Date: 1990-10-11
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. I guess. since I have been chairman of the Committee on Agriculture. this is the first time that we are faced with a option to instruct conferees. But. as I stated in my earlier comments to our distinguished collegue from Oklahoma. the House Committee on Agriculture is not the culprit. The statements which the gentleman from Oklahoma was making to a Senator. those activities should be made in the other body. not here. because we in good faith negotiated an amendment during the farm bill that was adopted. And it has been. is. and will remain the objective of the Committee on Agriculture In the House to maintain that position. So. Mr. Speaker. I feel somewhat aggrieved that the gentleman with whom we negotiated in good faith now is attempting to instruct us when there has not been any change in the position. and I say that as chairman of the committee with activities that occurred in the other body. So. I think possibly that any concern for sending a message. the message needs to be sent some other place. and we are taking the time of the Members at this late hour for something that does not need to be done because our position has not changed. Mr. Speaker. there are three committees involved: The Committee on Foreign Affairs. the Committee on Energy and Commerce. and the House Committee on Agriculture. All three committees in this endeavor have not changed their position. and all three committees still maintain that the House position should be maintained. Mr. Speaker. here is what will happen if we Instruct. which is contrary to the wishes of my distinguished colleague from Oklahoma. because we have been advised by EPA that the review process in the House bill is not workable as written. and we might have to refine. I would hope that. if that be the case. we could work with the gentleman from Oklahoma and work with the other committees Involved to try and address that issue. We cannot if we accept this mandate. So. Mr. Speaker. I say to my colleagues. "Either you do or you dont." because we want to continue working. but. as the provision says. we are instructed to insist upon at a minimum the provisions contained in the House amendment. which I do not know what a minimum is. we still have areas of scope in the process. and I would like to continue working with the gentleman. and we have a member of our committee. the gentleman from California that is a cosponsor and very involved. and I would like to continue working with him. However. Mr. Speaker. I am somewhat aggrieved that. when we have dealt in good faith. when we say our position has not changed. it will not change. If we can work together to make this better within the scope. a better amendment. then we would do SO. So. we are taking the time here to send a message that probably should be delivered at another forum and not here. and I guess I am somewhat emotionally involved because this is the first time since I have been chairman. since 1981. that there is a motion to instruct the committee. and that somehow. I feel. challenges our responsibility. or challenges our commitment. or. in this case. challenges our integrity when I committed. and the chairman of the subcommittee involved committed. to support the House version. One does not feel good about that. In addition. I hate to ask the Members to vote no because I want to work with my distinguished colleague and friend from Oklahoma. but it is something that should not have been done and probably should not be done because it could conceivably tie our hands to the point where we cannot work with him. and. as I mention again and at the risk of repeating myself. this is the first time it has ever been done. and I think that the challenge is not only the integrity. but the dedication of. not only the chairman. but of the members of the committee that have. in fact. committed themselves to this endeavor. Mr. Speaker. I very respectfully and somewhat reluctantly ask Members to vote "no" on this motion: first. because it is not needed. second. because the good faith is there to continue working. and it is something that will be against the record of the Committee on Agriculture that we had to be instructed contrary to the . activity that we were doing in good faith.