Adam Putnam

Mr. PUTNAM

Mr. PUTNAM. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1748) to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 805 Glen Burnie Road in Richmond, Virginia, as the ``Tom Bliley Post Office Building''.

Mr. PUTNAM. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished and learned gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble).

Mr. PUTNAM. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from the Commonwealth of Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis).

Mr. PUTNAM. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor), the sponsor of this bill.

Mr. PUTNAM. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, H.R. 1748, introduced by the distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor), a member of the freshman class, designates the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 850 Glen Burnie Road in Richmond, Virginia, as the Tom Bliley Post Office Building. Members of the entire House delegation from the Commonwealth of Virginia are cosponsors of this legislation. Madam Speaker, Tom Bliley began his political career in 1968 when he was elected to the Richmond City Council and served as vice-mayor. In 1970 he was elected mayor and served in that capacity until 1977. He returned to the family funeral home business until he announced his candidacy for Congress in 1980. He began his service in this Congress on the Committee on Commerce and would eventually become chairman after the historic 1994 elections. He worked with his colleagues on both sides of the aisle to enact major reforms of key industries, including telecommunications, banking, securities, the Internet, and satellite industries. I think that he would regard the Telecommunications Act of 1996 as his greatest accomplishment. Madam Speaker, I urge adoption of H.R. 1748. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PUTNAM. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 1748.

Mr. PUTNAM. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, it is clear that the gentleman from Mississippi, Mr. Bliley, whom we honor today, has earned the respect of his colleagues on both sides of the aisle and is highly deserving of this honor. Therefore, Madam Speaker, I urge adoption of this measure.

Mr. PUTNAM

Mr. PUTNAM. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. We have no further speakers on this side. It is clear that Mr. Davis again enjoys broad support and respect from both sides of the aisle, and we appreciate the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak) bringing his accomplishments to the attention of the House. Madam Speaker, I urge adoption of this measure. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PUTNAM. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Government Reform.

Mr. PUTNAM. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, H.R. 2577, introduced by our distinguished colleague, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak), designates the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 310 South State Street in St. Ignace, Michigan, as the Bob Davis Post Office Building. Members of the entire House delegation from the State of Michigan are cosponsors of this legislation. Madam Speaker, Bob Davis served in the House of Representatives for 14 years, from 1979 to 1993. He was a member of the House Committee on Armed Services and was also ranking member of the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries. Among his final acts was sponsorship of the law that created the Calumet Historic Park on Michigan's Keweenaw Peninsula. Madam Speaker, I urge adoption of H.R. 2577. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PUTNAM. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2577) to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 310 South State Street in St. Ignace, Michigan, as the ``Bob Davis Post Office Building.''

Mr. PUTNAM. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on the bill under consideration.

Mr. PUTNAM

Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, distinguished colleagues, today is President Ronald Reagan's 91st birthday. Please join me in wishing Mrs. Reagan the very best today and expressing to her, and the President, the gratitude of freedom-loving peoples everywhere for his service to our Nation and the cause of liberty. On September 1, 1976, Ronald Reagan delivered a radio address entitled ``Shaping the World for 100 Years to Come.'' In this brief address the future President defined the challenges that lay before the American people as a choice between individual freedom or state control of our very lives. At that time in the life of our country it wasn't at all clear that the American people would continue to choose the path of individual freedom, with all its perils and responsibilities, over the comforts of a paternalistic government. It seemed that as government grew, individual liberty shrank. As taxes grew, personal initiative was discouraged and the entrepreneurial American spirit was being stifled by a government that no longer seemed to be of the people, by the people and for the people. Just as he called Americans to take charge of their individual destinies that day Ronald Reagan also spoke of the international challenges facing our country, in particular the horrible threat of nuclear war. He reflected on the beauty of the world he knew and challenged the Americans of 1976 to avoid a nuclear Armageddon, and still pass on to future generations a world of beauty, peace, prosperity, and the ultimate in personal freedom. In 1976 Ronald Reagan saw that America, and Americans, were faced with several historic choices. We could choose the hard road of individual liberty and personal freedom, or we could choose the easy road of government paternalism. We could choose the clear road of Mutually Assured Nuclear Destruction or we could choose the unclear path of fighting--and defeating--our enemies on the economic and cultural battlefield. In 1980 Americans made their choice, and elected Ronald Reagan the 40th President of the United States. Today, all Americans, and indeed freedom-loving people throughout the world, reap the benefits of that choice. President Reagan led the American people down the hard road of reducing the growth of the Federal Government and renewed our commitment to individual liberty and entrepreneurship. Through Ronald Reagan's resolve and inspiration we fought and defeated one of history's greatest threats to the sanctity of the individual human spirit not on a world-destroying nuclear battlefield, but on the economic and cultural battlefield. Today, we stand one quarter of the way into the 100-year future that Ronald Reagan looked into in 1976. The challenges before us are new, but no less daunting than they were in 1976. The sanctity of the individual human spirit is again under attack by people who made a human and cultural wasteland of one country and would do the same to the entire world if they acquired the means. As we go forward in our war on terrorism let us pause for a moment today and thank Ronald Reagan for ensuring that America took the hard path of freedom and responsibility. Let us remember that our greatest and most effective weapons are not always the military might that President Reagan so staunchly advocated, but the entrepreneurship and economic power of the individual that he so vigorously defended. And let us renew our commitment to keep America ``the shining city on a hill'' that provided Ronald Reagan with inspiration throughout his life and provides all mankind with a beacon of hope and freedom. May God Bless President and Mrs. Reagan and May God Bless America.

Mr. PUTNAM

Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support the Asian Elephant Conservation Act, H.R. 700. This important measure will help protect the future of the Asian elephant by supporting and providing resources to conservation programs around the world. The Center for Elephant Conservation, located in my congressional district in Polk County, Florida, is dedicated to the conservation, breeding, and scientific study of Asian elephants. The Center for Elephant Conservation, sponsored through private funding from Ringling Brothers, is a global focal point for the worldwide study of the Asian elephant. Knowledge developed at the conservation center is shared with veterinary scientists dedicated to the preservation of the Asian elephant around the world. With fewer than 50,000 Asian elephants left internationally, the animal has been placed on the Endangered Species Act. The captive breeding program at the Elephant Conservation Center, however, is one of the most successful in the world, with over 12 elephant births in the last decade and is dedicated to the care and husbandry of elephants. The Asian Elephant Conservation Reauthorization Act would enable critical conservation efforts to continue to protect endangered species for future generations. Since 1997 when the bill was first authorized, over 27 conservation grants, matched in private funding, have been designated in nine different countries for the protection of the Asian elephant. The Act, which extends authorization to 2007, will continue to help preserve the future of the Asian elephant by supporting programs for the promotion of elephant conservation, resettlement of elephants, education on population dynamics and feeding patterns and other important elephant conservation programs. Please join me in support of the Asian Elephant Conservation Reauthorization Act and help to preserve the future of the Asian elephant.

Mr. PUTNAM

Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, in the 2 months since September 11, Americans have discovered that the age of heroes is not past. We have rediscovered that heroes do not live in movies or on the pages of novels, but in the everyday reality of our military units, our police stations, fire departments, and post offices. And we have discovered that, unlike our enemies, American heroes make their sacrifices in the cause of life, not death. It is only right, then, that during this season of thanksgiving, when history demands that we give particular thanks for the many blessings that have been bestowed on us as individuals and as a Nation, we give special recognition to another group of everyday heroes; America's caregivers. The generous support provided by caregivers to those who need help if they are to remain in their homes and communities is a reflection of American family and community life at its best. Thanks to the efforts of these everyday heroes, Americans with disabilities and a growing number of elderly Americans are able to stay in familiar surroundings and to maintain their dignity and independence. Caregivers share not only their time, but also their resources, spending some $2 billion a month of their own assets for groceries, medicine, and other aid. Surely, their extraordinary generosity and compassion fits our definition of heroism. A care recipient is a person who may be ill, elderly, or disabled or otherwise needs assistance with the tasks associated with daily living. A 1999 study prepared by the National Alliance for Caregivers reported that 23 percent of American adults regard themselves as family caregivers of individuals aged 50 and older. In addition, the report notes that one in five care recipients live in the caregiver's home. But the efforts of our caregivers are not limited to caring for the elderly or disabled. The challenges of 21st Century society have created a new category of caregiving in America. Many older relatives now take care of children whose parents are not able to care for their children themselves. These generous seniors, who in many cases had already raised their own children and were looking forward to retirement, have embraced the challenges of parenting a new generation of young people. Their everyday heroism gives millions of our most vulnerable youth the opportunity to grow up in stable, loving homes, nurtured in America's traditional values. America's caregivers--everyday heroes among us--deserve our lasting gratitude and respect. Today, it is my honor, and pleasure, to recognize the many contributions that America's caregivers make to the quality of our national life. Thank you, and may God bless America.

Mr. PUTNAM

Mr. PUTNAM. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I represent an area that should be the target population for this amendment, a State that does not benefit from the traditional commodities programs, a State that has a tremendous agricultural base, a lot of family farms. But contrary to what the propaganda has been that has been put out there, this bill gives the perception that the money is going to States like Florida, like fruit and vegetable producing States that do not have the grains, but it takes it away with these size limitations. Forty percent of the dairy farms in Florida would not qualify for any of the benefits placed under the Kind amendment. Ninety percent of the poultry farms would not qualify as put out by our Commissioner of Agriculture in a letter to the delegation this morning. It is time for some of those environmental groups and sportsmen's groups to pull off the interstate, step out of the Range Rover, get your feet dirty and see what farmers need. Farmers need the ability to continue to produce food and fiber for this Nation. Farmers need the ability to stay in business, with working lands, with productive lands, with assistance to do what they want to do, to raise crops, to grow livestock, not to raise government payments, not to harvest checks from the mailbox, not to be a part of an environmental movement. If the farm organizations were going to benefit from this program, then how come none of them support this amendment? Do not scratch our ear and walk us to the kill floor. This amendment is bad for farmers. It is bad for agriculture. It is time that we step back and support the original bill that bumps up conservation support, encourages good stewardship of the land and reinforces private property rights and entrepreneurial spirit in the United States and in the agricultural economy.

Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, this has been farm day on the floor of the United States Congress, a topic that we do not discuss enough. But in particular, it has been ironic that we have had people from different regions of this country try to pit one commodity against another; that we have had people who may have supported the previous amendment in the name of small farms come down here to try to put small farms and small farmers out of business. There are a lot of small farmers who grow sugar in Florida and around the country. I know them. I have met them. I have walked on their land. I have heard their problems. For us to trade away their jobs to a Third World country that uses labor practices that have been banned here for a century, chemicals that have been banned here for decades, to put on our food to ship to our children and our public at the expense of our industry and our jobs is obscene. There has been a lot made of the environmental impacts. I know an awful lot about that. I helped write the Everglades restudy bill in the Florida legislature. The Florida sugar industry has reduced their pollutants by 73 percent, three times what the law asked them to do, and ahead of schedule. Nobody else has done that, not the national parks, not the tribes, not the water management districts, and certainly not the City of Miami, the City of Fort Lauderdale, Dade County, Broward County, and all of the other folks who are a part of that larger problem. The sugar industry is doing their part to be a good citizen, to be good stewards of the land. I urge the defeat of this amendment.

Mr. PUTNAM

Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Chairman, I commend the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Combest) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) on their work on crafting a bipartisan solution to a number of agricultural problems. There is an old proverb that when there is food, there are many problems. When there is no food, there is only one problem. We have the luxury of having this debate on the floor today. We in America grow the safest, cheapest, most bountiful, healthful, and abundant food supply the world has ever known. If Members do not believe me, the next time they sit down to a big meal, look at each of the items on our plate and think about what it took to go through all of the processes to get it there. We have been so far removed from the land in our country that we have forgotten what it takes to produce the food and fiber that this economy depends on. Where tillage goes, civilization follows, Mr. Chairman. As we have moved away from the land, we have an entire generation of young people who think that milk comes from the grocery store, that the hamburger committed suicide. Beyond even agriculture, they think that electricity comes from a switch, that gasoline comes from a pump. There is little or no concept that men and women get up before the sun comes up all across this Nation to make agriculture happen; that young people grow up and go to school and get science degrees to be better farmers, to be more efficient users of the inputs, to be more gentle on the environment as we produce that safe and abundant food supply. It is a dangerous precedent, but we have the luxury of having this debate about the future of agriculture because those farmers are so efficient. There are people all around the world, even our enemies who we are about to drop hundreds of millions of dollars of food upon, who would kill to have the luxury to argue over whether or not to spend more on cotton or soybeans or sugar or peanuts or wheat. We have that luxury because we have a generation of Americans who get up every day to produce that food and to make it happen. It is important for us to keep in mind, when we talk about commitments to conservation and commitments to the environment, that those water recharge areas are on farms, that those wildlife habitats are on ranches; that the original stewards of the land are landowners and farmers; that the reason why we have debates about government ownership of land is because some private person, some farmer, some rancher for generations has taken care of the land such that it is worth buying and preserving forever. This is the farm bill, not the environmental bill, not the conservation bill. This is the farm bill. It is about making sure that America's food security is sound, so that we do not become dependent on food and fresh fruits and vegetables and meat and dairy the way that we are for oil and gas, lest we ever forget the lessons of history about being dependent upon a foreign Nation for our food.

Mr. PUTNAM

Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to give a speech I never imagined I would give; that of support for an authorization of force, a 21st century declaration of war. As a member of a generation largely shielded from the horrors of war, I accept this responsibility with no small amount of respect and humility. Today we undoubtedly will approve the mobilization of our Nation's sons and daughters to combat, to injury, pain, sacrifice and death. There is no glory in our vote this evening, only duty. We have a solemn duty to protect our shores, our countrymen, and our liberties. We step away from the rhetoric this dark September night to commit ourselves to a national sacrifice with this vote to a sustained commitment of lives, liberties, and provisions necessary to preserve those things we here subscribe. Many of the men and women in the service of our Nation are in the springtime of their lives. But to many in my generation, Pearl Harbor was an exam question, Korea a backdrop for a TV rerun, and Vietnam a blurry scene cobbled together by Hollywood and an oldies radio station. To many Americans, the Gulf War seemed like a sustained video game writ large in ticker tape parades, precision bombs, and talk of future bloodless wars. Mr. Speaker, the future is here and this war is bloody indeed. Our Nation is ready. Our forces are prepared. The public is supportive and Congress stands together as one. Godspeed to the President and God bless America.

Mr. PUTNAM

Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, America changed forever yesterday. Our innocence lost, we have had the horrors of faraway capitals delivered to our own. Our freedom at stake, we have resolved to fight back at all forms of terror and tyranny. We have seen Americans rally behind the blood drives to aid the wounded, shopkeepers who opened up their wares to weary, shell-shocked fellow citizens, refused payment and bid only ``God bless you.'' I was with the President yesterday in Florida when the initial attack occurred, and aboard Air Force One throughout much of the day as the breadth of the horror unfolded. The President was calm, deliberate, and thoughtful as he received wave after wave of bad news and analysis. He immediately reached out to his national security team and settled into his Commander in Chief responsibilities. He rightly made the decision to go to a secure location to manage the crisis as it developed. I am sure all Americans are grateful, as I am, that the threats against the White House and Air Force One were not carried out. Mr. Speaker, the fabric of American life was frayed but not torn yesterday. It was soiled with the blood of innocent American civilians. But our American way will not be diminished, and America will not be tarnished by these agents of evil. May America endure and prosper forever.

Mr. PUTNAM

Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, last year, as thousands of children do every day, a 15-year-old girl from my district logged onto her computer and struck up an online acquaintance. Little did she or her family realize that this was the beginning of a nightmare that continues to this day. Lindsay's new online friend turned out to be a sexual predator who eventually convinced her to run away from her home in Florida, eventually to Greece. One of the most troubling aspects of this case was the lack of support and the disinterest from Federal authorities. Not only was the FBI reluctant to become involved, but the U.S. Attorney's Office has declined to enforce existing laws, claiming that this series of crimes involving interstate and international air transport and the use of the Internet to lure a child away from home into international sexual servitude is not a matter of Federal jurisdiction. In response to this failure and the failure of the FAA and the Department of Transportation to use their rulemaking authority to address any of these issues, I have filed legislation that would clarify the power of the Federal Government to bring such predators to justice. The Children's Air Travel Protection Act and the Parental Rights Protection Act would require that airlines get a written certification that a minor has parental or guardian's permission and would forbid the use of the Internet to interfere with a parent's authority or induce a minor to run away from home. I would encourage my colleagues to join me in cosponsoring H.R. 2600 and 2601.

Mr. PUTNAM

Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce important legislation to assist American farmers and ranchers in achieving valuable conservation goals in the protection of our natural resources. Today's farmers and ranchers are facing increasing challenges in protecting environmentally sensitive lands while ensuring an abundant, safe food supply. Greater access to conservation programs must be a part of our agricultural policy. For this reason, Mr. Speaker, I am introducing the American Farmland Stewardship Act of 2001 which will help foster responsible care and stewardship of our natural resources by agricultural producers. The Act provides incentive-based initiatives aimed at assisting farmers in meeting environmental requirements and the protection of endangered habitat, wetlands, improved water quality and water access, treatment of discharge, deterrence of invasive species and other important environmental challenges. The American Farmland Stewardship Act will ensure greater protection of natural resources by providing economic assistance to agricultural producers to improve and protect natural resources and assist farmers and ranchers in staying competitive in the world market. Mr. Speaker, please join me in cosponsoring the American Farmland Stewardship Act.

Mr. PUTNAM

Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to request the support of this body for the passage of H.J. Res. 36--the Flag Protection Amendment. This legislation will clarify once and for all that the language of Title 4 United States Code, section 8, ``No disrespect should be shown to the flag of the United States of America; the flag should not be dipped to any person or thing'' is the law of the land, as well as the sentiment of most Americans. Some opponents of this legislation say that we cannot infringe on the First Amendment and the right to free speech. Others argue that the wording of the First Amendment is sacred, and we must not adjust the Bill of Rights to include this protection. But, I ask you to take a moment and think about the Founding Fathers. How could they have known that one day this would be in question? How could they have imagined that the flag of the country they pledged their lives, fortunes and sacred honor to bring into being would be burned as an act of ``speech'' by people who enjoy the protections of the Nation they sacrificed so much to build? There is no evidence they thought desecrating the flag would be speech, protected by the First Amendment. They would have known, and we must recognize, that destroying the flag is an action, not speech. Mr. Justice White in the 1974 Supreme Court case of Smith v. Goguen said, ``There would seem to be little question about the power of Congress to forbid the mutilation of the Lincoln Memorial or to prevent overlaying it with words or other objects. The flag is itself a monument, subject to similar protection.'' Mr. Speaker, I am fortunate to have many veterans residing in my district. While thinking of what I was to say to you today, my thoughts turned to them. We are a nation standing strong today because those heroes kept our flag flying in spite of the hardship and sacrifice of war. The flag gave them strength when they were far from home. Our history is full of testimony that the image that kept our troops moving forward and prisoners enduring their captivity was the red, the white, and the blue. Surely the flag is as much a monument to their sacrifice as any tablet of stone or plaque of bronze; and should it not, then, as Justice White suggested receive the same protection as other monuments? By adding this amendment to the Constitution, we are not taking away the freedoms that our flag symbolizes, rather we are protecting our most compelling monument to those who died--and lived--to make those freedoms possible. I urge you to vote ``yes'' to H.J. Res. 36.

Mr. PUTNAM

Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained and missed the vote on rollcall 225, the motion to instruct conferees on H.R. 2216. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.''

Mr. PUTNAM

Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I was absent the week of June 25, 2001, attending to my wife Melissa during the birth of our first child, Abigail Anna Putnam. Had I been present this is how I would have voted on the following roll call votes. June 25, 2001: On Roll Call 186--I would have voted Yea in support of H Res 160 calling on the Government of the People's Republic of China to immediately and unconditionally release Li Shaomin and all other American scholars of Chinese ancestry being held in detention, and calling on the President of the United States to continue working on behalf of Li Shaomin and the other detained scholars for their release. On Roll Call 187--I would have voted Yea in support of H Res 99 expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that Lebanon, Syria, and Iran should call upon Hezbollah to allow representatives of the International Committee of the Red Cross to visit four abducted Israelis, Adi Avitan, Binyamin Avraham, Omar Souad, and Elchanan Tannenbaum, presently held by Hezbollah forces in Lebanon. On Roll Call 188--I would have voted Yea in support of H Con Res 161 honoring the 19 United States servicemen who died in the terrorist bombing of the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia on June 25, 1996. June 26, 2001: On Roll Call 189--I would have voted Yea on Approving the Journal. On Roll Call 190--I would have voted Yea on the motion to consider H Res 178. On Roll Call 191--I would have voted Yea on agreeing to H Res 178 providing for the consideration of HR 2299, Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for FY 2002. On Roll Call 192--I would have voted Yea on agreeing to H Res 166 recognizing disaster relief Assistance Provided to Houston, TX after Tropical Storm Allison. On Roll Call 193--I would have voted Yea on the Sabo amendment to HR 2299. On Roll Call 194--I would have voted Yea in support of HR 2299, the Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for FY 2002. On Roll Call 195--I would have voted Yea on agreeing to the approval of the Journal. On Roll Call 196--I would have voted Yea on agreeing to H Res 180, providing for consideration of HR 2311; Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act for FY 2002. On Roll Call 197--I would have voted Yea on H Res 172 honoring John J. Downing, Brian Fahey, and Harry Ford, who lost their lives in the course of duty as firefighters. On Roll Call 198--I would have voted Yea on HR 2213 to establish a commission for the purpose of encouraging and providing for the commemoration of the 50th anniversary of the Supreme Court decision in Brown v. Board of Education. June 28, 2001: On Roll Call 199--I would have voted Nay on the Tancredo amendment to HR 2311. On Roll Call 200--I would have voted Nay on the Tancredo amendment to HR 2311. On Roll Call 201--I would have voted Nay on the Hinchey amendment to HR 2311. On Roll Call 202--I would have voted Nay on the Kucinich amendment to HR 2311. On Roll Call 203--I would have voted Nay on the Bonior amendment to HR 2311. On Roll Call 204--I would have voted Nay on the Berkley amendment to HR 2311. On Roll Call 205--I would have voted Yea on the Davis amendment to HR 2311. On Roll Call 206--I would have voted Yea on final passage of HR 2311, the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act for FY 2002. On Roll Call 207--I would have voted Yea on H Res 183, providing for consideration of HR 2330; Agriculture Appropriations Act for F.Y. 2002. On Roll Call 208--I would have voted Yea on the Brown of Ohio amendment to HR 2330. On Roll Call 209--I would have voted Yea on the Brown of Ohio amendment to HR 2330. On Roll Call 210--I would have voted Yea on the Engel amendment to HR 2330.