[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 16]
[House]
[Pages 21912-21920]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




     PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3161, AGRICULTURE, RURAL 
    DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES 
                        APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2008

  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, 
I call up House Resolution 581 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 581

       Resolved,  That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 3161) making appropriations for Agriculture, 
     Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related 
     Agencies programs for the fiscal year ending September 30, 
     2008, and for other purposes. The first reading of the bill 
     shall be dispensed with. All points of order against 
     consideration of the bill are waived except those arising 
     under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI.

[[Page 21913]]

     General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not 
     exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the 
     chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
     Appropriations. After general debate the bill shall be 
     considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. Points 
     of order against provisions in the bill for failure to comply 
     with clause 2 of rule XXI are waived. During consideration of 
     the bill for amendment, the Chairman of the Committee of the 
     Whole may accord priority in recognition on the basis of 
     whether the Member offering an amendment has caused it to be 
     printed in the portion of the Congressional Record designated 
     for that purpose in clause 8 of rule XVIII. Amendments so 
     printed shall be considered as read. When the committee rises 
     and reports the bill back to the House with a recommendation 
     that the bill do pass, the previous question shall be 
     considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to 
     final passage without intervening motion except one motion to 
     recommit with or without instructions.
       Sec. 2. During consideration in the House of H.R. 3161 
     pursuant to this resolution, notwithstanding the operation of 
     the previous question, the Chair may postpone further 
     consideration of the bill to such time as may be designated 
     by the Speaker.

                              {time}  1215

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Baldwin). The gentleman from 
Massachusetts is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield 
my friend from Washington (Mr. Hastings) 30 minutes. During the 
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose 
of debate only.


                             General Leave

  Mr. McGOVERN. I ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 
legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on House 
Resolution 581.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Massachusetts?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Speaker, House Resolution 581 is a traditional open rule for 
appropriations bills. This open rule allows any amendment to be offered 
as long as the amendment complies with House rules.
  Madam Speaker, the Agriculture appropriations bill may not get as 
much attention as some of the others, but it is incredibly important to 
the Nation. For the past 6 years, the bill has been underfunded by 
President Bush and the Republican Congress.
  This year, the subcommittee chairwoman, Rosa DeLauro, and her 
colleagues have put together a bill that begins to restore cuts in 
funding to the Department of Agriculture; cuts that have left too many 
people hungry here at home and around the world; cuts that have 
threatened America's food security and food safety; and cuts that have 
denied rural America improvements and access to better technology, 
better housing and a better environment.
  Madam Speaker, today I am pleased to say that with this bill, we have 
turned the corner. The fiscal year 2008 Agriculture appropriations bill 
makes new and important investments in our people. This is not a 
perfect bill, but it is a big step in the right direction. I urge my 
colleagues to support it.
  I am proud, Madam Speaker, to serve as the Cochair of the bipartisan 
House Hunger Caucus along with my good friend from Missouri, Jo Ann 
Emerson. I have a strong interest in making sure that our domestic and 
international hunger programs get the funding that they need.
  With this bill, more pregnant women and infants will get the 
nutritious food they need through the WIC program. With this bill, more 
children who eat a school breakfast or lunch will receive meals during 
the summer months, when school is out of session, just like they do 
during the school year. With this bill, the food that they are served 
in school will be healthier, including more fresh fruits and 
vegetables. With this bill, the Commodity Food Supplemental Program can 
expand participation in existing States and can also begin 
participating in five new States.
  The bill continues funding to combat hunger around the world through 
programs like Food for Peace and the George McGovern-Robert Dole 
International Food for Education and Child Nutrition Program. There is 
increased funding for the Food and Drug Administration and the Food 
Safety and Inspection Service, allowing USDA to better oversee our 
Nation's food safety, and more importantly, root out any food 
contamination and threats to America's food supply.
  Providing these agencies with the proper tools, including proper 
staffing, is an important part of USDA's mission that usually goes 
unnoticed unless a problem arises.
  Finally, Madam Speaker, this bill increases funding for programs that 
directly affect rural America. For far too long, rural America has been 
underfunded and, in many cases, underappreciated. This bill increases 
funding for programs important to rural America, including crop 
insurance integrity, livestock competition, enforcement efforts at the 
Commodities Futures Trading Commission, the Rural Community Advancement 
Program, clean water and business loans and grants.
  Finally, there are increases in funds for technology access that will 
provide grants for distance learning, telemedicine and broadband 
development in rural areas.
  Madam Speaker, before I conclude my opening remarks, I want to 
address one more subject in a little bit of detail. For years we have 
not done nearly enough, Democrats and Republicans alike, to end hunger. 
I will say it again: Hunger is a political condition. We have the 
resources to end it. We have the infrastructure. What we need is the 
political will and determination to make it happen.
  With passage of the fiscal year 2008 Agriculture appropriations bill 
and the recently approved farm bill, this new Democratic Congress is 
taking a major step forward in the fight to end hunger in America and 
around the world. We are moving in a new direction toward a place where 
everybody in this world has enough to eat. We have much more work to 
do, but today we can make an important down payment.
  Now, during consideration of this bill, we may see attempts to cut 
these vital, proven programs. Members will say that they, too, are 
troubled by hunger, but they don't want to spend the money to address 
it. It is the same old argument.
  Additionally, during consideration of this bill, there may be an 
amendment offered by my friend, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Conaway) 
that would allow State governments to privatize the Food Stamp program.
  Madam Speaker, this open rule allows the gentleman from Texas to 
offer this amendment. I support his right to do so. However, this is 
bad policy that was rejected in the farm bill. As a supporter of the 
Food Stamp program, a program proven to provide food to hungry 
Americans, I strongly oppose this amendment. The State of Texas has 
experimented with privatizing food stamps. That experiment failed. 
According to a letter signed by 21 organizations opposed to the 
privatization of the Food Stamp program, ``before the State canceled 
its contract with the private contractors, hundreds of thousands of 
low-income children and adults were unable to access nutrition and 
health care assistance that they desperately needed and to which they 
were entitled by law.''
  Privatization of the Food Stamp program failed in Texas. We should 
not put more families at risk by extending that failed experiment to 
other States. The amendment deserves to be defeated. I urge my 
colleagues to vote no if, in fact, the amendment is offered.
  Madam Speaker, I will insert letters opposing privatization of the 
Food Stamp program into the Record at this point.

                                                    July 10, 2007.
     U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Agriculture, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative: When the full House Agriculture 
     Committee marks up the nutrition title of the Farm Bill, we 
     urge you to oppose any effort to strike or weaken a provision 
     clarifying the existing requirement that state civil service 
     employees conduct the Food Stamp eligibility determination 
     process.
       This ``merit-system'' requirement has been part of the Food 
     Stamp program since its inception. It is intended to protect 
     the integrity of the program and ensure fair and equal access 
     and treatment for all applicants.

[[Page 21914]]

       We are extremely concerned about replication of the Texas 
     experience of privatizing most of the work leading up to the 
     final eligibility determination in its Food Stamp, Medicaid 
     and TANF programs. Indiana is already proceeding down the 
     same path despite the Texas failure. In Texas, before the 
     state canceled its contract with the private contractors, 
     hundreds of thousands of low income children and adults were 
     unable to access nutrition and health care assistance that 
     they desperately needed and to which they were entitled by 
     law.
       When states privatize such important and inherently 
     governmental functions, the contracts often create incentives 
     for private companies to reduce access to the program in 
     order to maximize their profits. ``Streamlining the work'' 
     often comes at the expense of the most difficult to serve, 
     including the elderly who have hearing problems on the phone 
     and have no internet access, the disabled, the homeless, and 
     people with limited English. In addition, it actually may 
     create new inefficiencies that delay the processing of needed 
     benefits.
       Privatization is not necessary for states to modernize 
     their application process. This spring, the Government 
     Accounting Office documented that most states have 
     implemented call centers and internet using their public 
     employees. We strongly urge you to support the provisions in 
     the subcommittee bill that clarify the merit system 
     requirement.
           Sincerely,
         AFL-CIO; Coalition for Independent Living Options; 
           Coalition on Human Needs; Congressional Hunger Center; 
           Food Research and Action Center; Leadership Conference 
           on Civil Rights; Migrant Legal Action Program; National 
           Council on Aging; National Council of Jewish Women; 
           National Education Association; National Farmers Union; 
           National Low Income Housing Coalition; NETWORK, A 
           National Catholic Social Justice Lobby; OMB Watch; 
           RESULTS; The Arc of the United States; The Salvation 
           Army; United Automobile Workers; United Cerebral Palsy; 
           USAction; Voices for America's Children; Wider 
           Opportunities for Women.
                                  ____

                                                    June 15, 2007.
       Dear Representative: We are writing to ask for your strong 
     support for a provision in the food stamp portion of the farm 
     bill that reaffirms and clarifies the existing requirement 
     for public employees in merit-based personnel systems to 
     conduct the eligibility determination process for the food 
     stamp program.
       Over the last several years, the Bush Administration has 
     allowed several states, without going through the required 
     waiver process, to evade the clear Food Stamp requirement for 
     state agencies to perform the inherently governmental 
     function of eligibility determination.
       The Texas experience was such a disaster that the state 
     canceled the contract in a little over a year but not before 
     the delivery system for Food Stamps and Medicaid was 
     destabilized. The state wasted over $100 million; hundreds of 
     thousands of Medicaid and Food Stamp applicants either lost 
     benefits or never got through the system to get them; and 
     personal financial information went to a warehouse in 
     Washington State.
       Although Indiana is just in the early stages of a 10-year 
     contract worth $1.1 billion, early reports from some 
     advocates are very troubling. They report an intense 
     atmosphere of intimidation among the contract staff that is 
     pitting their job security interests against the interests of 
     applicants seeking nutrition and health assistance; new 
     procedures that are likely to create formidable obstacles for 
     many applicants to get through the process successfully; and 
     a policy that appears to prohibit staff from discussing the 
     application process for this public program with outside 
     advocates for applicants.
       Public disclosure, privacy protections, and impartial, fair 
     administration are key elements in civil service and other 
     public personnel standards. They are designed to ensure that 
     the public has a right to and receives fair, 
     nondiscriminatory treatment that is accountable to the 
     taxpayers. These privatization efforts, in contrast, appear 
     not only to shield much of the operation of the new systems, 
     but also to reorganize them in a way that will make it very 
     difficult for applicants to get the assistance they have a 
     right to receive.
       Increasingly, middle class workers find themselves losing 
     good jobs and forced to take new ones at much lower pay. The 
     instability of their jobs and the downgrading of their 
     economic circumstances mean that they may have to resort to 
     economic safety net programs such as the Food Stamp program 
     for temporary help.
       We strongly urge you to support the provisions clarifying 
     the public administration requirement in the Food Stamp 
     program. Now is not the time to put the public interest in 
     private hands.
           Sincerely,
         AFSCME; AFL-CIO; American Federation of Government 
           Employees; American Federation of Teachers; 
           Communication Workers of America; International 
           Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers; 
           International Federation of Professional and Technical 
           Engineers; International Brotherhood of Electrical 
           Workers; International Brotherhood of Teamsters; 
           National Education Association; Service Employees 
           International Union; The International Union, United 
           Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement 
           Workers of America; United Food and Commercial Workers 
           International Union.
                                  ____



                                                       AFSCME,

                                    Washington, DC, July 31, 2007.
       Dear Representative: On behalf of the 1.4 million members 
     of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal 
     Employees (AFSCME), I am writing to strongly urge you to 
     oppose an amendment by Representative Conaway to H.R. 3161, 
     the FY 2008 Agriculture Appropriations Bill, which will be 
     considered today. This issue is of enormous importance to my 
     union and to the tens of millions of Americans which rely 
     upon the Food Stamp program for nutrition assistance.
       The Conaway amendment is intended to undo a provision in 
     the nutrition title of H.R. 2419 which the House passed last 
     week. That provision clarified the longstanding requirement 
     in the Food Stamp Act that civil service employees conduct 
     the eligibility determination process for Food Stamps. It was 
     necessary because the Administration has reinterpreted the 
     Food Stamp law to allow Texas and Indiana to turn over to 
     private companies most of the eligibility determination 
     process to private companies.
       The Texas experiment was a disaster. The State canceled its 
     own contract after about 14 months but not before thousands 
     of families failed to receive benefits to which they were 
     entitled, and sensitive personal and financial information 
     went astray. Now Indiana is proceeding down the same path.
       The provision reinforcing the public administration 
     requirement in the Food Stamp program was thoroughly debated 
     in the Agriculture Committee, and several amendments to 
     strike or modify it were defeated. The bottom line is that 
     privatization of the eligibility of the Food Stamp program 
     will open up the floodgates to major costs in benefits for 
     the most vulnerable of our citizens.
       AFSCME strongly urges you to oppose the Conaway amendment 
     or any other similar amendment.
       Sincerely,
                                              Charles M. Loveless,
                                          Director of Legislation.

  Madam Speaker, the fiscal year 2008 Agriculture appropriations bill 
was written and considered in a bipartisan way through the committee 
process. It is a bill that should receive strong bipartisan support in 
the House. I urge my colleagues to support this open rule. I support 
the bill.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Speaker, I want to thank my good friend the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.
  Madam Speaker, this Agricultural, Rural Development, and Food and 
Drug Administration appropriations bill provides more than $18.8 
billion in discretionary spending for the next fiscal year. This bill 
represents an increase in spending by nearly 6 percent over last year's 
bill and continues the trend of the Democrat majority choosing to 
provide spending increases well above the rate of inflation and putting 
each taxpayer in the country on a path towards an average $3,000 
increase in their Federal tax bill. Madam Speaker, this is too great a 
burden for the American taxpayer to pay.
  As many of my colleagues know, I represent one of the premier 
agriculture districts in the country. Central Washington is rightfully 
famous for its apples, cherries, wine and many other farm and ranch 
products. The programs funded under this bill are of great importance 
to the communities I represent, and there are some provisions in the 
bill that I do indeed support.
  For example, I am pleased that funding is maintained for rural 
development, which provides critical financial help to rural 
communities across the country. This bill also fully funds the Natural 
Resources Conservation Service, which provides on-the-ground technical 
assistance to farmers and ranchers dealing with soil and water 
management issues. I also note that this bill maintains a provision 
that I have long supported which allows Americans to be able to 
purchase drugs in other

[[Page 21915]]

countries at lower prices and bring them back to the United States 
lawfully.
  However, Madam Speaker, I am very disappointed that this bill cuts 
Agriculture Research Service funding by over $50 million compared to 
last year. I represent three Agriculture Research Service labs, two of 
which are collocated with Washington State University research 
facilities. Federally sponsored agriculture research not only improves 
crop productivity, it also helps farmers and ranchers find solutions to 
environmental and marketing challenges.
  Many agriculture research initiatives were already facing the 
prospect of cutting essential research programs and researchers. 
Surely, Madam Speaker, with such a big increase over last year's 
spending level, we could have found room to at least protect the level 
of research being conducted today.
  I am concerned about the potential impacts of these cuts and what it 
would mean for facilities in my district, in particular the Agriculture 
Research Service lab in Prosser. I intend to continue to work with my 
colleagues from Washington to ensure that we provide the funding 
necessary to maintain the important agriculture research activities 
already underway at these facilities.
  I am also disappointed that this bill provides only $10 million for 
the Specialty Crops Block Grant program. This program provides grants 
distributed by the State departments of agriculture to assist the 
development, production and marketing of fruits and vegetables. Earlier 
this year, I joined a bipartisan group of my colleagues in asking that 
this program be fully funded at the $44.5 million level. This bill 
falls far short on this account.
  Madam Speaker, if we pass this rule today, the House will begin 
consideration of the Agriculture, Rural Development, and Food and Drug 
Administration appropriations bill. While this must be accomplished in 
a timely manner, the Senate in fact will not begin consideration of 
this bill until September and there is, frankly, a more pressing issue 
facing our Nation today.
  Watching the news and reading the newspapers, Americans are reminded 
each day that the United States remains vulnerable to another terrorist 
attack. It is vital that our laws keep us one step ahead of the 
terrorists, but currently, Madam Speaker, we lag behind.
  Right now, Federal law ties the hands of our intelligence community, 
causing them to miss significant portions of intelligence, all because 
technological advances have outpaced Federal law. We cannot wait to 
respond only after another attack. We must act today.
  Therefore, Madam Speaker, I will be calling on my colleagues to vote 
``no'' on the previous question. By defeating the previous question, we 
will give Members the ability to vote today on the merits of changing 
current law to ensure our intelligence community has the tools they 
need to protect our Nation from a potentially imminent terrorist 
attack.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, before I yield to the next speaker, I 
just want to make a couple of observations. I find it somewhat ironic 
that my Republican friends, on the one hand, complain about the size of 
the bill, the overall amount of money that has been put into this bill; 
and then they complain about the programs that haven't been funded 
enough on the other hand. You can't have it both ways. I guess there is 
no pleasing them.
  The other thing, too, is the vote on the previous question has 
nothing to do with the underlying bill. But I will remind my colleagues 
that in addition to the many good things that this bill does for rural 
America and for farmers and for feeding hungry people, there is a 
national security component to this bill as well. This bill contains 
money to help protect the American people from contaminated food that 
may cross our borders into our country. This is about food security. So 
this is a vital part of protecting the American people, and I don't 
think that should be lost.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my good friend, the distinguished 
gentleman from California (Mr. Cardoza), my colleague on the Rules 
Committee.
  Mr. CARDOZA. Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my friend from 
Massachusetts for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, as a subcommittee chairman on the House Agriculture 
Committee and as a member of the Rules Committee, I am pleased to rise 
in support of the Agriculture appropriations bill before us today.
  One of the reasons the farm bill that we just passed last week was so 
hard to put together was over the past years the Republican 
appropriators had repeatedly chipped millions and millions of dollars 
out of mandatory farm bill programs, specifically in the area of 
research, and research is an area that has been woefully inadequately 
funded in previous years. As a result, the rest of the world has been 
catching up, and we have been struggling to maintain our preeminence in 
agriculture in the last few years.
  We used to have a $30 billion trade surplus in agriculture, and now, 
like in everything else, we are falling behind and having that traded 
away. If we aren't careful, we are going to become a net importer of 
agriculture for the first time in the history of the United States. It 
is bad enough that countries like China, Japan and Saudi Arabia are 
already our bankers. We cannot afford to let them become our farmers, 
too.
  This bill represents a stark difference from the drastic cuts we have 
seen in recent years. Members of the Agriculture Committee and the 
Appropriations Committee were vigilant to ensure that we met the 
promises we made, especially in the areas of research, food safety and 
nutrition.
  I do have some concerns, however, about the horse slaughter 
transportation language contained in the bill which could have 
unintended consequences on the horse racing industry, an industry I 
have strongly supported since my time in the California legislature.

                              {time}  1230

  I am hearing from a lot of my constituents back home that have 
serious problems with the potential workability and practicality of 
some of that language. My good friend from California (Mr. Costa) and I 
are working with Mr. Chandler and Chairwoman DeLauro to correct this 
problem.
  Madam Speaker, this is a good bill. It follows through on our 
commitments, reinvests in rural America, improves nutrition for 
millions of Americans, and puts us on the right track by making sound 
investment in research, and will help us maintain our standing in the 
world as undisputed agricultural leaders.
  I also want to thank and say something about our wonderful 
chairwoman, Ms. DeLauro. Without her help, we would not have been able 
to write the farm bill we wrote last week. She is a tireless advocate 
for her concerns in specialty crops and farmers markets and nutrition 
and making sure that our young people eat nutritious food, and also 
food safety. With her leadership, we got the farm bill done. With the 
leadership of Collin Peterson, we got the farm bill done. And with the 
leadership of Speaker Pelosi, we were able to write a good farm bill 
for America.
  I want to thank the chairwoman and all those who helped. She has done 
an unbelievable job shepherding this bill through her committee and to 
the House floor. I thank her and congratulate her on meeting the needs 
of America's farmers.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 
minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Rogers), a member of the 
Intelligence Committee.
  Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Madam Speaker, I rise reluctantly today to 
point out something that I think is incredibly important. The ag work 
that you have all done is important, and agriculture is certainly an 
important part of our American economy. And our ability to feed 
ourselves is critical to our national security.
  But we also have another national security issue of which we cannot 
get the attention that it so deserves. After 9/11,

[[Page 21916]]

we put together these commissions, the 9/11 Commission, to say, Hey, 
what went wrong?
  We decided we would merge a whole department together and call it the 
Department of Homeland Security to best meet the needs and safety and 
security of the homeland. We did all of these things in preparation for 
what we knew was likely to occur, and that is certainly another attempt 
by terrorists to attack the United States of America.
  And one of the things that we did through all of that is said we have 
to give law enforcement, our intelligence services, every tool that we 
can find to make America safe, because we have asked a lot of them.
  We have said we want you to go to the most dangerous places in the 
world and find bad guys and stop terrorist plots against the homeland. 
We told our FBI to work long hours and weekends, spending a lot of time 
away from their families, to make sure that no terrorist plot is 
successful in the United States of America.
  But today, we allow more conversations between known terrorists 
overseas talking to known or unknown terrorists overseas to go unheard 
because of a quirk in the law. We have been asking day after day, week 
after week, month after month, please, for the safety and security of 
the United States of America, let's have the courage to fix this law so 
we can protect America.
  Right now and today, there is a terrorist conversation happening 
overseas that we are not allowing our law enforcement, our intelligence 
services, to monitor. Overseas, with non-United States citizens. I was 
an FBI agent for about 6 years, and I understand and appreciate the 
probable cause standard of which we engage to American citizens, and it 
is right that we do that. It is right that it is difficult to get a 
warrant to intercept their conversations because that is who we are in 
America and we should cherish it for our citizens.
  But to tell them that we expect them to stop terrorist attacks 
against America, and we allow all of these known conversations to go 
unlistened to at a time when we know that they are heightening up to do 
something is irresponsible, if not criminal.
  This is important what you talk about. This is more important. We 
should not leave this Chamber today, tomorrow, or at the end of the 
week without fixing this critical national security problem to the 
United States of America. It is wrong. We have soldiers in harm's way. 
We have intelligence officials in harm's way. We have domestic law 
enforcement in harm's way. Let's stand with them today, defeat this 
rule, fix this problem, and move on to the other important issues of 
the day. It is that important.
  And don't kid ourselves. We cannot kid ourselves, Madam Speaker. This 
is that serious. You know, when a very distinguished member of the 
Cabinet stands up and says ``I have a gut feeling,'' that is not a gut 
feeling. It is based on a whole series of pieces of information that 
doesn't say when or where or what, but it says something is happening. 
There is a ramp-up. There is lots of activity; there is lots of 
chatter. Something is going on, and yet we stand here blinded. We can't 
hear. We are not allowing them to see where the trouble is next 
brewing. It is wrong. We need to fix it.
  We should stand in unanimity today and defeat the previous question 
so that we can fix this problem and move on and keep America safe.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I am sorry my friends on the other side 
of the aisle don't seem to put a high priority on agriculture and on 
the need to support our farmers and the need to feed hungry people in 
this country.
  You want to talk about a national security challenge, there are 35 
million Americans in this country today who are either hungry or food 
insecure, in large part because of the Republican agenda to erode the 
safety net over the last several years.
  There is money in this bill for food safety and inspection, money to 
support the Food and Drug Administration so people don't get 
contaminated drugs.
  No, I am not going to yield to the gentleman.
  These are vital national security interests. And it is about time we 
get our priorities straight. We need to pass this bill, just as we 
needed to pass the farm bill to help fix the damage that they have done 
over the last several years. So enough is enough. This is an important 
bill. If you don't think it is an important bill, then vote down the 
rule. Defeat the rule so we don't debate issues like agriculture and 
food security and support for the hungry in this country.
  I would strongly urge my colleagues to vote for this rule.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. 
Welch).
  Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from 
Massachusetts for his extraordinary leadership, along with the Chair of 
the subcommittee, my colleague from Connecticut, for her lead on 
nutrition.
  We are in the process of changing priorities in this country. Today, 
the House will be taking up the 11th of 12 appropriation bills where we 
will continue the process of taking this country in a new direction.
  This agricultural appropriations bill makes a solid statement of 
confidence in the future of rural America, and it makes a solid 
statement of recognition about the diversity and vitality of our rural 
economy.
  Let me just mention a few things that highlight what this program is 
doing.
  Number one, a strong farm economy where we have our farmers being the 
custodian of our landscape requires conservation; $980 million is in 
this bill for conservation.
  Rural development is critical to our economy. Broadband, among other 
things, is a major investment in this bill, and we are treating the 
rural economy with broadband, much like we did with electricity. That 
has to be a full partner, not a second-class citizen when it comes to 
the development of the infrastructure that is essential to building our 
economy.
  A strong rural economy is based on a well-fed country, and that means 
prosperous farmers. There is a record $13.9 billion for school meal 
programs, $39.8 billion for food stamps, and $5.6 billion for the 
Women, Infant and Children program.
  There is also in this bill, as the gentleman from California has 
said, a major investment in nutritious food, vegetables and fruit. And 
I thank the gentleman from California for his leadership on that.
  This bill and this rule is going to take America forward. A strong 
rural economy is essential to America.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Madam Speaker, I am disappointed my friend from Massachusetts would 
not respond to my asking him to yield when he spoke just a moment ago, 
and I am not discounting at all how important the provisions in this 
agriculture bill, how important they are, notwithstanding some of the 
problems that I have.
  But this issue that we are talking about, the Foreign Intelligence 
Surveillance Act, or FISA, is very important and it is timely right 
now. Right now.
  Let me explain how this process works, because this does not slow 
down. And I shouldn't say it doesn't slow it down; it slows it down for 
one hour. Can't we take 1 hour to debate this issue?
  If the previous question is defeated, and I will call for it to be 
defeated on the floor. If it is defeated, then the rule will be amended 
to take up the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act amendments for one 
hour to debate up or down.
  This issue is very, very important and it is timely that it gets 
acted on before Congress leaves for the August district work period. So 
this does not slow down agriculture. It is not saying anything 
disparaging about agriculture.
  And, frankly, Madam Speaker, I should know. I live in an agriculture-
based economy. All of my neighbors are involved, in one way or the 
other, in agriculture. So I should know the importance of it.
  But I also know the importance of taking up this issue regarding FISA

[[Page 21917]]

and doing it right now, doing it this week, doing it today, by 
defeating the previous question.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I am proud to yield 7\1/2\ minutes to 
the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), the Chair of the 
subcommittee, who has done an incredible job putting this bill 
together, a bill which will help feed millions of people in this 
country and around the world.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his concern and 
his compassion and his indefatigable work on the issue of making sure 
that those in our Nation who are hungry are able to get the food that 
they need in order to be able to sustain themselves.
  I also want to say a thank-you to my colleague from California for 
his kind words and working with him on the farm bill.
  Madam Speaker, I look forward to debating this bill and discussing 
our priorities. We are going to cover a lot of ground today with a wide 
ranging portfolio to accomplish quite a lot.
  This appropriation covers many subjects. But what runs through every 
element of this bill is the common thread of our Nation assuming 
responsibility again for the things we are supposed to get right: 
keeping our country safe and healthy, preserving and strengthening our 
rural traditional communities, and thinking about problems that we have 
on the horizon, like energy, and not just thinking about today's 
problems.
  I want to say thank you to Chairman Obey for his leadership and to 
our ranking member, Congressman Kingston, a partner in this effort. I 
believe together we have crafted a strong and bipartisan, responsible 
bill.
  Our top priority has always been to move with a clear purpose in a 
direction towards several key goals: strengthening rural America; 
protecting public health; improving nutrition for more Americans; 
transforming our energy future; supporting conservation; investing in 
research; and finally, enhancing oversight.
  Our bill provides total discretionary resources of $18.8 billion, $1 
billion or 5.7 percent above 2007 and $987.4 million or 5.5 percent 
above the budget request. To be sure, a full 95 percent of the increase 
above the budget request, or $940 million, is used to restore funding 
that was either eliminated or cut in the President's budget, to 
acknowledge and to meet our obligation to hundreds of communities and 
millions of Americans.
  When it comes to strengthening rural America, our first goal, our 
efforts have been critical to try to facilitate growth and to soften 
the impact of population loss in rural America. This bill provides 
$23.1 million in grants to rural areas for critical community 
facilities such as health care, education, public safety, day-care 
facilities. It also provides increases in the community facility loan 
programs. It provides $10 million more than the President requested for 
distance learning telemedicine grants, and it includes $728.8 million 
to support community facilities, water and waste disposal systems, and 
business grants.
  We also make significant investments in rural housing: $212.2 million 
to fund $5.1 billion in affordable loans to provide housing to low-
income and moderate-income families in rural areas, providing 
approximately 38,000 single-family homeownership opportunities.
  On our second priority, protecting public health, the subcommittee 
stepped up from spinach and seafood to peanut butter and pet food. This 
has shown that our food safety system is dangerously inadequate and 
that we must transform the way we meet our obligation to protect the 
public health. So the bill provides $1.7 billion for the Food and Drug 
Administration, $128.5 million over 2007, $62 million over the budget 
request, and the first step in a fundamental transformation in the 
regulation of food safety at the FDA.

                              {time}  1245

  The bill directs the FDA to submit a plan to begin changing its 
approach to food safety when it submits the fiscal year 2009 budget, 
giving the committee time to review the plan before the funds to 
implement it become available on July 1, 2008.
  We can help with additional resources, but there's also a need to 
have a corresponding commitment from management to perform its duties.
  Funds are provided specifically to begin a critical transformation in 
food safety regulation, enhanced drug safety functions, review direct-
to-consumer ads and review generic drugs.
  Our next goal was improving nutrition, and I am proud of the progress 
we made on this issue. With the farm bill last week, this bill includes 
$39.8 billion for the Food Stamp program to meet increased 
participation and ensure rising food prices do not diminish families' 
purchasing power.
  The bill also provides record funding for two fundamental food 
security programs which our country's most vulnerable population: the 
Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children, the WIC 
program, and the Commodity Supplemental Food Program. These efforts go 
hand-in-hand with ongoing initiatives.
  $957.7 million for nutrition programs to confront our Nation's 
obesity, instilling better eating habits in our children, giving them 
the tools and choices to avoid diabetes and other dangerous health 
conditions.
  It includes record funding of $68.5 million for the expanded Food and 
Nutrition Education program; $26 million to expand the fresh fruit and 
vegetables and the Simplified Summer Food Program to all States; and 
$10 million for specialty crops, yes, for fruits and vegetables.
  And when it comes to other key objectives, transforming our energy 
future, supporting conservation and investing in research, we step up 
with this bill. This legislation strengthens bioenergy and renewable 
energy research $1.2 billion, including loans and grants in rural 
areas. It restores many of the conservation programs slated for 
elimination in the President's request, including grazing lands, 
conservation initiatives, the Wildlife Habitat Program, watershed 
rehabilitation; and provides $979.4 million to continue assistance to 
landowners for conservation efforts on private land.
  And yes, with regard to research, $178 million for cooperative State 
research education and extension service, and $108.9 million of that is 
for research and education. Overall, we have increased research.
  Finally, the bill is dedicated to enhanced oversight. We share the 
concern about fraud, waste and abuse, and we have key language in here 
which would allow the risk management agencies to use up to $11.2 
million in mandatory crop insurance funds to strengthen its ability to 
oversee the program by maintaining and upgrading IT systems and other 
methods of detecting dubious claims.
  I'm proud of the bill, its priorities and the goals that we set out 
to accomplish. I will continue to discuss some of the obligations of 
this bill later today, and the Congress has chosen to highlight and 
return to after many long years of inaction and silence. I'll continue 
to discuss and recognize the values and the priorities that my 
colleagues and I have sought to uphold, to strengthen and to honor with 
this bill.
  I urge my colleagues to support the rule.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5\1/
2\ minutes to the ranking member of the Ag appropriations committee, 
Mr. Kingston of Georgia.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and 
I thank the chairman pro tempore of the Rules Committee for an open 
rule on this. I think it is important, and we appreciate that.
  I certainly thank the chairman of the committee, Ms. DeLauro, for her 
hard work on it, and I have had a lot of input on it. We've had a lot 
of good debate on this bill. So it is my intention to support it, but I 
do have some concerns about the rules which I will address later, but I 
wanted to go over the bill a little bit.
  First of all, I wanted to get Members a little bit focused on the Ag 
overall picture. Number one, the whole bill is

[[Page 21918]]

about $100 billion. We're actually debating $18 billion. There's 
another $79 billion in what we call around here mandatory spending, 
which is not mandatory, by the way. It is just that we don't want to go 
back to the bottom line and start all over again. That's what the farm 
bill's going to do or whatever, but I just wanted to point out, it's 
real important that the ag programs are actually about one-third of the 
entire bill, that there's a lot of nonagriculture, nondirect farm 
programs.
  That's important because the rural community comes under such 
criticism that, well, why is the farm bill so big when less than 2 
percent of our population are farmers? Well, the reason is, of course 
they feed 100 percent of us and we all eat their product, which is 
food. I wanted to point that out and then show you this mandatory 
versus discretionary portion of the bill.
  The red portion we don't really debate; we don't control in the 
Appropriations Committee. That's what they do in the Ag Committee, and 
I don't think they did a very good job this particular year in all the 
parts of it because they didn't delve into some of this stuff.
  The discretionary portion, again, is $18 billion. It's above last 
year's, and it's about a 3.6 percent increase over last year, or 5.9 
percent. Because of that, it's going to be a veto target by the 
President. The Republican Party says the spending level is too high, 
and I think that we have to know that we can't pass this by a veto-
proof majority, and so perhaps if we went back to the drawing board 
here it would be good.
  The second point I want to make ties directly into this debate that's 
going on on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Now, this 
agriculture bill, should we pass it tonight or tomorrow, will go to the 
Senate, and it will sit, and unlike wine, it doesn't get better over 
time. It just sits, and what's going to happen, more and more people 
will delve in and more and more special interests will, and it will 
pile up with the rest of the appropriation bills.
  It's a little bit silly. In fact, we're maybe like the little lab 
rats going round and round in a circle in hopes of getting somewhere 
when we know doggone good and well all that's going to happen in the 
Senate is this thing is going to sit. And yet, because of that, because 
of our urgency to pass Agriculture, we're going to ignore the Foreign 
Intelligence Surveillance Act. And it doesn't make sense not to just 
stop a minute or an hour and get that done and then come back to 
Agriculture because it is not going to move.
  There's some concerns also that I wanted to bring out when it comes 
to the Food and Nutrition Service. Now, my friend Mr. McGovern has 
worked very hard on hunger, and he has a sincere passion for that, 
which is important. But the charge that we have underfunded hunger in 
the past years under Republican control is really not accurate at all.
  Here is the spending chart on food and nutrition programs since 2001, 
and as you can see, it goes up in a linear manner, and now under the 
Democrat rule it goes up about the same. There's not some huge deficit 
in hunger. In fact, I would say to you quite clearly, we spent more 
time talking about obesity than we did hunger, and I'm not saying 
hunger's not something that we all have a lot of concern about, but 
let's make no mistake. The spending on nutrition and food has gone up 
steadily under Republican control, as it has under Democrat control.
  I want to say also, I don't think increasing food stamps 
participation is an achievement that the U.S. Congress should be 
patting itself on the back. We should move to getting people 
independent, not more dependent on government largess. We need to work 
with people to get them independent. And so often our poverty brokers 
in this world have a perverse incentive to make sure people don't 
become independent, and I think we need to be mindful of that on any 
government program.
  The Chair has pointed out what we're doing on renewable energy, and 
that is something that we think the Ag can and should lead on with 
ethanol and biodiesel and cellulosic ethanol. We've taken great strides 
in this bill, and I am confident that we are going to have some great 
progress and great bragging rights on that.
  One other issue that we're going to get into later is this overgrab 
on the horse regulation that, if this bill passes in its current form, 
you will not be able to export your horse or import a horse. That's not 
the business of the Federal Government, at least not in a 
constitutional sense. I believe that a horse is private property and 
that you should have the right to sell your horse to folks in Canada 
and Mexico, if you so choose, or take it to a horse show over there. We 
will debate that later, and I thank the gentleman and I thank the 
Chair.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, let me just respond to the gentleman 
briefly by saying if the Republican Congress over the years has done 
such a good job in combating hunger and food insecurity in this 
country, why are there 35 million Americans that are categorized as 
hungry and food insecure?
  In response to the idea that we want more Americans to be 
``independent,'' we all want that. The bottom line is that Republican 
policies which took away indexing of food stamps back in 1996 has made 
it possible for many people not to be able to transition for food 
stamps.
  The fact of the matter is the majority of people who are on food 
stamps today are working families. They are trying to be independent. 
They're working hard, and yet because we have failed to index food 
stamps to keep up with the cost of living, we've all given ourselves 
pay raises here. So obviously we feel the cost of living does have an 
impact, but yet we haven't done it to the most vulnerable.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 
minutes to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt), a member of the 
Appropriations Committee.
  Mr. TIAHRT. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Washington.
  I rise in opposition to the rule and also to the underlying Ag bill 
for a couple of reasons. One is the current trend that we're seeing 
played out on the floor of the House. We saw it last week as we 
addressed the farm bill, and it seems like the bill that once was 
designed to make sure that we had a low-cost, stable food supply is 
moving money out of the rural areas and being hijacked into the urban 
areas.
  And you look at the pie chart of the total funding of the Ag 
appropriation that was used earlier, you can see that 35 percent of 
this pie chart is the agricultural side of the programs and 60 percent, 
almost two-thirds, is the domestic food assistance. Now, nobody thinks 
it's bad to feed people who are having a tough time, and we must be 
doing a very good job of it because the number one problem for people 
in poverty today is obesity. Maybe we're giving them the wrong foods. 
We should go back to the basic foods that we present them, but this big 
shift in funding is accentuated in the current farm bill that was 
passed last week.
  The farm commodity portion in the bill that we passed last week is 
only 14 percent of total spending, and if you look at how it's been 
reduced in this Ag appropriations bill, it's a continuation of movement 
from helping the rural areas, moving it into the urban areas. And I 
think that's a reflection that only 2 percent of our population are 
farmers in America today.
  In small States like the ones that I represent, in Kansas with only 3 
million people, we only have four Representatives. And when we try to 
fight for rural development and for rural agricultural programs, we 
hope that we can keep our economy strong in those rural areas. But we 
also want to make sure that the benefits that were designed to keep a 
low-cost, stable food supply don't get hijacked and sent to the urban 
areas. This is something that I believe has developed just over this 
last year.
  In the past, just a short story, how we have given farmers more 
opportunity in the past, now that has changed in Ag policy. Opportunity 
is dwindling for farmers.

[[Page 21919]]

  In 1996, we had four farmers in Kansas who raised cotton. The farm 
bill then, the Freedom to Farm Act, allowed farmers to expand their 
product lines. Now we have over 50,000 acres of cotton in Kansas. We 
have a dozen cotton gins. We expanded their financial base a lot by 
giving them more opportunity.
  Under the current plan, which is exhibited here with the shifting of 
emphasis to the urban areas, we're taking a lot of the opportunity away 
from the farmers and giving them less opportunity, while more 
opportunity is going to the urban areas.
  So I'm opposed to this bill. I'm opposed to the rule because I don't 
think it gives us an opportunity to turn this trend around. I don't 
think it gives us an opportunity to get the assistance where we need it 
in the rural areas so we can develop the infrastructure necessary to 
build a strong economy to allow the agriculture to grow for the future 
so we have a low-cost, stable food supply well into the future.

                              {time}  1300

  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, just in brief response to the gentleman, 
this is an open rule. He can amend this any way he wants to. We hear 
complaints from the other side that they want more openness. This is as 
open as you can get.
  So I don't know why he would have a problem with the rule. Obviously 
we have different priorities in the underlying bill, but he can amend 
this any way he wants. That's what an open rule allows him to do.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlelady from 
Connecticut to counter some of the arguments that were just made.
  Ms. DeLAURO. I just want to let the gentleman from Kansas understand 
about feeding programs in the United States, and I will get a copy for 
you, send it over to you, something called the Carsey report that just 
came about a week, a week and a half ago, which talks about 40 percent, 
40 percent of children in rural America are dependent on food stamps.
  This bill has gone a great distance to address the issues of rural 
America, including the farm issues of trying to link what is produced 
on the land with those who are in need of food, trying to deal with an 
opportunity to create a more stable economy in rural America when the 
President's budget, in fact, has left rural America pretty much 
decimated; $940 million of this bill and this increase has been placed 
to restore the programs mainly in rural America that the administration 
had either cut back or eliminated.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt).
  Mr. TIAHRT. I would like to thank the gentleman from Washington, and 
I would like to respond to the gentlelady from Connecticut. It is true, 
the Carsey report is true that 40 percent of rural America does rely on 
food stamps. The problem is, there is a lot of poverty there because we 
have not done the right thing on building infrastructure in the rural 
areas.
  It's the shift from this low-cost stable food supply we have had in 
the past and the help we had to build that infrastructure. The finances 
are now shifting to the urban areas because we have so many urban 
Members of Congress. The Democrat leadership has been allowing that to 
happen.
  It's true there are $940 million put in this bill for the rural 
areas, but it's an $18 billion bill. It has $18 billion; $940 million 
of it is not a very big chunk of that.
  I just think that we are seeing a bad trend here in America. The 
Democrat leadership is allowing this trend to continue where resources 
are being shifted out of the rural areas, because there are a high 
number of urban Members of Congress, and they are leaving farmers 
vulnerable who are trying to keep this low-cost stable food supply 
available, and trying to keep the agricultural exports growing.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance 
of my time.
  The House of Representatives is expected to adjourn later this week 
for the August district work period. This district work period gives 
Members the opportunity to leave this humid area in Washington D.C. to 
work in their respective districts and listen to what is on the minds 
of the people that we all represent. Congressional ratings are at an 
all-time low, and I feel that is in part due to the fact that Congress 
is failing to address pressing issues.
  I am asking my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question, as 
I mentioned earlier. Voting ``no'' will not delay the consideration of 
the Agricultural, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration 
appropriations bill.
  Let me qualify that. It will delay it for 1 hour. It will, however, 
give Members the opportunity to vote on the merits of updating current 
law so that our intelligence community has the tools it needs to 
monitor the telephone conversations of foreign terrorists physically 
located in foreign countries. Let me repeat that, foreign terrorists in 
foreign countries.
  I hope that the Democrat majority will not stall any longer in 
allowing the House to vote on this very vital issue. Each minute we 
wait to act, our Intelligence Committee could be missing vital 
information, therefore increasing our risk of another attack on U.S. 
soil.
  Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the 
amendment and extraneous material prior to the vote on the previous 
question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Washington?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance 
of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, let me just say I am disappointed with 
my colleague from Washington and others who have come to the floor to 
try to bring back an oldy but goody that the Republicans like to 
invoke, and that is the politics of fear. Maybe Karl Rove went down to 
the Republican National Committee and briefed them and said everything 
else is failing for the Republicans, they are at an all-time low in the 
public opinion poll, so trot out the politics of fear again and scare 
the American people.
  Well, the fact of the matter is, as the gentleman knows, the 
administration, the Bush administration, and the Speaker's Office are 
in negotiations on trying to reach an accommodation on this FISA issue. 
If you don't believe me, it was in Congressional Quarterly. What 
Congressional Quarterly also stated was that the Republicans in the 
House, however, were trying to drag their feet.
  If you don't want to join in the deliberation, that's your problem. 
We will work something out, hopefully with the administration, and 
bring this issue to closure.
  But let me say one other thing why we need to be very, very careful 
on this. We need to be very, very careful about giving even more broad 
unchecked authority to Alberto Gonzales and his crew. Quite frankly, I 
wouldn't trust the Attorney General to tell me the correct time, never 
mind stand up and defend the civil liberties of anybody. That's why 
Democrats are continuing to work with the White House to get a tough, 
smart FISA bill to put together, and I expect that we will do that. 
What the gentleman and others are going to decide to do right now is 
plain politics.
  Back to the main subject here, which is the farm bill. This is a good 
bill for farmers. This is a good bill for people who are vulnerable, 
who have been shortchanged by the administration in the Republican 
Congresses when it comes to food security. This is a good bill for 
America.
  I congratulate the distinguished gentlelady from Connecticut for 
working together so hard to put together a bill we can be proud of. 
Vote ``yes'' on the previous question, and vote ``yes'' on the rule.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Washington is 
as follows:

     Amendment to H. Res. 581 Offered by Mr. Hastings of Washington

       At the end of the resolution, add the following:

[[Page 21920]]

       Sec. 3. That immediately upon the adoption of this 
     resolution the House shall, without intervention of any point 
     of order, consider the bill (H.R. 3138) to amend the Foreign 
     Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 to update the 
     definition of electronic surveillance. All points of order 
     against the bill are waived. The bill shall be considered as 
     read. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on 
     the bill to final passage without intervening motion except: 
     (1) one hour of debate on the bill equally divided and 
     controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
     Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence; and (2) one 
     motion to recommit.
                                  ____

       (The information contained herein was provided by 
     Democratic Minority on multiple occasions throughout the 
     109th Congress.)

        The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

       This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous 
     question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote. 
     A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote 
     against the Democratic majority agenda and a vote to allow 
     the opposition, at least for the moment, to offer an 
     alternative plan. It is a vote about what the House should be 
     debating.
       Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of 
     Representatives, (VI, 308-311) describes the vote on the 
     previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or 
     control the consideration of the subject before the House 
     being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous 
     question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the 
     subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling 
     of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the 
     House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes 
     the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to 
     offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the 
     majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated 
     the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to 
     a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to 
     recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said: 
     ``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman 
     from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to 
     yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first 
     recognition.''
       Because the vote today may look bad for the Democratic 
     majority they will say ``the vote on the previous question is 
     simply a vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on 
     adopting the resolution . . . . . [and] has no substantive 
     legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' But that is 
     not what they have always said. Listen to the definition of 
     the previous question used in the Floor Procedures Manual 
     published by the Rules Committee in the 109th Congress, (page 
     56). Here's how the Rules Committee described the rule using 
     information form Congressional Quarterly's ``American 
     Congressional Dictionary'': ``If the previous question is 
     defeated, control of debate shifts to the leading opposition 
     member (usually the minority Floor Manager) who then manages 
     an hour of debate and may offer a germane amendment to the 
     pending business.''
       Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of Representatives, 
     the subchapter titled ``Amending Special Rules'' states: ``a 
     refusal to order the previous question on such a rule [a 
     special rule reported from the Committee on Rules] opens the 
     resolution to amendment and further debate.'' (Chapter 21, 
     section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: Upon rejection of the 
     motion for the previous question on a resolution reported 
     from the Committee on Rules, control shifts to the Member 
     leading the opposition to the previous question, who may 
     offer a proper amendment or motion and who controls the time 
     for debate thereon.''
       Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does 
     have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only 
     available tools for those who oppose the Democratic 
     majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the 
     opportunity to offer an alternative Plan.

  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and 
I move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas 
and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

                          ____________________