[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 16]
[House]
[Pages 23604-23611]
[From the U.S. 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.

                              {time}  1000

  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.

[[Page 23605]]

  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 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

[[Page 23606]]

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 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

[[Page 23607]]

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.
  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,

[[Page 23608]]

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 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. 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,

[[Page 23609]]

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 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. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall) 
for yielding me this time.

[[Page 23610]]

  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.
  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.

[[Page 23611]]



                              {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
     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.

                          ____________________