to make the point that
the issue of Cuba travel has ended up in a sort of political no-man's
land. We were told in the Treasury-Postal bill it would be handled in
the Agricultural bill.
I would urge the chairman and those who are going to be in this
conference to actually take up that issue, because, if not, it is going
to find itself off in the dust bins or at least the far corners of this
political debate. I think it is an important political debate, having a
lot to do with the constitutional rights that all Americans should
enjoy.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Quinn). The gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms.
Kaptur) is recognized for one minute.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, first I would like to say to the gentleman
from Maine (Mr. Baldacci), because he represents the Northeastern home
heating reserve issue so well, he represents all States. So I want to
say to the gentleman, his reach extends beyond his own State in many
ways. I thank him for speaking on behalf of the motion to instruct.
Mr. Speaker, I ask our colleagues to vote for the motion to instruct.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is
ordered on the motion.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to instruct
offered by the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).
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 grounds 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 409,
nays 0, not voting 24, as follows:
[Roll No. 502]
YEAS--409
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Allen
Andrews
Archer
Armey
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Baldacci
Baldwin
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Barrett (WI)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
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 (OH)
Bryant
Burton
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Cannon
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Condit
Conyers
Cook
Cooksey
Costello
Cox
Coyne
Cramer
Crane
Crowley
Cubin
Cummings
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
DeLay
DeMint
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
Engel
English
Etheridge
Evans
Ewing
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Fletcher
Foley
Ford
Fossella
Fowler
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gekas
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Granger
Green (TX)
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill (IN)
Hill (MT)
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoeffel
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Hooley
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inslee
Isakson
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kasich
Kelly
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kleczka
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
Kuykendall
LaFalce
LaHood
Lampson
Lantos
Largent
Larson
Latham
LaTourette
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 (NY)
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McInnis
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Metcalf
Mica
[[Page H8431]]
Millender-McDonald
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Morella
Murtha
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Ose
Owens
Oxley
Packard
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pease
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Phelps
Pickering
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
Spratt
Stabenow
Stark
Stearns
Stenholm
Strickland
Stump
Stupak
Sununu
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
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)
Watts (OK)
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Weygand
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--24
Brown (FL)
Burr
Callahan
Chenoweth-Hage
Clay
Cunningham
Danner
Eshoo
Everett
Forbes
Franks (NJ)
Jones (OH)
Klink
Lazio
McCarthy (MO)
McCollum
McIntosh
Paul
Pickett
Scarborough
Talent
Vento
Wise
Young (AK)
{time} 1347
Mr. ROTHMAN changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the motion to instruct was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated for:
Ms. McCARTHY of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, during rollcall vote No. 502,
I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted
``yea.''
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Quinn). Without objection, the Chair
appoints the following conferees: Messrs. Skeen, Walsh, Dickey,
Kingston, Nethercutt, Bonilla, Latham, Mrs. Emerson, Mr. Young of
Florida, Ms. Kaptur, Ms. DeLauro, and Messrs. Hinchey, Farr of
California, Boyd and Obey.
There was no objection.
____________________