Dave Obey

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I take this time simply to talk about something that has not at all been addressed today. I want to talk about something I intended to talk about but have been precluded from doing so under the rule. Rural Members will already know what I am talking about, but I really would ask urban Members to listen for a moment to understand what it is I am going to say. We are debating an agriculture appropriation bill which can provide some help to rural communities. But, in fact, we are operating under the handicap of national farm policy. We have, I believe, for a number of administrations, the previous two and this one, which are essentially anti-rural and which are driving farmers to the wall. And I want to bring to the attention of my colleagues what I think is a very important study done by an Oklahoma University scientist. I have an article here by a reporter by the name of Joel Dyer called ``Harvest of Rage: How the Rural Crisis Fuels the Anti-Government Movement.'' I would just like to talk with my colleagues for a moment about some of the points that are raised by this article. This article points out that suicide is by far the leading cause of death on American family farms and that those suicides are a direct result of economic distress. This article points out a number of things, as follows: It says, for instance, ``Many debt-ridden farm families will become more suspicious of government as their self-worth, their sense of belonging, their hope for the future deteriorate. These families are torn by divorce, domestic violence, and alcoholism. There is a loss of relationship of these communities to the State and the Federal Government. We have communities that are made up now of collectively depressed individuals, and the symptoms of that community depression are similar to what you would find in someone that has a long-term chronic depression.'' The article then goes on to point out that ``The United States has lost more than 700,000 small to medium-sized family farms since 1980 and that this loss is a greater crisis than was even the Great Depression, if you live in rural America.'' It then goes on to say, ``By the tens of thousands, some of these same farmers are being recruited by the antigovernment militia movement. Some are being enlisted by the Freeman and Christian identity groups that compromise the most violent components of this revolution in the heartland.'' It then goes on to say, ``The main cause for the growth of these violent and anti-government groups is economic, and the best example of this is the farm crisis. Men and women who were once the backbone of our culture have declared war on the government, which they blame for their pain and suffering, and not without some cause.'' Then the article goes on and says the following: ``Losing a farm does not happen overnight. It can often take 4 to 6 years. By the end, these families are victims of chronic long-term stress. Once a person is to that point, there are only a few things they can do.'' It then goes on to point out the following: ``To lose a farm is to lose part of one's own identity. There is probably no other occupation that has the potential for defining one's self so completely. Those who have gone through the loss of a family farm compare their grief to a death in the family, one of the hardest experiences in life.'' And then it goes on to say that ``Because of those economic stresses, it is no wonder that many in rural America are falling prey to some of the outlandish theories of some of these anti-government groups.'' I simply take the time in quoting a few paragraphs from this story, which I am going to insert in the Record in full, to ask Members, especially from urban areas, to understand that we have an incredible crisis in rural America which is not just affecting farmers, it is affecting whole communities, it is affecting a whole way of life. And, with all due respect to the leadership of both parties, if we do not adopt a farm policy which is substantially different than that being followed by any of the past three administrations, we run the risk of seeing this despair grow deeper, we run the risk of seeing this despair in turn create even more potential for violence. And I do not think any of us on either side of the aisle want to see that happen. I would simply ask that after this bill is passed, my colleagues understand that until far greater changes are made in American farm programs, we will be complicit in the growth of these anti-government and sometimes violent movements in America. I urge us to recognize the need to do everything we can to turn that trend in the other direction. Harvest of Rage (By Joel Dyer) It's two in the morning when the telephone rings waking Oklahoma City psychologist Glen Wallace. The farmer on the other end of the line has been drinking and is holding a loaded gun to his head. The distressed man tells Wallace that his farm is to be sold at auction within a few days. He goes on to explain that he can't bear the shame he has brought to his family and that the only way out is to kill himself. Within hours Wallace is at the farm. This time the farmer agrees to go into counseling; this time no one dies. Unfortunately, that's not always the case. Wallace has handled hundreds of these calls through AG-LINK, a farm crisis hotline, and many times the suicide attempts are successful. According to Mona Lee Brock, another former AG- LINK counselor, therapists in Oklahoma alone make more than 150 on-site suicide interventions with farmers each year. And Oklahoma has only the third highest number of farm suicides in the nation, trailing both Montana and Wisconsin. A study conducted in 1989 at Oklahoma State University determined suicide is by far the leading cause of death on America's family farms, and that they are the direct result of economic stress. As heartwrenching as those statistics are, they also are related to a much broader issue. Those who have watched the previously strong family farm communities wither have seen radical, anti-government groups and militias step in all across the country, and especially in the Midwest. As far back as 1989, Wallace--then director of Rural Mental Health for Oklahoma--was beginning to see the birth pangs of today's heartland revolt. In his testimony before a U.S. congressional committee examining rural development, Wallace warned that farm-dependent rural areas were falling under a ``community psychosis:'' ``Many debt-ridden farm families will become more suspicious of government, as their self-worth, their sense of belonging, their hope for the future deteriorates. . . . These families are torn by divorce, domestic violence, alcoholism. There is a loss of relationships of these communities to the state and federal government. ``We have communities that are made up now of collectively depressed individuals, and the symptoms of that community depression are similar to what you would find in someone that has a long term chronic depression.'' Wallace went on to tell the committee that if the rural economic system remained fragile, which it has, the community depression could turn into a decade's long social and cultural psychosis, which he described as ``delayed stress syndrome.'' In 1989, Wallace could only guess how this community psychosis would eventually express itself. He believes this transition is now a reality. ``We knew the anti-government backlash was just around the corner, but we didn't know exactly what form it would take. You can't treat human beings in a society the way farmers have been treated without them organizing and fighting back. It was just a matter of time.'' the rural sickness ``I don't even know if I should say this,'' says Wallace regarding the explosion that destroyed the Alfred P. Murrah building killing 168 people, ``but the minute that bomb went off, I suspected it as because of the farm crisis. These people (farmers) have suffered so much.'' Wallace, who has spent much of his professional life counseling depressed farmers, could only hope he was wrong. The United States has lost more than 700,000 small- to medium-size family farms since 1980. For the 2 percent of America that makes its living from the land, this loss is a crisis that surpasses even the Great Depression. For the other 98 percent--those who gauge the health of the farm industry by the amount of food on our supermarket shelves-- the farm crisis is a vaguely remembered headline from the last decade. But not for long. The farms are gone, yet the farmers remain. They've been transformed into a harvest of rage, fueled by the grief of their loss and blown by the winds of conspiracy and hate-filled rhetoric. By the tens of thousands they are being recruited by the anti-government militia movement. Some are being enlisted by the Freemen and Christian Identity groups that comprise the most violent components of this revolution of the heartland. Detractors of these violent groups such as Morris Dees of the Southern Poverty Law Center blame them for everything from the Oklahoma City bombing to the formation of militia organizations to influencing Pat Buchanan's rhetoric. They may be right. But, the real question remains unanswered. Why has a religious and political ideology that has existed in sparse numbers since the 1940s, suddenly--within the last 15 years-- become the driving force in the rapidly growing anti- government movement which Dees estimates has five million participants ranging from tax protesters to armed militia members? The main cause for the growth of these violent anti- government groups is economic, and the best example of this is the farm crisis. What was for two decades a war of economic policy has become a war of guns and bombs and arson. At the center of this storm is the ``Justice'' movement, a radical vigilante court system, a spin-off of central Wisconsin's Posse Commitatus system of the 1980s, and which will likely affect all our lives on some level in the future. It may have touched us already in the form of the Oklahoma City bombing. Freeman/Identity common-law courts are being convened in back rooms all across America, and sentences are being delivered. Trials are being held on subjects ranging from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms' handling of Waco to a person's sexual preference or race. And the sentences are all the same--death. We may never prove the Oklahoma City bombing was the result of a secret common-law court, but we can show it was the result of some kind of sickness, a ``madness'' in the rural parts of our nation. Unless we move quickly to address the economic problems which spawned this ``madness,'' we are likely entering the most violent time on American soil since the Civil War. Men and women who were once the backbone of our culture have declared war on the government they blame for their pain and suffering--and not without some cause. the economics of hate The 1989 rural study showed that farmers took their own lives five times more often than they were killed by equipment accidents which, until the study, were considered to be the leading cause of death. ``These figures are probably very conservative,'' says Pat Lewis who directed the research. ``We've been provided with information from counselors and mental health workers that suggests that many of the accidental deaths are, in reality, suicides.'' Wallace, who was one of those mental health workers, agrees. ``The known suicides are just a drop in the bucket. We have farmers crawling into their equipment and being killed so their families can collect insurance money and pay off the farm debt. They're dying in order to stop a foreclosure.'' This economic stress has been caused by 20 years of government refusal to enforce the anti-trust laws which once protected the small farmer. Now, with only six to eight multi-national corporations controlling the American food supply, farmers and ranchers have no choice but to sell their products to these monopolies, often for less than their production costs. In 1917, wheat was $2.14 a bushel. In the last five years prices have dipped as low as $2.17 a bushel, yet costs are a hundred times higher now than then. As if monopolies weren't enough of a problem, the federal government is allowed to increase the interest rates on its loans to troubled farmers to ridiculous figures, sometimes reaching more than 15 percent. And, as many bitter farmers will tell you, the only reason many of these loans exist is that the government's Farm Home Administration (FMHA) agents sought farmers out in the 70s encouraging them to take out loans. The government agents told them that the value of their farms was inflating faster than the current interest rates and that to turn down a loan was a poor business decision. During this time, FMHA lenders received bonuses and trips based on how much money they lent. But when land values tumbled in the 80s, the notes were called and the farms foreclosed. Ironically, bonuses are now awarded based on an agent's ability to clean up the books by foreclosing on bad loans. In Oklahoma, the government is foreclosing on Josh Powers, a farmer who took out a $98,000 loan at 8 percent in 1969. That same loan today has an interest rate of 15 percent-- almost twice as high as when the note was first issued. The angry farmer claims that he's paid back more than $150,000 against the loan, yet he still owes $53,000 on the note. Says Powers, ``They'll spend millions to get me, a little guy, off the land--while Neil Bush just walks away from the savings and loan scandal.'' The 1987 Farm Bill allowed for loans such as this to be ``written down,'' allowing farmers to bring their debt load back in line with the diminished value of their farm. The purpose of the bill was to keep financially strapped farmers on the land. But in a rarely equaled display of government bungling, this debt forgiveness process was left to the whims of county bureaucrats with little or no banking experience. As Wallace points out, ``Imagine the frustration when a small farmer sees the buddy or family member of one of these county agents getting a $5 million write-down at the same time the agent is foreclosing on them (the small farmer) for a measly $20,000. It happens all the time. When these little farmers complain, they're given this telephone number in Washington. It's become a big joke in farm country. I've even tried to call it for years. You get this recording and nobody ever calls you back. ``These farmers are literally at the mercy of these county bureaucrats and some of them are just horrible people . . . We've had to intervene several times to keep farmers from killing them.'' Most Americans are unaware that the farm crisis isn't over. According to counselor Brock, things are as bad now for the family farmer as they were in the 80s. She notes that recent USDA figures that show the economic health of farms improving are, in fact, skewed by the inclusion of large farming cooperatives and corporate farms. Brock also says that ``state hotlines are busier than ever as the small family farmer is being pushed off the land.'' According to Wallace thousands of people have died as a result of the farm crisis, but not just from suicides. The psychologist says the number of men and women who have died of heart attacks and other illnesses--directly as a result of stress brought on by foreclosure--dwarfs the suicide numbers. These deaths are often viewed as murder in farm country. This spring, I went to western Oklahoma and met with a group of farmers who have become involved in the Freeman/ Identity movement. This meeting demonstrated not only their belief that the government is to blame for their loss, but also the politics that evolve from that belief. ``They murdered her,'' says Sam Conners (not his real name) referring to the government. The room goes silent as the gray haired 60-year-old stares out the window of his soon-to-be- foreclosed farmhouse. In his left hand he holds a photograph of his wife who died of a heart attack in 1990. ``She fought 'em as long as she could,'' he continues, ``but she finally gave out. Even when she was lying there is a coma and I was visiting her every day--bringing my nine-year-old boy to see his mamma everyday--they wouldn't cut me no slack. All they cared about was getting me off my land so they could take it. But I tell you now, I'm never gonna' give up. They'll have to carry me off feet first and they probably will.'' The other men in the room sit quietly as they listen to Conners' story, their eyes alternating between their dirty work boots and the angry farmer. The conversation comes to a sudden halt with a ``click'' from a nearby tape recorder. Conners looks clumsy as he tries to change the small tape in the micro-cassette recorder. His thick earth-stained fingers seem poorly designed for the delicate task. ``I apologize for recording you,'' he says to this reporter. ``We just have to be careful.'' With their low-tech safeguard back in place, one of the other men begins to speak. Tim, a California farmer who looks to be in his early 30's, describes his plight: another farm, another foreclosure, more anti-government sentiment. Only this time, the story is filled with the unmistakable religious overtones of the Christian Identity movement; one world government, Satan's Jewish bankers, the federal reserve, a fabricated Holocaust, a coming holy war. ``This kind of injustice is going on all over the country,'' says Tim. ``It's what happened to the folks in Montana (referring to the Freemen) and it's what happened to me. That's why LeRoy (Schweltzer, the leader of the Justus Township Freeman) was arrested. He was teaching people how to keep their farms and ranches. He was showing them that the government isn't constitutional. They foreclose on us so they can control the food supply. What they want to do is control the Christians.'' The Mind of the Farmer Losing a farm doesn't happen overnight. It can often take four to six years from the time a farm family first gets into financial trouble. By the end, says Wallace, these families are victims of chronic long term stress. ``Once a person is to that point,'' he explains, ``there are only a few things that can happen. ``There are basically four escape hatches for chronic long term stress. One, a person seeks help--usually through a church or the medical community. Two, they can't take the pain and they commit suicide. They hurt themselves. Three, they become psychotic. They lose touch with reality. They basically go crazy. And last, they become psychotic and turn their anger outward. They decide that since they hurt, they're going to make others hurt. These are the people that wind up threatening or even killing their lenders of FMHA agents. They're also the ones that are most susceptible to a violent anti-government message.'' Unfortunately, psychotic personalities looking for support can find it in the wrong places. ``Any group,'' says Wallace, ``can fill the need for support. Not just good ones. Identity, militias or any anti-government group can come along and fill that role. Add their influence to a personality that is already violent towards others and you have an extremely dangerous individual.'' No one knows how many members of the 700,000 farm families who have already lost their land or the additional hundreds of thousands that are still holding on to their farms under extreme duress have fallen prey to this violet psychosis, but those who have watched this situation develop agree the number is growing. Wallace says that most people don't understand the mind set of farmers. ``They ask, why don't farmers just get a new job or why does losing a farm cause someone to kill themselves or someone else?'' Another rural psychologist, Val Farmer, has written often on this subject. In an article in the Iowa Farmer Today, he explained why farm loss affects its victims so powerfully. ``To lose a farm is to lose part of one's own identity. There is probably no other occupation that has the potential for defining one's self so completely. Those who have gone through the loss of a family farm compare their grief to a death in the family, one of the hardest experiences in life. ``Like some deaths, the loss may have been preventable. If a farmer blames himself, the reaction is guilt. Guilt can stem from a violation of family trust. By failing to keep the farm in the family, he loses that for which others had sacrificed greatly. The loss of the farm also affects the loss of the opportunity to pass on the farm to a child. Guilt can also arise from failing to anticipate the conditions that eventually placed the farm at risk: government policy, trade policies, world economy, prices, weather. ``On the other hand, if the loss is perceived to have been caused by the actions and negligence of others, then the farmer is racked with feelings of anger, bitterness and betrayal. This feeling extends to lenders, government, the urban public or the specific actions of a particular individual or institution.'' ``The stress intensifies with each new setback: failure to cash flow, inability to meet obligations, loan refusal, foreclosure notices, court appearances and farm auctions.'' Farmer concludes that ``these people start grasping at straws--anything to stave off the inevitable.'' Preying on the Sick Wallace agrees with Farmer and believes the anti-government message is one such straw. ``When you reach the point where you're willing to kill yourself, anything sounds good. When these groups come along and tell a farmer that it's not his fault, it's the government's fault or the bank's fault, they're more than ready to listen. These groups are preying on sick individuals.'' It's no wonder that groups like the Freemen, We the People and Christian Identity have found such enthusiastic support. They preach a message of hope for desperate men and women. The Freemen offer their converts a chance to save the farm through a quagmire of constitutional loopholes and their complicated interpretations of the Uniform Commercial Code. Their legal voodoo may seem nuts to a suburban dweller, but to a desperate farmer they offer a last hope to hang on to the land their grandfather homesteaded, a trust they intended to pass on to their children. And just how crazy their rhetoric is remains to be seen. Not all in the legal community scoff at the Freemen's claims. Famed attorney Gerry Spence--who represented Randy Weaver, a survivor of Ruby Ridge--has stated that at least some of their interpretations of constitutional law are accurate. It will be years before the court system manages to sort out the truth from the myth, and only then provided it desires to scrutinize itself--something it historically has shown little stomach for. Organizers of We the People told farmers they could receive windfalls of $20 million or more from the federal government. They explained to their audiences--which sometimes reached more than 500--that they had won a Supreme Court judgment against the feds for allowing the country to go off the gold standard. They claimed that for a $300 filing fee the desperate farmers could share in the riches. The media has repeatedly described the exploits of Freeman/ We the People members: millions in hot checks, false liens, refusal to leave land that has been foreclosed by the bank and sold at auction and plans to kidnap and possibly kill judges. Members of the press, including the alternative press, have commented on the fact that what all these people seem to have in common is that they are unwilling to pay their bills. The Daily Oklahoman quoted an official describing these anti-government groups as saying, ``We are talking about people who are trying to legitimize being deadbeats and thugs by denying their responsibilities.'' But that analysis is at best partially true and at worst dead wrong. What most of these radical anti-government people have in common--and what most government officials refuse to acknowledge--is that they were, first and foremost, unable to pay their bills. It was only after being unable to pay that they took up the notion of being unwilling to pay. These farmers are the canaries in the coal mine of America's economy. They are in effect monitoring the fallout from the ever widening ``gap'' between the classes. The canaries are dying and that bodes poorly for the rest of us in the mine. Both Farmer and Wallace agree that, as a rule, farmers have an extremely strong and perhaps unhealthy sense of morality when it comes to paying their bills. They suffer from deep humiliation and shame when they can't fulfill their financial obligations. Wallace says, ``It's only natural that they would embrace an ideology that comes along and says they are not only not bad for failing to pay their debts but rather are morally and politically correct to not pay their debts. It's a message that provides instant relief from the guilt that's making them sick.'' In much the same way, only more dangerous, Christian Identity offers a way out for stressed farm families. Identity teaches that Whites and native Americans are God's chosen people and that Jews are the seed of Satan. Identity believers see a conspiracy of ``Satan's army of Jews'' taking control of banks, governments, media and most major corporations and destroying the family farm in order to control the food supply. They believe that we are at the beginning of a holy war where Identity followers must battle these international forces of evil and establish a new and ``just'' government based on the principles of the Bible's Old Testament as they interpret it. They become a soldier in a holy war under orders to not give up their land or money to the Jewish enemy. and justice for some The renegade legal system known as the ``Justice'' movement is now estimated to be in more than 40 states. It seems to have as many variations as the fractional anti-government movement that created it. Some mainstream Patriots hold common-law courts at venues where the press and those accused of crimes are invited to attend. Sentences from these publicly held trials usually result in lawsuits, arrest warrants, judgments and liens being filed against public officials. In Colorado, Attorney General Gail Norton has been just one of the targets of these courts. She's had millions of dollars worth of bogus liens filed against her. Across the nation, thousands of public officials including governors, judges, county commissioners and legislatures have been the targets of this new ``paper terrorism.'' In most cases they are found guilty of cavorting with the enemy: the federal government. Ironically, arresting those involved in this mainstream common law court revolution isn't easy. It's not because they can't be found; it's because they may not be doing anything illegal. Last month, Richard Wintory, the chief deputy of the Oklahoma attorney general's office, told the Daily Oklahoman that he could not say whether common-law court organizers had broken any laws. The debate as to whether or not citizens have a constitutional right to convene grand juries and hold public trials will eventually be resolved. It's only one of the fascinating legal issues being raised by the heartland revolt. But there is a darker side to this vigilante court system, one that deals out death sentences in its quest to deliver justice and create a new and holy government. In his book Gathering Storm, Dees describes Identity this way: ``There is nothing `goody, goody' or `tender' about Identity. It is a religion, a form of Christianity, that few churchgoers would recognize as that of Jesus, son of a loving God. It is a religion on steroids. It is a religion whose god commands the death of race traitors, homosexuals, and other so-called children of Satan.'' It is for this reason that the common law courts convened by those groups influenced by the Identity belief system are by far the most dangerous. Death sentences can be doled out for almost any conceivable transgression. In the remote western Oklahoma farmhouse, Freeman/Identity farmers discussed the Justice movement. One man who had recently lost his farm to foreclosure explained their court system. ``What you're seeing right now is just the beginning of taking back our country, the true Israel. The Bible says that we're to be a just people. Where is justice in this country? Our judges turn loose rapists and murderers and put farmers in jail. We're about justice. Why would anyone be afraid of that? ``We're holding courts right now in every part of this land. We're finding people guilty and we're keeping records so we can carry out the sentences. It's the citizen's duty and right to hold common law courts. It's the militia's job to carry out the sentences.'' The farmer goes on to explain that Identity doesn't believe in prisons. He says that nearly all serious offenses are dealt with by capital punishment and that this punishment system is based on the Bible, the first 10 amendments to the Constitution and the Magna Carta. When asked how these death sentences would be carried out, he says, ``There's a part of the militia that's getting ready to start working on that (death sentences). I think they're ready to go now. You'll start seeing it soon.'' Perhaps we already have. Was the Oklahoma City bombing only the largest and most recent example? When asked, the men in the room state emphatically that they have no first hand knowledge of the bombing--even though some of them were questioned by the FBI within days of the deadly explosion. They say they don't condone it because so many innocent people died. But they agree that it may well have been the result of a secret court sentence. The court could have found the ATF guilty for any number of actions--including Waco and Ruby Ridge--and the militia foot soldiers, in this case McVeigh and Nichols, may have simply followed orders to carry out the sentence. Whatever the case in Oklahoma City, it seems likely that this new and radical system of vigilante justice can't help but produce similar catastrophes. The process that gave us that bomb was likely the result of the same stress-induced illness that is tearing our country apart one pipe bomb or burned-down church at a time. Comprehending and healing that illness is our only hope for creating a future free of more bombs, more death and destruction.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee rise and report the bill back to the House with the recommendation that the enacting clause be stricken.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask, what are the rules of the House in terms of distributing literature at the door which absolutely, totally misdescribes and libels the amendment that was just offered by me? There is a sheet that was distributed which says ``Vote no on the Obey amendment to kill crop insurance''. It does absolutely no such thing. This House has a rule against that kind of misinformation. I would like to know what the rule is.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Ms. DeLauro].

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Colorado [Ms. DeGette].

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, the first thing I would like to do is to congratulate the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf] and the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Sabo] for again bringing a bill to the floor which is absolutely bipartisan. I think the gentleman from Virginia has demonstrated a great degree of fairness. He has tried to deal very openly with virtually every difference in judgment that we have had between the various parties and individuals on this bill. I think it again demonstrates that within the Committee on Appropriations we are having a lot of success in producing bipartisan legislation. Unfortunately, that legislation often then winds up being blown up because of actions of the Committee on Rules which turn a bipartisan product into a partisan fight on the House floor. I am happy to say that that has not occurred on this bill. I want to congratulate both the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Sabo] and the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf] for the fair way in which they have proceeded. I would also like to simply take note of a couple of local projects which are important to my region of the country. I am particularly pleased that the bill finally requires that the Coast Guard move forward on a replacement for the Mackinaw icebreaker on the Great Lakes. The Mackinaw is some 53 years old. It is going to cost a great deal to refurbish. For slightly more than the cost of refurbishing, a new icebreaker can be purchased which will last a whole lot longer, and I appreciate very much the fact that the committee has provided the $2 million to facilitate final decision-making by the Coast Guard on this issue. It is important to the economy of the region, not just Minnesota and Wisconsin, which the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Oberstar] and I represent, which is why we pushed this item, but to a number of other States as well, including Michigan, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and New York. I would also like to take note that the bill does include $970,000 within the FAA budget to continue the testing and evaluation of new infrared heating technology for deicing commercial aircraft. That technology promises to have very good environmental benefits, and it may be a more cost-effective way to deice airplanes than the existing chemical deicing methods. The additional testing will take place at the Rhinelander-Oneida Airport in Wisconsin, to demonstrate the utility of new technology in an operational environment using commercial aircraft. I again appreciate the fact that the subcommittee on its merits supported the proposal. Mr. Chairman, I do not think that there is going to be a lot of controversy on this bill. There are some differences. As the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Sabo] has already indicated, we have substantial concerns about the underfunding for Amtrak. I hope that can be addressed as we move towards conference, but I expect to see a good number of votes for this bill on our side of the aisle as well as the majority side of the aisle. It is good to see in the midst of all that has happened in the last week that at least on this bill, bipartisan comity has for the moment survived intact.

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, since last Friday, this House has been in a virtual stall on appropriations, and a lot of Members in both parties are asking why. I want to take this opportunity to try to explain why I think that is happening. On the Committee on Appropriations on each of these bills except one, we have worked out a very effective bipartisan working relationship where we may have had very strong differences of opinion on all of those bills, but with the exception of the legislative appropriation bill, we have had tremendous bipartisan cooperation and goodwill. The problem is that when those bills have moved out of the Committee on Appropriations, they have then gone to the Committee on Rules, and the Committee on Rules has imposed a partisan straightjacket on the debate for those bills, and it has in the process turned those bipartisan products into partisan war zones. Now I greatly regret that, but what has happened is that, first of all, the Committee on Rules has systematically attached nongermane amendments to be offered by Republican Members of the House, and at the same time they have systematically then denied alternatives to those amendments when the request was made to put those amendments in order by the Democratic managers of each of those bills. It happened first to the gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms. Kaptur], then it happened to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Yates], then it happened to the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi]. Now that unfairness has been recognized on the majority side of the aisle. We have had two Appropriations subcommittee chairs who have told me personally that they prefer to go to the floor with an open rule rather than going to the Committee on Rules because they, in their words, ``did not want the Committee on Rules to screw up bipartisan bills.'' And we have in the case of the Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, Export Financing and Related Programs, for instance, we have had an excellent bipartisan bill produced. We have had the Chair of that foreign operations subcommittee perfectly willing to take a bill to the floor without a rule to avoid the attachment of extremely divisive, nongermane authorization language to that bill, and he has been supported in that effort by those of us on this side of the aisle. So there have been no differences in working relationships between members of the committee. But because the Committee on Rules has imposed a partisan grip on these bipartisan bills, we have been engaged in a protest to try to get the Committee on Rules to change its mind. Now instead of responding to that in the way that a majority party has responsibility to respond, by trying to work out those differences, what has happened instead is that the majority leader has evidently chosen to impose an even more draconian rule on this bill. As a result, the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Meehan] will be able to debate a major tobacco amendment for exactly 5 minutes. The gentlewoman from Oregon [Ms. Furse], who has a legitimate amendment, would not be allowed to offer the amendment at all. And the committee will even be precluded from the traditional ability of any Member of this House to strike spending items in the bill. That is so out of line that the Taxpayers for Common Sense oppose the passage of this rule, as I understand it. Now there is not much we, the minority, can do to persuade those in the Committee on Rules and in the majority party leadership to reconsider this rule. What I would say to each and every rank-and-file Member on both sides of the aisle is that all we are asking is that the Committee on Rules respect the bipartisan work which has been done, night and day, by virtually every subcommittee on the Appropriations Committee. Let us work our way through to common ground. That is what is being prevented by the actions of the Committee on Rules. I deeply regret it, because it turns this House into a needlessly partisan battle zone. We all have an obligation to our parties to define differences. But after those differences are defined, we also have an obligation to try to overcome those differences and find a resolution on behalf of all the taxpayers we represent. In my humble judgment, the Committee on Rules is continuing to get in the way of that obligation and that process. Until it ceases to do that, we will have this needless dragging out of the process, which does neither party any good and certainly does not serve the interest of taxpayers.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that there is an effort being made or that there is an intention on the part of the chairman of the Committee on Rules to offer an amendment to the rule accommodating the amendment that the gentleman from Ohio was seeking and that there will be a rollcall on that issue followed by an effort on the part of the chairman of the committee to offer a unanimous consent request to allow the Wynn amendment to be made in order. Could I ask, what is the proper method by which the gentleman can explain that to the House so Members know what they are voting on and we might be permitted to ask a couple questions of him about that?

Mr. OBEY. 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.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield for a question?

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask that question so that the Members might understand what is about to transpire. Is it correct that the gentleman is offering this amendment, that this amendment will be subjected to a rollcall vote, and that after the vote on that amendment, the gentleman from New York, or the bill manager, I am not sure which, will then offer a unanimous-consent request to also place in order the Wynn amendment? Could I ask if that is the understanding of the gentleman from New York? I do not know if there is general concurrence in that or not.

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, many of us are concerned about some of the anti-government and anti-social attitudes that are developing in some rural communities. It is important to understand that one of the contributing factors in this unhealthy development is the economic squeeze that is being placed on many hard-working farmers throughout the country. Recently an article appeared in one of my hometown newspapers, City Pages, which brings into sharp focus the psychological emotional pressures that are fed by the cruel way that farmers have been dealt with in national farm policy over the past decade or more. One does not have to agree with every point in the article to recognize that this analysis is attempting to bring to our attention some profound truths about the damage that is being done to rural America by those policies. I urge every American who cares about justice and cares about the future social stability of the country to heed the concerns brought to light so forcefully in the article. Harvest of Rage how the rural crisis fuels antigovernment movement (By Joel Dyer) It's two in the morning when the telephone rings waking Oklahoma City psychologist Glen Wallace. The farmer on the other end of the line has been drinking and is holding a loaded gun to his head. The distressed man tells Wallace that his farm is to be sold at auction within a few days. He goes on to explain that he can't bear the shame he has brought to his family and that the only way out is to kill himself. Within hours Wallace is at the farm. This time the farmer agrees to go into counseling; this time no one dies. Unfortunately, that's not always the case. Wallace has handled hundreds of these calls through AG-LINK, a farm crisis hotline, and many times the suicide attempts are successful. According to Mona Lee Brock, another former AG- LINK counselor, therapists in Oklahoma alone make more than 150 on-site suicide interventions with farmers each year. And Oklahoma has only the third highest number of farm suicides in the nation, trailing both Montana and Wisconsin. A study conducted in 1989 at Oklahoma State University determined suicide is by far the leading cause of death on America's family farms, and that they are the direct result of economic stress. As heartwrenching as those statistics are, they also are related to a much broader issue. Those who have watched the previously strong family farm communities wither have seen radical, anti-government groups and militas step in all across the country, and especially in the Midwest. As far back as 1989, Wallace--then director of Rural Mental Health for Oklahoma--was beginning to see the birth pangs of today's heartland revolt. In his testimony before a U.S. congressional committee examining rural development, Wallace warned that farm-dependent rural areas were falling under a ``community psychosis:'' ``Many debt-ridden farm families will become more suspicious of government, as their self-worth, their sense of belonging, their hope for the future deteriorates. . . These families are torn by divorce, domestic violence, alcoholism. There is a loss of relationships of these communities to the state and federal government. ``We have communities that are made up now of collectively depressed individuals, and the symptoms of that community depression are similar to what you would find in someone that has a long term chronic depression.'' Wallace went on to tell the committee that if the rural economic system remained fragile, which it has, the community depression could turn into a decade's long social and cultural psychosis, which he described as ``stress syndrome.'' In 1989, Wallace could only guess how this community psychosis would eventually express itself. He believes this transition is now a reality. ``We knew the anti-government backlash was just around the corner, but we didn't know exactly what form it would take. You can't treat human beings in a society the way farmers have been treated without them organizing and fighting back. It was just a matter of time.'' The Rural Sickness ``I don't even know if I should say this,'' says Wallace regarding the explosion that destroyed the Alfred P. Murrah building killing 168 people, ``but the minute that bomb went off, I suspected it was because of the farm crisis. These people (farmers) have suffered so much.'' Wallace, who has spend much of his professional life counseling depressed farmers, could only hope he was wrong. The United States has lost more than 700,000 small- to medium-size family farms since 1980. For the 2 percent of America that makes its living from the land, this loss is a crisis that surpasses even the Great Depression. For the other 98 percent--those who gauge the health of the farm industry by the amount of food on our supermarket shelves-- the farm crisis is a vaguely remembered headline from the last decade. But not for long. The farms are gone, yet the farmers remain. They've been transformed into a harvest of rage, fueled by the grief of their loss and blown by the winds of conspiracy and hate-filled rhetoric. By the tens of thousands they are being recruited by the anti-government militia movement. Some are being enlisted by the Freemen and Christian Identity groups that comprise the most violent components of this revolution of the heartland. Detractors of these violent groups such as Morris Dees of the Southern Poverty Law Center blame them for everything from the Oklahoma City bombing to the formation of militia organizations to influencing Pat Buchanan's rhetoric. They may be right. But the real question remains unanswered. Why has a religious and political ideology that has existed in sparse numbers since the 1940s, suddenly--within the last 15 years-- become the driving force in the rapidly growing anti- government movement which Dees estimates has five million participants ranging from tax protesters to armed militia members? The main cause for the growth of these violent anti- government groups is economic, and the best example of this is the farm crisis. What was for two decades a war of economic policy has become a war of guns and bombs and arson. At the center of this storm is the ``justice'' movement, a radical vigilante court system, a spin-off of central Wisconsin's Posse Commitatus system of the 1980s, which will likely affect all our lives on some level in the future. It may have touched us already in the form of the Oklahoma City bombing. Freemen/Identity common-law courts are being convened in back rooms all across America, and sentences are being delivered. Trials are being held on subjects ranging from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms' handling of Waco to a person's sexual preference or race. And the sentences are all the same--death. We may never prove the Oklahoma City bombing was the result of a secret common-law court, but we can show it was the result of some kind of sickness, a ``madness'' in the rural parts of our nation. Unless we move quickly to address the economic problems which spawned this ``madness'' we are likely entering the most violent time on American soil since the Civil War. Men and women who were once the backbone of our culture have declared war on the government they blame for their pain and suffering--and not without some cause. The Economics of Hate The 1989 rural study showed that farmers took their own lives five times more often than they were killed by equipment accidents which, until the study, were considered to be the leading cause of death. ``These figures are probably very conservative,'' says Pat Lewis who directed the research. ``We've been provided with information from counselors and mental health workers that suggests that many of the accidental deaths are in reality, suicides.'' * * * * * In Oklahoma, the government is foreclosing on Josh Powers, a farmer who took out a $98,000 loan at 8 percent in 1969. That same loan today has an interest rate of 15 percent-- almost twice as high as when the note was first issued. The angry farmer claims that he's paid back more than $150,000 against the loan, yet he still owes $53,000 on the note. Says Powers, ``They'll spend millions to get me, a little guy, off the land--while Neil Bush just walks away from the savings and loan scandal.'' The 1987 Farm Bill allowed for loans such as this to be ``written down,'' allowing farmers to bring their debt load back in line with the diminished value of their farm. The purpose of the bill was to keep financially strapped farmers on the land. But in a rarely equaled display of government bungling, this debt forgiveness process was left to the whims of county bureaucrats with little or no banking experience. As Wallace points out, ``Imagine the frustration when a small farmer sees the buddy or family member of one of these county agents getting a $5 million write-down at the same time the agent is foreclosing on them (the small farmer) for a measly $20,000. It happens all the time. When these little farmers complain, they're given this telephone number in Washington. It's become a big joke in farm country, I've even tried to call it for years. You get this recording and nobody ever calls you back. ``These farmers are literally at the mercy of these county bureaucrats and some of them are just horrible people . . . We've had to intervene several times to keep farmers from killing them.'' Most Americans are unaware that the farm crisis isn't over. According to counselor Brock, things are as bad now for the family farmer as they were in the 80s. She notes that recent USDA figures that show the economic health of farms improving are, in fact, skewed by the inclusion of large farming cooperatives and corporate farms. Brock also says that ``state hotlines are busier than ever as the small family farmer is being pushed off the land.'' According to Wallace thousands of people have died as a result of the farm crisis, but not just from suicides. The psychologist says the number of men and women who have died of heart attacks and other illnesses--directly as a result of stress brought on by foreclosure--dwarfs the suicide numbers. These deaths are often viewed as murder in farm country. This spring, I went to western Oklahoma and met with a group fo farmers who have become involved in the Freeman/ Identity movement. This meeting demonstrated not only their belief that the government is to blame for their loss, but also the politics that evolve from that belief. ``They murdered her,'' says Sam Conners (not his real name) referring to the government. The room goes silent as the gray haired 60-year-old stares out the window of his soon-to-be- foreclosed farmhouse. In his left hand he holds a photograph of his wife who died of a heart attack in 1990. ``She fought 'em as long as she could,'' he continues, ``but she finally gave out. Even when she was lying there in a coma and I was visiting her every day--bringing my nine-year-old boy to see his momma everyday--they wouldn't cut me no slack. All they cared about was getting me off my land so they could take it. But I tell you now, I'm never gonna' give up. They'll have to carry me off feet first and they probably will.'' The other men in the room all quietly as they listen to Conners' story, their eyes alternating between their dirty work boots and the angry farmer. The conversation comes to a sudden halt with a ``click'' from a nearby tape recorder. Conners looks clumsy as he tries to change the small tape in the micro-cassette recorder. His thick earth-stained fingers seem poorly designed for the delicate task. ``I apologize for recording you,'' he says to this reporter. ``We just have to be careful.'' With their low-tech safeguard back in place, one of the other men begins to speak. Tim, a California farmer who looks to be in his early 30s, describes his plight: another farm, another foreclosure, more anti-government sentiment. Only this time, the story is filled with the unmistakable religious overtones of the Christian Identity movement; one world government, Satan's Jewish bankers, the federal reserve, a fabricated Holocaust, a coming holy war. ``This kind of injustice is going on all over the country,'' says Tim. ``It's what happened to the folks in Montana (referring to the Freemen) and it's what happened to me. That's why LeRoy (Schweltzer, the leader of the Justus Township Freeman) was arrested. He was teaching people how to keep their farms and ranches. He was showing them that the government isn't constitutional. They foreclose on us so they can control the food supply. What they want to do is control the Christians. The Mind of the Farmer Losing a farm doesn't happen overnight. It can often take four to six years from the time a farm family first gets into financial trouble. By the end, says Wallace, these families are victims of chronic long term stress. ``Once a person is to that point,'' he explains, ``there are only a few things that can happen.'' ``There are basically four escape hatches for chronic long term stress. One, a person seeks help--usually through a church or the medical community. Two, they can't take the pain and they commit suicide. They hurt themselves. Three, they become psychotic. They lose touch with reality. They basically go crazy. And last, they become psychotic and turn their anger outward. They decide that since they hurt, they're going to make others hurt. These are the people that wind up threatening or even killing their lenders or FMHA agents. They're also the ones that are most susceptible to a violent anti-government message.'' Unfortunately, psychotic personalities looking for support can find it in the wrong places. ``Any group,'' says Wallace, ``can fill the need for support. Not just good ones. Identity, militias or any anti-governmental group can come along and fill that role. Add their influence to a personality that is already violent towards others and you have an extremely dangerous individual.'' No one knows how many members of the 700,000 farm families who have already lost their land or the additional hundreds of thousands that are still holding on to their farms under extreme duress have fallen prey to this violent psychosis, but those who have watched this situation develop agree the number is growing. Wallace says that most people don't understand the mindset of farmers. ``They ask, why don't farmers just get a new job or why does losing a farm cause someone to kill themselves or someone else?'' Another rural psychologist, Val Farmer, has written often on this subject. In an article in the Iowa Farmer Today, he explained why farm loss affects its victims so powerfully. ``To lose a farm is to lose part of one's own identity. There is probably no other occupation that has affects its victims so powerfully. ``To lose a farm is to lose part of one's own identity. There is probably no other occupation that has the potential for defining one's self so completely. Those who have gone through the loss of a family farm compare their grief to a death in the family, one of the hardest experiences in life. ``Like some deaths, the loss may have been preventable. If a farmer blames himself, the reaction is guilt. Guilt can stem from a violation of family trust. By failing to keep the farm in the family, he loses that for which others had sacrificed greatly. The loss of the farm also affects the loss of the opportunity to pass on the farm to a child. Guilt can also arise from failing to anticipate the conditions that eventually placed the farm at risk; government policy, trade policies, world economy, prices, weather. ``On the other hand, if the loss is perceived to have been caused by the actions and negligence of others, then the farmer is racked with feelings of anger, bitterness and betrayal. This feeling extends to lenders, government, the urban public or the specific actions of a particular individual or institution.'' ``The stress intensifies with each new setback; failure to cash flow, inability to meet obligations, loan refusal, foreclosure notices, court appearances and farm auctions.'' Farmer concludes that ``these people start grasping at straws--anything to slave off the inevitable.'' Preying on the Sick Wallace agrees with Farmer and believes the anti-government message is one such straw. ``When you reach the point where you're willing to kill yourself, anything sounds good. When these groups come along and tell a farmer that it's not his fault, it's the government's fault or the bank's fault, they're more than ready to listen. These groups are preying on sick individuals.'' It's no wonder that groups like the Freemen, We the People and Christian Identity have found such enthusiastic support. They preach a message of hope for desperate men and women. The Freemen offer their converts a chance to save the farm through a quagmire of constitutional loopholes and their complicated interpretations of the Uniform Commercial Code. Their legal voodoo may seem nuts to a suburban dweller, but to a desperate farmer they offer a last hope to hang on to the land their grandfather homesteaded, a trust they intended to pass on to their children. And just how crazy their rhetoric is remains to be seen. Not all in the legal community scoff at the Freemen's claim, famed attorney Getty Spence--who represented Randy Weaver, a survivor of Ruby Ridge--has stated that at least some of their interpretations of constitutional law are accurate. It will be years before the court system manages to sort out the truth from the myth, and only then provided it desires to scrutinize itself--something it historically has shown little stomach for. Organizers of We the People told farmers they could receive windfalls of $20 million or more from the federal government. They explained to their audiences--which sometimes reached more than 500--that they had won a Supreme Court judgment against the feds for allowing the country to go off the gold standard. They claimed that for a $300 filing fee the desperate farmers could share in the riches. The media has repeatedly described the exploits of Freeman/ We the People members: millions in hot checks, false liens, refusal to leave land that has been foreclosed by the bank and sold at auction and plans to kidnap and possibly kill judges. Members of the press, including the alternative press, have commented on the fact that what all these people seem to have in common is that they are unwilling to pay their bills. The Daily Oklahoman quoted an official describing these anti-government groups as saying: ``We are talking about people who are trying to legitimize being deadbeats and thugs by denying their responsibilities.'' But that analysis is at best partially true and at worst dead wrong. What most of these radical anti-government people have in common--and what most government officials refuse to acknowledge--is that they were, first and foremost, unable to pay their bills. It was only after being unable to pay that they took up the notion of being unwilling to pay. These farmers are the canaries in the coal mine of America's economy. They are in effect monitoring the fallout from the ever widening ``gap'' between the classes. The canaries are dying and that bodes poorly for the rest of us in the mine. Both Farmer and Wallace agree that, as a rule, farmers have an extremely strong and perhaps unhealthy sense of morality when it comes to paying their bills. They suffer from deep humiliation and shame when they can't fulfill their financial obligations. Wallace says, ``It's only natural that they would embrace an ideology that comes along and says they are not only not bad for failing to pay their debts but rather are morally and politically correct to not pay their debts. It's a message that provides instant relief from the guilt that's making them sick.'' In much the same way, only more dangerous, Christian Identity offers a way out for stressed farm families. Identity teaches that Whites and native Americans are God's chosen people and that Jews are the seed of Satan. Identity believers see a conspiracy of ``Satan's army of Jews'' taking control of banks, governments, media and most major corporations and destroying the family farm in order to control the food supply. They believe that we are at the beginning of a holy war where identity followers must battle these international forces of evil and establish a new and ``just'' government based on the principles of the Bible's Old Testament as they interpret it. They become a soldier in a holy war under orders to not give up their land or money to the Jewish enemy. And Justice for Some The renegade legal system known as the ``Justice'' movement is now estimated to be in more than 40 states. It seems to have as many variations as the fractional anti-government movement that created it. Some mainstream Patriots hold common-law courts at venues where the press and those accused of crimes are invited to attend. Sentences from these publicly held trials usually result in lawsuits, arrest warrants, judgments and liens being filed against public officials. In Colorado, Attorney Gail Norton has been just one of the targets of these courts. She's had millions of dollars worth of bogus liens filed against her. Across the nation, thousands of public officials including governors, judges, county commissioners and legislatures have been the targets of this new ``paper terrorism.'' In most cases they are found guilty of cavorting with the enemy: the federal government. Ironically, arresting those involved in this mainstream common law court revolution isn't easy. It's not because they can't be found; it's because they may not be doing anything illegal. Last month, Richard Wintory, the chief deputy of the Oklahoma attorney general's office, told the Daily Oklahoman that he could not say whether common-law court organizers had broken any laws. The debate as to whether or not citizens have a constitutional right to convene grand juries and hold public trials will eventually be resolved. It's only one of the fascinating legal issues being raised by the heartland revolt. But there is a darker side to this vigilante court system, one that deals out death sentences in its quest to deliver justice and create a new and holy government. In his book Gathering Storm, Dees describes Identity this way: ``There is nothing `goody, goody' to `tender' bout Identity. It is a religion, a form of Christianity, that few churchgoers would recognize as that of Jesus, son of a loving God. It is a religion on steroids. It is a religion whose god commands the death of race traitors, homosexuals, and other so-called children of Satan.'' It is for this reason that the common law courts convened by those groups influenced by the Identity belief system are by far the most dangerous. Death sentences can be doled out for almost any conceivable transgression. In the remote western Oklahoma farmhouse, Freeman/Identity farmers discussed the Justice movement. One man who had recently lost his farm to foreclosure explained their court system. ``What you're seeing right now is just the beginning of taking back our country, the true Israel. The Bible says that we're to be a just people. Where is justice in this country? Our judges turn loose rapists and murderers and put farmers in jail. We're about justice. Why would anyone be afraid of that? ``We're holding courts right now in every part of this land. We're finding people guilty and we're keeping records so we can carry out the sentences. It's the citizen's duty and right to hold common law courts. It's the militia's job to carry out the sentences.'' The farmer goes on to explain that Identity doesn't believe in prisons. He says that nearly all serious offenses are dealt with by capital punishment and that this punishment system is based on the Bible, the first 10 amendments to the Constitution and the Magna Carta. When asked how these death sentences would be carried out, he says, ``There's a part of the militia that's getting ready to start working on that (death sentences). I think they're ready to go now. You'll start seeing it soon.'' Perhaps we already have. Was the Oklahoma City bombing only the largest and most recent example? When asked, the men in the room state emphatically that they have no first hand knowledge of the bombing--even though some of them were questioned by the FBI within days of the deadly explosion. They say the don't condone it because so many innocent people died. But they agree that it may well have been the result of a secret court sentence. The court could have found the AFT guilty for any number of actions--including Waco and Ruby Ridge--and the militia foot soldiers, in this case McVeigh and Nichols, may have simply followed orders to carry out the sentence. Whatever the case in Oklahoma City, it seems likely that this new and radical system of vigilante justice can't help but produce similar catastrophes. The process that gave us that bomb was likely the result of the same stress-induced illness that is tearing our country apart one pipe bomb or burned-downed church at a time. Comprehending and healing that illness is our only hope for creating a future free of more bombs, more death and destruction.

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. OBEY. If the gentlewoman will yield, with all due respect, I think we have the proper amendment before us. The gentleman is suggesting that he would add what?

Mr. OBEY. Where does the money come from?

Mr. OBEY. I understand the gentlewoman's would, but where is he suggesting?

Mr. OBEY. I do not think that is the proper way to do business.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Tierney] for yielding. I simply want to say that I find a couple of the last statements bordering on jokes. Just because one repeats a mistake 50 times does not make it a fact. And the fact is that this does not do anything to cut crop insurance. It cuts crop insurance commissions. Now when they passed a freedom to farm act, I would say to our friends on the other side of the aisle, they did not pass a freedom to milk the farmers act. And neither did they pass a bill that allowed salesmen to milk the taxpayers. What we are trying to do is to simply meet our primary responsibility to farmers to see to it that programs which we have on the books for their assistance are defensible so that demagogs do not rip them up. And the fact is that when insurance agents are going around charging skyboxes at baseball and football stadiums to the taxpayer, that discredits the entire program. And that kind of nonsense has to stop, and that is what we are attempting to do. It so happens to be that the USDA and the OMB, the Office of Management and Budget, and the Agriculture Department both agree with the Obey amendment because they know that in the long run nothing protects farmers more than protecting the integrity of programs that are supposed to serve farmers. When we have insurance agents ripping this program off, it does not do diddly for farmers, despite the propaganda mantra that is being repeated this evening, and it certainly does not do diddly for the taxpayers. If my colleagues are on the side of farmers and not on the side of women and infants and children who need WIC funding, they support this amendment; they do not listen to the propaganda of the insurance agents who are ripping off the country in this case.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I object.

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I would simply like to take this time to correct the impression left by the previous speaker, the gentleman from New York, about what happened on the House floor tonight. The fact is, the votes on suspensions which occurred tonight, to which the gentleman from New York objected, occurred at the insistence of the majority party, not at our insistence. In fact, we suggested five different propositions which would have enabled the Republican leadership of this House to close debate on measures in an orderly manner and at a reasonable hour tonight, and all five of those suggestions were rejected by the majority party leadership. We, in fact, specifically asked and our party leadership specifically asked that the majority party consider not having the votes on suspension until tomorrow, and that was also turned down by the majority party leadership. So lest the gentleman from New York be under the impression that this protracted session tonight occurred at the wish of the minority party in the House, that is specifically not the case. My staff tried. The staff of the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Gephardt] tried. The staff of the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Bonior] tried suggestions which would have avoided this meaningless extension of debate tonight. All of them were turned down by the majority party leadership. I regret the chaos which has afflicted the House on the latter part of this day. It seems to be simply an extension of the chaos which is occurring within the majority party caucus. I would note that I find it strange indeed that the Committee on Appropriations seems to be able to do its work in committee on an almost totally bipartisan basis on bill after bill after bill. But then when those bills come to the House floor, they are in fact first taken to the Committee on Rules and the Committee on Rules establishes a set of rules under which the bills can be debated which systematically denies to the minority member who has the responsibility for carrying the bill the right to participate in any meaningful way in the debate on the House floor. As the gentlewoman from California said the other night in discussing this, almost without exception the amendments that were allowed the minority party by the Committee on Rules on appropriation bill after appropriation bill are only those amendments which everyone understands will lose. Any time there appears to be an amendment that we want to offer that has a chance of winning, the Committee on Rules rules it out. That is what has caused the problems around here. I would suggest if you want the House to work, the majority party and the Committee on Rules needs to work out the same kind of working relationship with the minority that we have been able to work out on the Committee on Appropriations between the majority and minority. We manage within our committee to get our work done. And then every time it is frustrated by the overt and undue partisanship that permeates the way the Committee on Rules handles its business. That is the reason why I was told by a member of the majority party in the Committee on Appropriations that the reason the agriculture appropriation subcommittee came to the floor without a rule was to avoid the chaos in the Committee on Rules. I would suggest we have a fundamental problem with the leadership of the majority party in this House which is apparently in chaos. That chaos is spilling over into an incredible exhibition of arrogance on the part of the majority party in the Committee on Rules. Until that chaos is eliminated, until that arrogance is eliminated, we are not going to be able to proceed apparently in any orderly fashion to deal with the House's business. I regret that, but that is in fact the case. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms. Kaptur].