[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 65 (Tuesday, May 23, 2006)]
[House]
[Pages H3080-H3096]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND
RELATED AGEN
CIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2007
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 830 and rule
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House
on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the bill,
H.R. 5384.
{time} 1512
In the Committee of the Whole
Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of
the bill (H.R. 5384) making appropriations for Agriculture, Rural
Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies for the
fiscal year ending September 30, 2007, and for other purposes, with Mr.
Ryan of Wisconsin in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole rose earlier today, the
bill had been read through page 82, line 14.
Pursuant to the order of the House of today, no further amendment to
the bill may be offered except those specified in the previous order of
the House of today, which is at the desk.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Bonilla
Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Bonilla:
At the end add:
Sec. __. The limitation in section 721 shall not apply
below a program level of $1,127,000,000.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla) and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Hopefully, this will set an example for dealing with the remaining
amendments. We have cleared this amendment that deals with putting
money back into the EQIP program. We have cleared it with the minority,
and I ask for an ``aye'' vote.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. Does any Member seek the time in opposition?
If not, the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Bonilla).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Paul
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 4 offered by Mr. Paul:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following new sections:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used to implement or administer the National Animal
Identification System.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul) and a Member opposed each will control
5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Mr. PAUL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, my amendment is very simple. It says none of
the funds made available in this act may be used to implement or
administer a National Animal Identification System. I think at this
time one thing that this country doesn't need is another huge
bureaucracy tracing and following every animal in the country.
{time} 1515
That is exactly what this new program will do. It means that each
animal will be tagged with a radio frequency ID, all cattle, swine,
sheep, goats, horses poultry, bison, deer, elk, lamas and alpacas.
For one, what you own on your farm should be your property, and that
information should be private unless there is some type of a subpoena.
There is a fourth amendment issue here.
Also, there is the issue of just why this is being done. A lot of
people have claimed, and I agree with this, that this is a benefit to
the large agribusiness farmers, and it is a great detriment to the
small farmers who will be burdened with this great effort to accumulate
data which will be of benefit to some private big companies.
[[Page H3081]]
Actually, the database will be controlled by private companies. It
will be said that this is a voluntary program, but it has also been
told me by the Agriculture Department that if it isn't 100 percent
agreed to by the year 2008, it will become mandatory. So it is a little
bit of 1984 newspeak about exactly how voluntary it is.
But we certainly don't need this type of program. We already have
plenty of programs that trace and monitor movement. There are health
requirements and brands and all the other efforts. This, to me, is a
bureaucratic boondoggle that we don't need.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Colorado
(Mr. Hefley).
Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I come from cattle country out in Colorado.
I can tell you that one of the things that has gotten our cattle
producers worked up more than anything in recent times is this animal
identification program. They are very, very worried about it.
The feeling is that it is going to take the small producer and put
them absolutely out of business. The initial estimates for a national
ID program range from $122 million to $550 million, and who will be
responsible for that? USDA? The producer? The packer? Again, we don't
know, because we have not defined the range and scope of the program.
The Australian Beef Association condemns their mandatory ID program
because it is the farmers and the ranchers that have been forced to
shoulder the burden. We can understand the need to deal with the Mad
Cow problem, but at the same time, the idea that the possibility that
every animal you have on your farm, including your chickens and your
horses, all of the animals, would have to be identified by some kind of
an electronic means is something that just doesn't make any sense at
all.
We have spent about $86 million on it already. I think that we ought
to go back to the committee and reconsider this. At this time, I would
hope that we would not put any money into it whatsoever.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the amendment that prohibits
funds from being directed to an National Animal Identification program,
which amounts to a total about $33 million this year. We all know this
is a tough budget year, and in no way does this amendment intend to
diminish the hard work performed by Chairman Bonilla and his staff. In
fact, I applaud the Committee for decreasing the total bill by $7
billion below last year's level. Given our well-known budget problems,
it is necessary that we evaluate what programs are working and what
ones are not. When I look at the Animal ID program, one that the USDA
has spent $85 million on in the last three years and at the earliest
estimations, is expected to be fully operational by 2009, I do not see
a program that needs $33 million more, rubber-stamped for it.
Especially given that this program has seemingly very little direction
and has produced very little so far, even though all 50 states are now
of registering, very few animals are registered. The Department itself
has changed its opinion on the fundamental direction of the program
between May and August of last year, moving from defined timeline of
implementation for a single national mandatory system to the collection
of massive databases. When the Department, the States, as well as the
numerous producer groups needed to assist in such a massive undertaking
are undecided on even the goals of the program: Is it animal safety and
disease control, or food safety? Let alone a course of action, this is
not a program we simply need to throw more money at.
Initial estimates for a National ID program range from $122 to $550
million, and who will be responsible: USDA, the producer, the packer?
Again we don't know because we have not defined the range and scope of
the program. The Australian Beef Association condemns their mandatory
ID program because it is the farmers and ranchers that have been forced
to shoulder the burden. As this is currently set up, this makes for a
massive invasion in privacy rights and will in many cases reinvent the
wheel with current branding systems already in place. Furthermore, we
must better define how implementation of Country of Origin Labeling
will fit into this? We are foolish to look at Animal ID and Congress in
a vacuum. In the report of this appropriations bill, the committee
expressed concern for the program regarding ``mixed signals'' about
participation and registration. Animal ID accounts for only about 4
percent of APHIS budget but I feel that this money would be better
spent on programs like Avian Flu prevention and Emergency programs that
are clearly defined, and do not threaten property rights.
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Georgia is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes.
I certainly appreciate the intent of what the gentlemen are trying to
accomplish. I have a lot of sympathy for it, but I oppose the American
Farm Bureau at this time. The reason is, we do need to identify those
animals who are involved in the food chain for human consumption.
Yet, at the same time, because our language, we worked very closely
with the authorizing committee, requires that before it is implemented
that we have comments in the Federal Registry which at that time people
can weed out those nonessential animals, because I don't want a
national bureaucracy knowing about every single animal that I own or a
rancher or farmer may own.
During that comment period, it certainly would be my intention, and I
think most of us on the authorizing and on the appropriating committee,
to make sure what you are saying is correct. So, at this point, I also
want to point out that we are delaying any of these funds to be
available to the USDA until it publishes the advance notice of proposed
rulemaking about the plan. We are doing everything we can in a public
comment period.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the chairman of the authorizing
committee, Mr. Goodlatte.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Georgia for
yielding me this time.
I rise in opposition to the amendment.
While I appreciate the intent of the amendment and the questions that
have led to it, the appropriations measure as reported contains
language on animal identification that should be sufficient to address
its concerns. Since becoming chairman of the Agricultural Committee, we
have conducted five hearings on the national identification, national
animal identification system.
It is clear that animal ID has the potential to significantly improve
our animal health monitoring system and enhance our ability to respond
to an animal health emergency. Unfortunately, many of the livestock
producers I talk with about the USDA's animal ID system, still have
questions about cost, liability, regulatory burden, confidentiality and
barriers to commerce that have yet to be addressed.
It is reasonable to expect that an individual producer could look at
a USDA document and determine what he would be required to do under
either the voluntary program or the mandatory program that will follow
on later.
Today, it is simply not possible. The Appropriations Committee has
included language in their bill that holds funding until the Secretary
of Agriculture publishes an advance notice of proposed rulemaking
outlining how USDA's animal ID system will work. This informal process
will provide the details necessary to have a full and thoughtful debate
about animal ID and allow us to find our way forward with this
important public policy initiative.
For those who worry an ANPR might slow down an animal ID
implementation, I offer this observation, if USDA is not prepared to
quickly answer these fundamental questions about its plans, then USDA
is in no position to be moving forward in any case.
Mr. Paul's amendment has the best of intentions. However, the
underlying bill has provided the mechanism to work through the issues
he seeks to address. For this reason, I believe his amendment should be
defeated.
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I just want to say that if the gentleman from
Georgia does not want another huge bureaucracy, he must support my
amendment, because that is what he is going to get. It has already been
funded. Even though there is pretense that there is a restraint on
funding, it has already been funded, so it is in motion.
Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from
Indiana (Mr. Hostettler).
Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Paul
amendment. The proposed national animal ID system will force small
family farmers and ranchers to spend thousands of dollars as well as
comply with
[[Page H3082]]
new paperwork and monitoring regulations to implement and operate the
national ID system. This unnecessary financial burden could ruin small
farms.
As we all know, many of America's small farms are struggling to
survive in today's environment. They are teetering on a line that
fluctuates with the seasons, with disease and with ever-changing
markets. The national animal ID system will only push these farmers
further into financial troubles. By forcing small farms to adhere to
unfair bureaucratic regulation, you will be driving third and fourth
generation farmers out of the only livelihood they have ever known.
In town hall meetings across my district, constituents have expressed
to me their concerns with the proposed program. They are afraid of
losing their farms because of big brother looking over their shoulder
and forcing them to adhere to unrealistic and intrusive regulations.
I urge my colleagues to support the Paul amendment and stand up for
the thousands of hardworking small farmers in our country.
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Minnesota (Mr. Peterson).
Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition
of this amendment. Although I have to say that the way the Department
so far has administered this thing, I have some sympathy for what you
are saying, but not for the same reasons.
We have spent $84 million so far. We haven't accomplished a whole
lot. In Canada, they put this up for $6 million. In Australia, they set
their system up for $10 million. We could have done this for a lot less
money if we had gone about it in the right way.
I introduced a bill some time ago to make a mandatory system. But the
fact of the matter is, if you don't think we need a national ID system
in this country, you have got your head in the sand, because we are
going to have a problem. It is going to be foot and mouth, or it will
be something else.
If we don't have a system, we are in big trouble. We are never going
to get back in the Japanese market, some of these other markets, if we
don't have an ID system in this country that works. So this is not the
right way to go, and I urge rejection of this amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Texas has expired.
Mr. KINGSTON. How much time is remaining, Mr. Chairman?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman has 30 seconds left.
Mr. KINGSTON. I will yield 10 seconds to the gentleman from Texas if
10 seconds will help him.
Mr. PAUL. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I just want to urge an ``aye'' vote to try to slow up at least a
brand new bureaucracy that is going to play havoc with our small
farmers.
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I want to urge a ``no'' vote and say that
we are going to join Mr. Paul in fighting a new bureaucracy and also to
weed out an excessive burden on small farmers and too much information
to the Federal Government. That is why we have delayed the funding of
this until the advanced notice for proposed rulemaking has been filed,
and we are going to work on a bipartisan basis to get that right. So
please vote ``no.''
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman from Texas knows, I have a great deal
of respect for him. He and I do not agree very often, but I think that
he is a very thoughtful watchdog in this House, and I appreciate the
fact that he is suspicious of government overreach wherever it comes
from.
Having said that, I want to echo the words of the gentleman from
Minnesota. If you think that we are going to be able to sell our meat
products on international markets without eventually having a system
like this, you are smoking something that ain't legal. It simply is not
going to happen. To defend the ability of our producers to export, we
are going to have to have a decent animal ID system. We are also going
to have to have a decent animal ID system in order to protect the
public health of our own citizens. So we need to have this go forward.
What the committee is doing is recognizing that the Agriculture
Department has handled this issue so badly that they have given
incompetence a bad name. And what the committee has therefore done is
to say that until the department gets its act in order, there will be
no funds provided, but we leave the possibility open for funding once
they get their act together. That is the responsible way to force the
agency to quit jerking farmers around. I mean, it is like watching a
tennis game; bump, bump, bump. They change their mind every 5 minutes.
You cannot keep your eye on the ball. One day they have one approach;
one day they have another. And as a result, farmers are frustrated,
consumers are confused, and taxpayers are bilked for a heck of a lot
more money than this system ought to cost. We would not even be having
this debate today if USDA had handled this in a fashion which was in
any way competent, but they did not. So now we pay the price with
debates such as this.
I would urge that the House support the committee in this position.
It is taking the responsible path on this issue. And I would urge that
we turn down the amendment even though I fully appreciate the
frustration that lies underneath the actions of the people who have
offered the amendment today.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I want to associate myself with the comments of Mr.
Obey and Mr. Peterson. I think that there is not any question that on
all sides of this issue there has been great frustration with the way
in which the USDA has handled this issue.
In exchange, in the budget hearing this year, we find on one day it
is a mandatory program and the next day it is a voluntary program. What
we are doing is, we continue to put at risk the industry and its
ability to be able to protect the ranchers, and on the other hand, it
does not deal with looking at, how do we protect the public health?
The bill does address this issue, and it acknowledges what the
problems are. And I think that we said very clearly that until there is
a complete and a detailed plan for the program included, not limited
to, pro-legislative changes, cost estimates, means of program
evaluation, and that such a plan is published as an advanced notice of
proposed rulemaking that these are the kinds of requirements that have
been put in by the committee.
And I want to urge my colleagues, though I understand, again, what
the frustration is about this issue, to oppose the amendment and move
with what the committee has put forward.
{time} 1530
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas will be postponed.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Boren
Mr. BOREN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Boren:
Page 82, after line 14, insert the following:
Sec. 753. None of the funds provided by this Act for the
Agricultural Research Service may be obligated or expended to
reprogram programs and resources currently operating at Lane,
Oklahoma.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the
gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Boren) and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Oklahoma.
Mr. BOREN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, my amendment would allow the scientists and support
staff at the Agriculture Research Lab in Lane, Oklahoma, to continue
their valuable work at the facility. The lab is important not only to
my district and the State of Oklahoma, but also makes significant
contributions to agriculture in the region, Nation, and across the
globe.
When the center was established in 1985, it was in response to the
need for new and improved innovations in agriculture for the south
central region of this country. I believe that need still exists.
[[Page H3083]]
The ARS lab at Lane shares a facility with Oklahoma State
University's Wes Watkins Research and Extension Center, named for one
of my predecessors in Congress.
To give you an example of the work being done at this lab, scientists
at Lane are leading research on watermelon vine decline. Watermelon
growers have determined this to be the most important challenge they
will face in the coming years. But with the experience and leadership
that exists at Lane, they are confident they can meet this challenge.
The facility is recognized nationally and internationally as a center
for excellence for vine crop research, especially on watermelons and
cantaloupe. It is important our research facilities be spread across
the State and country to provide the best research for varying soil
types and climates.
For these reasons, Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. Who seeks time in opposition?
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I want to
say on behalf of the Chair, we are ready to accept this amendment. I
know you have worked very hard on this facility, and I know your
passion for it. The committee accepts the amendment.
Mr. BOREN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the other side and the chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Boren).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Tiahrt
Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Tiahrt:
At the end of the bill (before the short title) insert the
following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used to promulgate regulations without consideration of
the effect of such regulations on the competitiveness of
American businesses.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the
gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt) and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the
gentleman's amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. A point of order is reserved.
The gentleman from Kansas is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, my amendment is very simple. It just says that none of
the funds made available in this act will be used to promulgate
regulations without consideration of the effect that such regulations
would have on the competitiveness of American businesses.
Mr. Chairman, over the last generation, Congress has created barriers
to keeping and creating jobs in America. There are at least eight major
barriers in which our policies have been preventative of keeping jobs
in America. They consist of health care policy that is driving the
fastest growth in costs in America, making it more difficult to keep
and create jobs. It includes a tax policy that punishes success. It
includes litigation costs that result in court costs, lawyer fees and
higher liability insurance costs. It includes an energy policy that has
prevented exploration, expansion of refinement capability, and new
renewable energy resources. It includes trade policy that hasn't been
properly enforced. And it has allowed American companies to be targeted
by foreign-owned government businesses. It includes an education policy
that is not meeting the needs of the next more technological economy.
It includes research and development funding that is not focused on the
ideas that will move us into a strong position for tomorrow's products
in the next economy. And it includes a regulatory policy that slows the
growth of our economy by taking an adversarial role which works against
those that create and keep jobs in America.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to explain just one example of how the
funding in this bill has been used by government agencies to prevent us
from creating and keeping jobs in America.
Creekstone Farms is a small Kansas beef processing plant in my
congressional district that has sought permission from the United
States Department of Agriculture since early 2004 to voluntarily
conduct BSE tests or screening tests on cattle. USDA has repeatedly
refused to allow BSE test kit manufacturers to sell the test kits to
companies who want to voluntarily test for BSE.
Let me say, Mr. Chairman, the American food system is completely safe
with many checks and balances built into our production, processing,
distribution, and retail system. Mad cow disease has never made it into
our markets. In December of 2003, USDA detected the first case of mad
cow disease, but that case never made it into our system. It is
completely safe. Our food supply is completely safe.
But concerns developed overseas in several of our export markets,
specifically in Japan and South Korea. They banned our meat products
from their markets. Since then, we have lost over $4 billion in sales
and thousands of jobs, some of them right in Kansas.
South Korea and Japan are looking for more confidence in their meat
supply. We believe it is perfectly safe, but they want something to
tell their consumers.
Creekstone proposed a screening test on a voluntary basis of each
carcass so that they could provide that level of confidence to the
consumers in South Korea and in Japan. But when they went to the United
States Department of Agriculture to get permission to do this
screening, they were told no. Not only was Creekstone told no, but the
company that manufactured these test kits for BSE was told, no, you
cannot sell these kits to Creekstone.
Whatever happened to the old adage that the consumer is always right?
In America, we have built a strong economy by meeting the needs of the
consumers, by opening new markets to a developing level of confidence.
For example, the side air bags in an automobile: an automobile that
has side air bags, gives some people more confidence that it is safe
and therefore they are willing to spend a little extra money on buying
a car with side air bags. But not all cars have side air bags. The
Department of Transportation said, yes, it is fine. If you want to meet
those customers' needs and they want to pay a little more, then go
ahead and voluntarily put side air bags in automobiles.
Unlike the Department of Transportation, USDA has said that you
cannot use this type of voluntarily based marketing to meet consumers
needs, so they have completely shut off this area of letting us develop
this new market, and the consumers in South Korea and Japan still don't
have enough confidence to buy American beef. We have lost that market
now to Australia and New Zealand, and it is going to be difficult for
us to gain it back.
Creekstone has an idea to regain this market, but it is the
government-regulation bureaucracy that is preventing us from opening
that market and keeping and creating jobs in America.
Mr. Chairman, this is just one example of how regulations can keep us
from expanding and preparing for the next economy. Other nations are
preparing for the next economy, but we are not.
Mr. Chairman, I realize this is authorization on an appropriations
bill and it is my I intent to ask unanimous consent to withdraw this
amendment, but I will not withdraw from the fight of creating a strong
economy for tomorrow's future.
Mr. Chairman, I respectfully withdraw this amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the amendment is withdrawn.
There was no objection.
Amendment Offered by Mr. King of Iowa
Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. King of Iowa:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), add the
following new section:
Sec. __. (a) Short Title.--This section may be cited as the
``Livestock Identification and Marketing Opportunities Act''.
(b) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
(1) For purposes of animal health investigation and
surveillance, there needs to be
[[Page H3084]]
an identification system that can trace animals from the time
of first movement of the animal from its original premise to
the time of slaughter of the animal in less than 48 hours.
(2) The beef industry estimates that the United States
cattle industry lost approximately $3,000,000,000 in export
value on beef, beef variety meats, hides, and tallow during
the 12 months after a December 2003 diagnosis in the United
States of bovine spongiform encephalopathy. A livestock
identification system may have prevented some of this loss.
(3) In order to be as efficient as possible, the livestock
identification system needs to be automated and electronic
with participants using compatible technologies.
(4) The livestock identification system needs to be
flexible enough to adapt to changes in technology and to the
demands of the industry and the markets.
(5) The best technology available should be used for the
livestock identification system while still allowing for
registration into the system for livestock owners who are
economically disadvantaged.
(6) Confidentiality of information on animal movements,
sales, and ownership is necessary to ensure that livestock
owners have the confidence to comply with and fully
participate in the livestock identification system.
(7) Besides animal disease surveillance, the livestock
identification system should provide a commercial information
exchange infrastructure that would allow for enhanced
marketing opportunities.
(c) Livestock Identification Board.--
(1) Establishment.--There is established a board to be
known as the ``Livestock Identification Board''.
(2) Duties.--The duties of the Board shall be to--
(A) establish and maintain an electronic livestock
identification system that--
(i) is capable of tracing all livestock in the United
States from the time of first movement of the livestock from
its original premise to the time of slaughter of such
livestock in less than 48 hours;
(ii) tracks all relevant information about the livestock,
including--
(I) the livestock identification number or the group or lot
identification number for the livestock, as applicable;
(II) the date the livestock identification number or the
group or lot identification number was assigned;
(III) the premise identification number;
(IV) the species of the livestock;
(V) the date of birth of the livestock, to the extent
possible;
(VI) the sex of the livestock;
(VII) any other information the Board considers appropriate
for animal disease surveillance; and
(VIII) any other information that the person who owns or
controls the livestock voluntarily submits to the Board;
(B) maintain information obtained through the livestock
identification system in a centralized data system; and
(C) determine the official identification technology to be
used to track animals under the livestock identification
system.
(3) Powers.--The Board may--
(A) prescribe and collect fees to recover the costs of the
livestock identification system; and
(B) establish and maintain a grant program to assist
persons with fulfilling the requirements of the livestock
identification system.
(4) Membership.--
(A) Voting members.--The Board shall be composed of 7
voting members appointed by the Secretary of Agriculture, in
consultation with the Chair and ranking minority member of
the relevant congressional committees, of whom--
(i) 1 member shall be a representative of cattle owners;
(ii) 1 member shall be a representative of swine owners;
(iii) 1 member shall be a representative of sheep and goat
owners;
(iv) 1 member shall be a representative of poultry owners;
(v) 1 member shall be a representative of livestock auction
market operators;
(vi) 1 member shall be a representative of meat processors;
and
(vii) 1 member shall be a person actively engaged in the
livestock industry.
(B) Non-voting members.--The Board shall include 2 non-
voting members appointed by the Secretary, in consultation
with the Chair and ranking minority member of the relevant
congressional committees, of whom--
(i) 1 member shall be a representative of the Department of
Agriculture; and
(ii) 1 member shall be a representative of State or tribal
veterinarians or State or tribal agriculture agencies.
(C) Terms.--
(i) In general.--Each member shall be appointed for a term
of 3 years, except as provided by clauses (ii) and (iii).
(ii) Terms of initial appointees.--As designated by the
Secretary at the time of appointment, of the voting members
first appointed--
(I) the members appointed under clauses (ii), (iv), and (v)
of subparagraph (A) shall be appointed for a term of 2 years;
and
(II) the members appointed under subparagraphs (iii) and
(vii) of subparagraph (A) shall be appointed for a term of 1
year.
(iii) Vacancies.--Any member appointed to fill a vacancy
occurring before the expiration of the term for which the
member's predecessor was appointed shall be appointed only
for the remainder of that term. A member may serve after the
expiration of that member's term until a successor has taken
office. A vacancy in the Board shall be filled in the manner
in which the original appointment was made.
(D) Chairperson.--The Chairperson of the Board shall be
elected by its members.
(E) Appointment.--The Secretary shall appoint all members
of the Board not later than 45 days after the date of the
enactment of this section.
(5) Meetings.--
(A) Initial meeting.--Not later than 60 days after the date
of the enactment of this section, the Board shall hold its
initial meeting.
(B) Subsequent meetings.--The Board shall meet at the call
of the Chairperson.
(6) Quorum.--4 voting members of the Board shall constitute
a quorum.
(7) Pay.--Members of the Board shall serve without
compensation.
(8) Travel expenses.--Each member of the Board shall
receive travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of
subsistence, in accordance with applicable provisions under
subchapter I of chapter 57 of title 5, United States Code.
(9) Staff.--The Board may appoint and fix the pay of
personnel as the Board considers appropriate.
(10) Contracts.--The Board may contract with or compensate
any persons for goods or services.
(11) Rules and regulations.--The Board may issue such rules
and regulations as may be necessary to carry out this
section.
(12) Implementation.--
(A) In general.--The Board shall implement the livestock
identification system established pursuant to this section
not later than December 31, 2008.
(B) Report.--Not later than one year after the date of the
enactment of this section, and quarterly thereafter until
December 31, 2010, the Board shall submit to the Secretary of
Agriculture and the relevant congressional committees a
report on the status of the implementation of the livestock
identification system, including--
(i) for each species subject to the system, the number of
animals or groups of animals tracked by the system; and
(ii) the percentage of each animal species subject to the
livestock identification system that are tracked by the
system, which shall be determined by dividing the number
submitted under clause (i) for a species by the total number
of animals of such species in the United States.
(d) Premise Identifications.--Not later than nine months
after the date of the enactment of this section, the
Secretary of Agriculture shall establish a premise
identification system for all premises in the United States.
The premise identification data shall be made available to
the Board and shall include--
(1) a premise identification number;
(2) the name of the entity that owns or controls the
premise;
(3) contact information for the premise, including a
person, address, and phone number;
(4) the type of operation at the premise; and
(5) the date the premise number was assigned.
(e) Enforcement; First Entry Into Commerce.--Subject to
subsection (f)(2), the Secretary of Agriculture shall verify
that each animal, or group of animals, where applicable,
subject to the livestock identification system established
pursuant to subsection (c) is properly identified upon first
entry of the animal into commerce. Any animal or group of
animals that the Secretary determines is not properly
identified shall be identified using the official
identification technology before entering commerce.
(f) Voluntary Participation for Other Animal Species.--
(1) In general.--The owner of an animal or group of
animals, where applicable, that is not subject to the
livestock identification system established pursuant to
subsection (c) may voluntarily subject such animal or group
of animals to tracking by such livestock identification
system.
(2) Enforcement exemption.--The voluntary tracking of such
animal or group of animals shall not make the animal or group
of animals subject to the enforcement actions of the
Secretary under subsection (e).
(g) Release of Livestock Identification Numbering
Information.--
(1) Freedom of information act.--Information obtained
through the livestock identification system established
pursuant to subsection (c) or the premise identification
system established pursuant to subsection (d) is exempt from
disclosure under section 552 of title 5, United States Code.
(2) Character of livestock identification system
information.--Except as provided in paragraphs (3) and (4),
information obtained through the livestock identification
system or the premise identification system--
(A) may not be released;
(B) shall not be considered information in the public
domain; and
(C) shall be considered commercial information that is
privileged and confidential.
(3) Limited release of information authorized.--
Notwithstanding paragraph (2), the Board may release
information obtained through the livestock identification
system or the premise identification system (other
[[Page H3085]]
than information voluntarily submitted pursuant to subsection
(c)(2)(A)(ii)(VIII)) regarding particular livestock if--
(A) a disease or pest poses a significant threat to the
livestock that the information involves;
(B) the release of the information is related to actions
the Board may take under this section; and
(C) the person obtaining the information needs the
information for reasons consistent with the public health and
public safety purposes of the livestock identification
system, as determined by the Secretary of Agriculture.
(4) Limited release of information required.--
(A) In general.--Notwithstanding paragraph (2), the Board
shall promptly release information obtained through the
livestock identification system or the premise identification
system (other than information voluntarily submitted pursuant
to subsection (c)(2)(A)(ii)(VIII)) regarding particular
livestock--
(i) to the person who owns or controls the livestock, if
the person requests such information;
(ii) to the Secretary of Agriculture for the purpose of
animal disease surveillance;
(iii) to a State or tribal veterinarian or a State or
tribal agriculture agency for the purpose of animal disease
surveillance;
(iv) to the Attorney General for the purpose of
investigation or prosecution of a criminal act;
(v) to the Secretary of Homeland Security for the purpose
of national security;
(vi) to the Secretary of Health and Human Services for the
purpose of protection of public health; and
(vii) to the government of a foreign country, if release of
the information is necessary to trace livestock threatened by
disease or pest, as determined by the Secretary.
(B) Information voluntarily submitted.--Notwithstanding
paragraph (2), on the request of a person who owns or
controls livestock, the Board shall release information
voluntarily submitted to the Board pursuant to subsection
(c)(2)(A)(ii)(VIII) regarding such livestock to such person
or to another person.
(5) Conflict of law.--If the information disclosure
limitations or requirements of this subsection conflict with
information disclosure limitations or requirements of a State
law and such conflict involves interstate or international
commerce, this subsection shall take precedence over the
State law.
(h) Report on Impact of Livestock Identification System.--
Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of
this section, the Secretary of Agriculture shall submit to
the Committees on Appropriations of the House of
Representatives and the Senate, the Committee on Agriculture
of the House of Representatives, and the Committee on
Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry of the Senate a report
on a livestock identification system, including--
(1) the lessons learned and the effectiveness of the animal
identification system pilot programs funded in fiscal year
2005;
(2) an analysis of the economic impact of a livestock
identification system on the livestock industry; and
(3) the expected cost of implementing a livestock
identification system.
(i) Conforming Amendments.--Subsection (f) of section 282
of the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 (7 U.S.C. 1638a) is
amended--
(1) by striking ``Certification of Origin.--'' and all that
follows through ``To certify the country of origin'' and
inserting ``Certification of Origin; Existing Certification
Programs.--To certify the country of origin''; and
(2) by redesignating subparagraphs (A) through (E) as
paragraphs (1) through (5), respectively.
(j) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) The term ``Board'' means the Livestock Identification
Board established under subsection (c)(1).
(2) The term ``livestock'' means cattle, swine, sheep,
goats, and poultry.
(3) The term ``premise'' means a location that holds,
manages, or boards animals.
(4) The term ``relevant congressional committees'' means
the Committee on Agriculture of the House of Representatives
and the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry of
the Senate.
(5) The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary of
Agriculture.
(k) Authorization of Appropriatons.--There is authorized to
be appropriated to carry out this section $33,000,000 for
each of fiscal years 2007 through 2009.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the
gentleman's amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Georgia reserves a point of order.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Iowa for 5 minutes.
Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, the amendment I offer today is an
amendment that is made up of an original bill that I drafted as a
stand-alone bill actually to establish a livestock identification plan.
It is called the LIMO Act, the Livestock Identification and Market
Opportunities Act.
We have heard debate here on the gentleman from Texas' amendment, and
it is recognized I believe throughout the industry, certainly the
industry in Iowa and the industry across the country that I have had
the opportunity to interrelate with, that we must go to a livestock
identification plan at some point.
If we are going to make a change, the quicker the better. We are
losing market share in Asia right now because we are not able to
identify our livestock. I took the initiative to travel to different
locations on the globe to inspect their livestock identification
systems, including some of the locations in Europe, including Canada
and especially Australia, where I tracked their livestock from birth to
slaughter and each one of those stops that they have there. They were
very helpful and cooperative.
As I looked at all the models that were out there and worked with our
major commodities groups that we have here in this country and sat down
and sorted through the differences, we produced this bill that I think
stands alone as the single most carefully thought-out crafted and
customized piece of livestock identification that has been presented to
this Congress.
It recognizes the gentleman from Minnesota's contribution for
protection of the Freedom of Information Act and a number of other
interests and points that needed to be incorporated into this
legislation.
But what it does is it establishes a livestock identification board
and keeps the control of the data within the hands of the producers.
This is a quasi-private sector entity that will be established. It
establishes a board that is made up of seven members, voting members.
There is one each representing the beef industry, one for swine, one
for poultry, which includes chicken and turkeys, one for sheep and
goats together, and also a voting position that would be a member-at-
large as well as a representative from the meat processors and another
representative from the livestock auctioneers. Those would be the
voting members of the board.
Also on the board would be two ex-officios that would be appointed by
the Secretary of Agriculture, as would the entire board. Those ex-
officios would be one from USDA, our Secretary of Agriculture's
appointment, and one from the State veterinarians or Tribal
veterinarians organizations. So we have a producer-driven consortium
that runs this, and they will be the controllers of the data.
We set up the standards by which the data would be available to the
Secretary of Agriculture in the event of the necessity to eradicate
disease and give Freedom of Information Act protection.
So this process we have protects the producers from having their data
within the control of the USDA; it makes it within the click of a mouse
of the Secretary of Agriculture if there is a disease that needs to be
eradicated. So we find the best of both worlds.
But the firewall is there. The Secretary can only access the data
that is necessary for eradication, and the balance of the data that
would be entered into this program would be data that would be
voluntarily submitted then by the producers, and they could then use
this data for market opportunity, for breeding purposes, for marketing
purposes, and particularly our purebred breeders will be able to
utilize it.
This is an idea whose time has come. It is carefully well thought
out, and this is the opportunity presented to this Congress for
evaluation by the Members.
I recognize that it is policy that would be amended on to an
appropriations bill, and I recognize the gentleman's point of order;
but I hope that this Congress recognizes the necessity to take a
careful look at this well-thought-out livestock identification plan
that gives Freedom of Information Act protection.
It is driven by the membership, by the producers. They will be able
to control their own data, and they will also control then the input
into that data. We will let them apply some fees, and the fees then can
go to fund the operation of the management of the data,
[[Page H3086]]
and I am convinced it will be far cheaper than what will be done by the
agency.
But the important part is this: it respects the contributions made by
the other entities out there. The cattle industry, for example, the
swine industry, they have been out there doing their contributions from
a volunteer perspective.
Envision, if you will, a house with many rooms and different
electricians coming into each room, wiring the lights and hanging the
lights, but not wiring every room and not hanging lights in every room,
just some rooms, the room for beef, the room for pork; but we don't
have a junction box, we don't have a way to bring the power in.
This bill is the junction box in that house. It brings the power in
that lights up all the work that has been done by the other entities,
including the USDA, and it wires the rooms that haven't been wired to
this point, such as sheep and goats, and it allows for group
identification.
That is pretty much the quick once-over of the livestock
identification bill, the LIMO Act, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, recognizing the point of order that has been pointed
out by the chairman, I would respectfully ask unanimous consent to
withdraw my amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman's amendment is
withdrawn.
There was no objection.
{time} 1545
Amendment No. 12 Offered by Mr. Chabot
Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 12 offered by Mr. Chabot:
At the end of the bill (before the short title) insert the
following new section:
Sec. __. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made
available by this Act may be used to carry out section 203 of
the Agriculture Trade Act of 1978 (7 U.S.C. 5623) or to pay
the salaries and expenses of personnel who carry out a market
program under such section.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot) and a Member opposed each will control
5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, our national debt is now $8.3 trillion. Each day we add
another $1.7 billion to it. Each American's share is about $28,000.
Think about that. In order for the United States to be debt free, every
American, all 299 million of us, would have to write a check for about
$28,000. Each year the Department of Agriculture writes checks
underwritten by the American taxpayer to foot the bill for the Market
Access Program, MAP, a program that pays industry associations,
cooperatives and State and regional trade groups to market their wares
overseas.
Now, should these groups market these wares overseas? Absolutely. We
want them to be successful. We want them to create jobs. But they ought
to do it on their dime, not on the dime of the American taxpayer.
Mr. Chairman, we have spent more than a billion tax dollars on a
program with dubious economic benefits. We cannot even be sure that
these tax dollars are not simply saving those groups money that they
would have spent on overseas marketing anyway.
So who is receiving those tax dollars? The National Potato Research
and Promotion Board has received well over $1 million. The Raisin
Administrative Committee has received nearly $3 million, and a group
called Asparagus USA has received hundreds of thousands of dollars
worth of funding. That is a lot of asparagus.
It is also the type of wasteful spending that leads to big deficits
and higher taxes. Mr. Chairman, in these difficult budget times, if we
cannot cut a program like MAP, I think we are in serious trouble.
While MAP at a cost of a couple hundred million dollars annually
might by some be just considered a blip in a $2.7 trillion budget, the
cost of these programs add up, and the cumulative effect of programs
like MAP is the reason that we have this $8.3 trillion debt.
Mr. Chairman, my amendment is straightforward. It would simply
prohibit the Agriculture Department from funding the MAP Program. It is
supported by groups like the National Taxpayers Union, Citizens Against
Government Waste, and Taxpayers for Common Sense, to name a few. It is
a commonsense amendment, Mr. Chairman.
We are spending too much money, and it is time to start cutting
wasteful spending program by program and restore some fiscal sanity to
this House.
I urge my colleagues to cast a vote for taxpayers and support this
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I would like to claim the time in
opposition.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Georgia is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I certainly applaud all of the efforts of
Mr. Chabot for cutting spending and so forth. And yet I find myself on
the opposite side with him on this. The reason is that Tom Friedman has
written a very famous book right now called, The World is Flat. And the
world is flat, and it is flat because we are in a global economy, where
a farmer in the Philippines or in Indonesia or in Russia can compete
with a farmer from Ohio or Georgia, just as easy as if he was in the
same country.
What the MAP program does is it helps sell our goods overseas. Two or
three hours ago when we opened up this bill, I said that one of our
farmers' big challenges right now is foreign subsidies competing
against American ag products. Well, quite often, the World Trade
Organization seems to allow foreign farmers to have subsidies but not
American farmers.
Mr. Chairman, this is one tool that helps us combat that. I would
point out that the ag exports at this point are over $64 billion, the
highest level in history. And one reason is this, is because the Market
Access Program has shown our farmers, whether you are growing Vidalia
onions or peanuts or strawberries, how to sell your goods overseas.
And for every $1 billion in sales overseas, there is about 16,000
domestic jobs that are created. In fiscal year 2005, almost 1 million
Americans had jobs that depend on U.S. American agricultural exports.
MAP is an integral part of that program. And yet it is not just for
farmers alone, here, come get your check. They have to contribute up to
50 percent of the program's cost. And since 1992, the MAP participants
have increased their contributions from 30 percent to 166 percent.
I urge my colleagues to oppose the Chabot Amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, can I ask how much time we have?
The CHAIRMAN. Each side has 2\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of our time to the
distinguished chairman of the Agriculture Committee, the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte).
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
time.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by Mr.
Chabot to limit funding to the Market Access Program. This very
important program helps boost U.S. agricultural exports.
U.S. agricultural exports are expected to be $64.5 billion in 2006,
resulting in a trade surplus of more than $1 billion. Just a year ago,
this trade surplus was significantly higher, but with increased
subsidized foreign competition, all U.S. economic sectors have seen a
steady increase in trade deficits.
Agriculture is still one of the few sectors of the American economy
to enjoy a trade surplus, and it is programs such as MAP that enable
this. Exports also provide needed jobs throughout the U.S. economy and
generate economic activity in the nonfarm economy.
Nearly every State exports agricultural commodities. Agricultural
exports in 2001 generated an estimated 912,000 full-time civilian jobs,
including 461,000 jobs in the nonfarm sector. MAP helps the U.S. meet
heavily subsidized foreign competition.
[[Page H3087]]
Mr. Chairman, the European Union spent more than $3.25 billion in
2003 on agricultural export subsidies, compared to about $30 million by
the U.S. The EU and other foreign competitors are moving aggressively
in providing other forms of assistance to maintain and expand their
share of the world market at the expense of U.S. farmers and ranchers.
In recent years, they have devoted approximately $1.2 billion for
market development and related activities. Without U.S. policies and
programs to counter such subsidized competition, American farmers and
ranchers will be at a substantial disadvantage.
MAP is specifically targeted to help small businesses, farmer
cooperatives and trade associations to meet this subsidized foreign
competition. It is not a subsidy to big business as some would want you
to believe; in fact, it represents a successful public-private
partnership.
MAP is administered on a cost-share basis by the U.S. Department of
Agriculture with farmers, ranchers and other participants required to
contribute up to 50 percent toward the program. In fact, since 1992,
for every dollar contributed by Federal funding, MAP participants have
increased their contributions from 30 percent to 166 percent.
According to the USDA, every Federal dollar invested has resulted in
$16 in additional U.S. agricultural exports.
Mr. Chairman, in closing, I urge my colleagues to vote against this
misguided amendment. MAP helps U.S. agricultural exports meet foreign
competition, improves U.S. trade, strengthens farm income and protects
American jobs.
Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan).
Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Chabot
amendment. I know that its passage is very unlikely, but this is the
type of thing that a conservative Congress should be doing. In fact,
the Citizens Against Government Waste says, facing a massive Federal
deficit, there is no reason taxpayers should be underwriting the
advertising campaigns of multimillion dollar corporations.
Cutting funding for these programs would save precious taxpayer
dollars and provide a dose of common sense to our agricultural
programs.
In addition to that, the National Taxpayers Union says, this program
is ``an egregious example of Congress's unlimited appetite for special
interest funding.'' Mr. Chabot has already mentioned the $8.3 trillion
national debt. What is even worse is that the Congressional Budget
Office says we are going to add $350 to $400 billion each of the next
10 or 11 years to that debt.
If we cannot do this, then we cannot call ourselves conservatives.
Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of our time.
Mr. Chairman, I would also like to read another portion of the
National Taxpayers Union letter. They say that the National Taxpayers
Union and its members strongly favor free trade and the private efforts
of American businesses that engage in both export and import
operations.
However, it is absurd to force overburdened taxpayers to subsidize
commodity producers as diverse as the Cherry Marketing Institute and
the Mohair Council of America in their strategies to market their
products overseas.
In fact, taxpayer subsidized trade is not really free trade at all.
The more U.S. taxpayers are forced to support economically dubious
programs, such as the MAP, the less credibility our Nation has in
adhering to free trade principles. One would think that with the
Federal deficits looming far into the future, and government spending
out of control, Congress would take swift action to abolish some of the
most wasteful and unnecessary Federal programs.
Although MAP is indeed relatively small when compared with other
massive bureaucracies found in Washington, the elimination of smaller
programs will hopefully present Congress with an opportunity to begin
trimming corporate welfare and pork barrel spending from the Federal
budget.
Mr. Chairman, again, I just want to emphasize in concluding, we want
these organizations to advertise overseas. We want them to be
successful. We want them to create jobs, but they need to do it on
their money and not on the taxpayer's money.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio will be postponed.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Gordon
Mr. GORDON. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Gordon:
At the end of the bill, before the short title, insert the
following:
Sec. 753. None of the funds made available by this Act
shall be used in contravention of the Federal buildings
performance and reporting requirements of Executive Order
13123, the National Energy Conservation Policy Act, and the
Energy Policy Act of 2005.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Gordon) and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Tennessee.
Mr. GORDON. Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding that this amendment
is going to be accepted.
Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GORDON. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is correct. We would be
happy to accept the amendment. If the gentleman would like to submit
his remarks for the Record, we can vote on this and move on, again with
favorable support for the gentleman's amendment.
Mr. GORDON. Mr. Chairman, I understand the message.
Despite the high cost of energy and existing laws enforcing
conservation, Federal agencies still do not give energy efficiency a
priority and continually fall short of meeting their requirements.
Our estimates are that the Federal Government wasted almost half a
billion dollars in the last 2 years by not meeting its requirements--or
roughly equivalent to 8,200 barrels of oil every day--a total of 6
million barrels over the last 2 years.
This happens because the laws already on the books are not taken
seriously enough. The National Energy Conservation Policy Act (NECPA),
last year's Energy Bill (EPACT), and a related Executive Order all
clearly state that agencies shall meet aggressive but reasonable energy
efficiency goals and standards and to prepare reports to the Department
of Energy, the Office of Management and Budget, and the Congress and on
the agencies' performance. Yet the Federal Regulations that govern new
building construction are 17 years out of date and the reports reach
the Congress months or years after the data is available.
The amendment I am offering today would increase the incentive for
agencies receiving appropriations under the Agriculture Appropriations
bill to comply with the law by tying Federal buildings performance to
appropriations.
This amendment simply states that none of the funds made available by
this Act shall be used in contravention of Federal buildings
performance requirements. Therefore, agencies must adhere to existing
law when constructing, leasing or refurbishing any building with money
appropriated under this act.
These relatively simple steps in designing new buildings in
conformance with current law, measuring building performance, and
procurement of energy efficient products will contribute to substantial
energy savings in the Federal sector--lessons that have already been
learned outside the Federal Government.
Increased energy conservation in the Federal sector means cleaner
air, cleaner water, and in a time of soaring energy costs, keeping
money in taxpayers pockets.
How can we expect consumers and industry to make sacrifices and
commit to energy conservation when the Federal Government fails to make
it a priority for itself?
Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption of the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Gordon).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Carter
Mr. CARTER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
[[Page H3088]]
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Carter:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), add the
following new section:
Sec. 7__. Not more than $3,600,000 of the funds made
available in this Act under section 522(e) of the Federal
Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1522(e)) may be used for program
compliance integrity under section 515 of such Act (7 U.S.C.
1515).
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Carter) and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. CARTER. Mr. Chairman, it is very seldom that we get good news
around here, but the purpose of this amendment is the continuation of a
program that is a success.
Tarleton State University has put together a data mining program in
which they have been examining the operations of the crop insurance
program. And they have to date saved this country $450 million in
waste, fraud and abuse from the crop insurance program. And it is
estimated that they have at least prevented the same.
Mr. Chairman, this is a good program that returns 22 to 1 on its
expenditures.
Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CARTER. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. BONILLA. Let me just first compliment the gentleman from Texas
for his hard work on this issue. This school should erect a statue in
his honor for all of the effort that he has put in this tirelessly for
the last few weeks.
The gentleman is correct. This has been a good program in years past,
but it was not an authorized program this time around. And we have
tried to work with the gentleman to try to figure out a solution to
this.
Mr. Chairman, I am telling the gentleman that we would be happy to
accept the amendment. I know that it has been an ordeal to get the
language just right so we could move forward with this issue. I want to
let the gentleman know that we would be happy to continue to work with
him on this.
Mr. CARTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank the ranking member,
also, for working with me on this.
{time} 1600
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr.
Moran).
Mr. MORAN of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. I rise in
support of this amendment. As I understand, it is a place holder for
the opportunity for us to further discuss and refine the opportunity to
continue funding of data mining.
I chair the subcommittee that has responsibility for crop insurance,
and this to me is one of the most successful programs in weeding out
and finding fraud and abuse. I encourage the conferees. I was glad to
hear the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Bonilla's remarks, as we try to find
an opportunity to make certain this program continues. As a member of
the authorizing committee, I look forward to working with you to see
that the necessary authorization occurs. It is an awfully important
program and one that we will hold a hearing on in the future in hopes
that we can expand this opportunity to other areas of the Department's
operations. I appreciate the gentleman yielding.
Mr. CARTER. I thank the chairman for his support and also Mr.
Goodlatte, the chairman of the committee, has expressed his support of
this program also. It is the future of looking at how we do government,
and I am excited to be able to be going forward on this.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Carter).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Engel
Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Engel:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used in contravention of section 301 of the Energy Policy
Act of 1992 (42 U.S.C. 13211).
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel) and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.
Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. ENGEL. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, we have worked on this language, and I
have corrected some problems we had with it. And we are happy to accept
the language if the gentleman will accept our support for this.
Mr. ENGEL. I certainly will, and I will submit my statement for the
Record.
Let me say that what we are trying to do here is to move America off
its addiction to foreign oil by requiring USDA to abide by the law and
at least three-quarters of the fleets that they purchase will have to
be fuel-flexible cars, and I am delighted that you will go along with
this.
We rarely have an opportunity to meet the needs of our farmers while
also directly meeting the needs of our national security. But we do
today.
President Bush was right to say we are addicted to oil. But now we in
Congress need to take action. We need bold action to end this
addiction. We need ethanol--not as an additive but as a full fledged
alternative.
And though I am loath to use this metaphor during the debate on the
Agriculture bill, we have a chicken and the egg problem with ethanol.
Should we put more ethanol on the market and hope people buy cars that
can use it or have more cars on the market and hope people will turn to
ethanol?
I believe we need to get more flexible fuel vehicle on the road. And,
I believe we should use the purchasing power of the federal government
to pursue this.
Now some may not like the federal government interfering in markets.
To this I would respond, this is about national security and that is
the federal government's responsibility. And with the war on terror, we
must look at all options--not just putting our military overseas but
what we can do right here at home.
Some might not like the federal government interfering with
consumer's choices. To this I would respond that the U.S. government is
the largest consumer of goods and services on the planet. And to meet
our responsibility to protect the American people, we have to take this
step toward weaning ourselves from foreign oil.
Furthermore, Congress has already spoken on this issue--however the
Administration--both Democratic and Republicans Administrations--have
failed to comply.
In 1992 the Congress passed the Energy Policy Act and in section 303
of that law, Congress set out targets for the fleet of federal motor
vehicles to be alternative fuel vehicles. By 1999, 75 percent of
vehicles purchased or leased were supposed to be Alternative Fuel. We
aren't even close.
According the GSA's Federal Fleet Report for FY2005 only 26 percent
of new vehicles acquired were AFV.
And only 15 percent of the whole existing federal fleet is AFV.
In 2005, the Department of Agriculture had 41,154 cars--and only
3,267 were E-85 capable. In fact, 85 percent of the Ag Department's
fleet is still gasoline only. Of the 4,108 vehicles purchased by the
Department of Agriculture in FY2005 77 percent were gasoline only.
The number of flex fuel cars on the road today is less than 8 million
out of more than 130 million on the road today.
We must do better than that if we are going to get the gas stations
to start providing E-85 as an alternative fuel.
Of the 175,000 ``fuel stations;'' nation wide, only about 700 have
E85 available.
And though there are more than 150,000 flex fuel cars in New York
there is not one station that sells E85 in New York.
Let's take this first step and use the federal government's
purchasing power to make alternative fuels a reality.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 8 Offered by Mr. Hefley
Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 8 offered by Mr. Hefley:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
[[Page H3089]]
Sec. __. Appropriations made in this Act are hereby reduced
in the amount of $178,120,000.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley) and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Colorado.
Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I will take the admonition of Mr. Bonilla and Mr. Obey
that we are going to be here way into the night if everybody takes all
their time, and so I will not do that. I want the chairman to know I
have 8 pages of scintillating argument here; but since I do not think
it is going to change your mind anyway, let me just say that this is
the amendment that you are familiar with that would cut 1 percent of
the discretionary funding in the bill. It amounts to $178 million,
which represents one penny off every dollar.
Mr. Chairman, I rise again today to offer an amendment to cut the
level of discretionary funding in this appropriations bill by 1
percent. This amount equals $178.12 million dollars which represents
only one penny off of every dollar.
As most members are aware, I have offered a series of similar
amendments to several appropriations bills. I think it is important to
state the affect these amendments would have on the deficit if they
would be accepted on all spending bills.
We have to draw a line somewhere. The budget we have for next year is
simply too large. We can do something about the deficit right now.
By voting for my amendment you are stating that American tax payers
should not have to pay higher taxes in the future because we couldn't
control our spending today.
Some of the projects in this FY 07 Agriculture Appropriations bill
include over $4 million for Shrimp aquiculture research in 7 states.
The USDA even testified in 2005 that this project's objectives of
developing a sustainable domestic shrimp farming industry in the United
States were met and completed in 1987. If the USDA concluded that the
project's objectives were met 18 years before, why has Congress
continued to fund this program at this level?
We also fund over $6.4 million for wood utilization and we've paid
nearly $86 million on this program since 1985, $2.5 million for cotton
research in Texas designed for in part, to expand the demand for cotton
research in West Texas, almost $2 million to research red imported fire
ants in Mississippi, as well as $878,000 for catfish genome research in
Alabama.
These are just a few examples of the funding included in these
appropriations bills.
The 07 Agriculture appropriations bill still provides nearly $17.8
billion in official discretionary spending, which represents over a $1
billion increase from the previous year and almost $500 million over
the President's request. The authorizing and appropriating committees
successfully eliminated a considerable amount of mandatory spending
with help from the Deficit Reduction Act, but appropriators still
shifted another $650 million from mandatory to discretionary spending
which distorts some of the numbers. Last year the discretionary funds
in this bill were essentially flat funded, but mandatory spending rose
exponentially. We seem to be playing hot potato with these funds by
trading off every year.
Our budget should be no different from the taxpayers' budgets at
home. When we have less money, we should spend less money. It really is
that simple.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. BONILLA. I will be very brief.
The gentleman is sincere in his effort in bringing this amendment
forward year after year after year, and the majority of House opposes
it year after year after year; and once again we oppose it today.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado will be
postponed.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Latham
Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Latham:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following new section:
Sec. 7__. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made
available by this Act shall be used to pay salaries and
expenses of personnel who implement or administer section 741
of this Act or section 508(e)(3) of the Federal Crop
Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1508(e)(3)) or any regulation,
bulletin, policy, or agency guidance issued pursuant to such
section for the 2007 and the 2008 reinsurance years, except
that funds are available to administer such section for
policies for those producers who, before the date of the
enactment of this Act, had in effect a crop year 2006 crop
insurance policy from a company eligible for the opportunity
to offer a premium reduction under such section for the 2006
reinsurance year.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Latham) and a Member opposed each will control
5 minutes.
Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on this
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The point of order is reserved.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Iowa.
Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, this is an amendment that has to do with
crop insurance. As we all know last year in the ag appropriations bill
there was an amendment in that that prohibited funding to do audits of
companies that offer the premium reduction program. And that language,
which I will read, says: ``This amendment would provide time for an
independent analysis of the program and the regulatory resources
required by USDA to satisfy the statutory requirements. It would give
the authorizing committees time to evaluate the premium discounting
program and make proper adjustments in the law before it has
expanded.''
Folks, here we are again. We have a prohibition extending another
year in this bill as far as funding. And what this does is stop
companies from offering a reduced premium on their crop insurance to
farmers.
I understand that there are folks who do not like this program. There
have been concerns raised about the way it has been implemented, about
practices that some companies have maybe used in selling the product.
In the bill last year when we put the prohibition or the limitation
of funding in, that was to give USDA and the authorizing committee time
to evaluate it. We have written to USDA. They have responded that they
cannot find any problems with the program, and that is their position.
There were concerns earlier and those concerns have been met.
In the limitation last year, the authorizing committee was asked to
make recommendations to change the program if there were problems. That
has not happened.
Mr. Chairman, I am a former insurance agent. I used to sell crop
insurance. There is no industry that I like or love any more than this
industry. And so it is very difficult for me to look at this and be
totally objective. But I honestly believe that this Congress has got to
look at the benefit of the producers. I will not in any way, shape or
form harm the crop insurance industry. That is the last thing that we
can do here because this is a way of farmers managing their risk that
they have on their farms, and we have got to make sure that they have
those policies available for them to cover their losses.
Having said that, the authorizing committee has not given a
recommendation. I think that we have to look at what the authorizing
committee on the House side and the other body have to say on this. We
will have an opportunity in conference to takes this issue on; and if I
could engage the chairman, Mr. Chairman, I would offer to at this time
withdraw this amendment if, in fact, I could get your commitment that
we would, in fact, in a realistic basis address this issue to make sure
that we do the right thing for our producers.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman.
Mr. BONILLA. I thank the gentleman for yielding. The gentleman knows
absolutely we will continue to
[[Page H3090]]
try to work with the gentleman. I know we have had some differences on
this issue, but no one has worked harder on this issue in the last few
weeks and months than the gentleman from Iowa.
I have said to the gentleman privately, and I will now say publicly,
that the people in Iowa, not just in the gentleman's district, that the
people in the State should canonize the gentleman, Mr. Latham, for his
hard work on a long list of issues that he has worked on in this
subcommittee for many years now.
There are some years as the gentleman knows where he consistently is
more successful on a long list of issues that is about twice as long. I
am the chairman of the subcommittee, and the gentleman from Iowa
usually gets double of his requests in the bill. That is how hard he
works, and that is how effective he is. So whether you win or lose on
this issue in the end, I would say to the gentleman from Iowa that the
people on both sides of this issue should realize that you doing
everything possible and we certainly will continue to work with the
gentleman from Iowa.
Mr. LATHAM. I thank the gentleman very much. It would be my hope and
ambition at this point to bring all the parties together, to finally
bring some type of resolution to it, to have a fair and honest
discussion with no personal attacks, things like that, that
unfortunately we have seen throughout some of this debate on the issue.
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Iowa?
There was no objection.
Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Blumenauer
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Blumenauer:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), add the
following new section:
Sec. 7__. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made
available by this Act may be used to to pay the salaries and
expenses of personnel who make loans available under section
156 of the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of
1996 (7 U.S.C. 7272) to processors of domestically grown
sugarcane at a rate in excess of 17 cents per pound for raw
cane sugar or to processors of domestically grown sugar beets
at a rate in excess of 21.6 cents per pound for refined beet
sugar.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) and a Member opposed each will
control 10 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Oregon.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 90 second.
Mr. Chairman, the United States sugar program is one of the most
archaic and misguided Federal policies that we have. It artificially
raises the prices of sugar. It harms U.S. customers and consumers, and
prevents developing nations from competing in the global market place.
One of the deep concerns I have is that people are circulating here
with a straight face the assertion that this is a no-cost program.
Nothing could be further from the truth. It drives up the price for
American consumers each year, upwards of $2 billion a year. It
undercuts industries that use sugar as a means of production like the
confectionery industry. And it is part of an enormous environmental
damage, like the everglades, where we are spending $7.5 billion in
clean-up.
In the course of the debate this afternoon, we will have
opportunities for people to focus on the need to eliminate this
program. This amendment is a small step towards sanity, making a 6
percent reduction in the guaranteed price if it is adopted.
I strongly urge that my colleagues look at the facts surrounding
this, look at what is going to be good for the consumer, for the
environment, for the taxpayer, and taking a step toward a rational
agriculture policy.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized for 10
minutes.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Blumenauer
amendment which calls for reductions of the loan rates established in
the 2002 farm bill for both refined beet sugar and raw cane sugar.
Mr. Chairman, farmers have crafted their business plans based on the
assurances of the 2002 farm bill. Farmers have invested time and money
in that crop often with capital borrowed from the bank. It is unfair
now to reduce the returns that farmers counted on when planning,
financing, and planting that crop.
This debate concerning the sugar program is an important one.
However, it is a debate that my committee will conduct at the
appropriate time during the authorization of the new farm bill. As
chairman of the House Agriculture Committee, I have already held farm
bill field hearings this year and will be holding additional farm bill
hearings this summer and fall.
During this process, and not when we are on the floor debating an
appropriations bill, is the correct time for discussing and making
possible changes to U.S. sugar policy.
Mr. Chairman, in my capacity as chairman of the House Agriculture
Committee, it is my responsibility to look at all of agriculture and
consider what is best for the United States and our farmers and
ranchers. The policy that was put in place by the 2002 farm bill must
remain intact. I stand by this commitment to farmers and ranchers and
urge a ``no'' vote on the Blumenauer-Flake amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
{time} 1615
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I am here to confess my
reading incomprehension. I have listened to many of my conservative
friends talk about the wonders of the free market, of the importance of
letting the consumers make their best choices, of keeping government
out of economic activity, of the virtues of free trade, but then I look
at various agricultural programs like this one. Now, it violates every
principle of free market economics known to man and two or three not
yet discovered.
So I have been forced to conclude that in all of those great free
market texts by Ludwig von Mises, Friedrich Hayek and all the others
that there is a footnote that says, by the way, none of this applies to
agriculture. Now, it may be written in high German, and that may be why
I have not been able to discern it, but there is no greater contrast in
America today than between the free enterprise rhetoric of so many
conservatives and the statist, subsidized, inflationary, protectionist,
anti-consumer agricultural policies, and this is one of them.
In particular, I have listened to people, and some of us have said
let us protect workers and the environment in trade; let us not have
unrestricted free trade; but let us have trade that respects worker
rights and environmental rights. And we have been excoriated for our
lack of concern for poor countries.
There is no greater obstacle, as it is now clear in the Doha round,
to the completion of a comprehensive trade policy than the American
agricultural policy, with one exception, European agricultural policy,
which is much worse and just as phony.
Sugar is an example. This program is an interference with the
legitimate efforts at economic self-help in many foreign nations.
So I appreciate the leadership of the gentleman from Arizona and the
gentleman from Oregon. Here is a chance for some of my free-enterprise-
professing friends to get honest with themselves, and now maybe we will
see some born-again free enterprisers in the agricultural field.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Peterson), ranking member of the
Agriculture Committee.
Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
yielding.
Just a couple of comments here. Whatever you want to say about this,
this program does not cost the taxpayers any money. There has been no
cost for the last number of years, and I guess you could make the
argument
[[Page H3091]]
that it maybe has some impact on the prices consumers pay, but I would
just like to read to the gentleman on the other side of this what the
consumers think about this.
We just did a poll on this, and they were asked, how concerned are
you about sugar prices? Thirty-three percent are concerned; 64 percent
are not concerned.
They were asked: Still thinking of the sugar price in 2005, the
average price is 43 cents. The average price in 1990 was 43 cents. In
1980, it was 43 cents. So what do you think about this? Twenty-seven
percent said it was expensive; 69 percent said it is not expensive.
How important do you think it is for the United States to be able to
produce food domestically instead of with foreigners? The previous
gentleman was talking about the Europeans. Right now, if we got rid of
the sugar program, we would end up importing sugar from Europe which
has a price 50 percent higher than the price in the United States. So,
when asked about that, the consumers, these are consumers, said that 93
percent think it is important we produce it here in the United States;
6 percent think it is not important.
So you vote on the line with the American consumers, and they are not
concerned about this. I tell you who is concerned about this is the
people that use sugar in their candy bars and other kinds of things,
and I will guarantee you we can cut the price of sugar in half or to a
quarter what it is now, and I will guarantee you the price of a Hershey
bar will not change in the grocery store. We have seen that over the
years.
So this is a good program. We are bringing in 1.5 million tons of
sugar that we do not need in this country. Mr. Pomeroy's and my
farmers, in North Dakota and Minnesota, could produce all that sugar
right here in the United States, but we bring it in, and we help 41
countries, most of them poor countries.
This is a program that has worked. It has been consistent. It makes
sense. It does not cost the taxpayers any money. The consumers in the
United States support it, and we should defeat this amendment and
continue this program going and have any discussion that we are going
to have in the farm bill next year.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Arizona (Mr. Flake), the cosponsor of this amendment.
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding and for
his leadership on this issue.
I would like to respond to Mr. Frank of Massachusetts about whether
or not Republicans are free market oriented or not. I would like to
respond, but I cannot. I honestly have no response to that. I honestly
cannot understand how we, as Republicans, can pretend to be in favor of
free market economics and still support this kind of program. I do not
know how long we can do it and still say that we are free market
oriented.
I think it was said best by former Senator Phil Gramm a while ago
when he was asked about farm policy and these types of subsidies. He
said our farm policy would make a Russian commissar puke. I do not know
how to improve on that. You just look at these programs and say, how
can we do this year after year after year?
It is said that this does not cost anything, that this is a no-cost
program. Well, the sugar program and its price supports, its import
quotas and production allotments is not no-cost.
According to the Organization of Economic Cooperation and
Development, monetary transfers to producers from consumers and
taxpayers as a result of government policy amounted to over half their
gross receipts in 2002-2004. Half of the gross receipts from these
sugar producers came from either consumers or taxpayers because of
government policy regulating the price.
In the year 2000, a GAO study estimated the cost to consumers in 1998
was $1.9 billion. No cost? It is nearly $2 billion of cost.
It is a benefit to producers of about $1 billion and a net loss to
the U.S. economy of $900 million. The sugar program is a classic
example of the principle of concentrated benefits and diffuse costs.
Nobody is going come here and lobby to Congress because a candy bar
costs a cent more or two cents or five cents more, but sugar producers
are sure going to lobby when they reap huge benefits.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Nebraska (Mr. Osborne).
Mr. OSBORNE. Mr. Chairman, this is our annual debate, and this is an
appropriations bill, not a farm bill. I think this discussion should
occur in the course of the farm bill. We have many sugar producers in
Nebraska who bought a sugar processing plant based on the 2002 farm
bill. So we think that it is important it be considered at the right
time.
Sugar prices in the United States are low by world standards. Grocery
shoppers in other developed countries pay 30 percent more for sugar
than the U.S.
America already has one of the most open sugar markets in the world,
importing sugar from 41 countries whether we need that sugar or not. As
the world's second largest sugar importer, the United States is the
only major sugar-producing country that is a net importer.
Lastly, I would like to mention this: Ten African Nations, and many
others around the world, receive the U.S. premium price, and so the
U.S. sugar program benefits many developing countries. This certainly
is something that we need to consider.
So I urge defeat of the amendment.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 1 minute to
the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw), a distinguished senior member of
the Ways and Means Committee.
(Mr. SHAW asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding at this
time, and I compliment him for this very good, well-thought-out
amendment.
You are hearing a lot of statistics on the floor here, but let me
throw some out there that are absolutely correct, and they are backed
up by the references that I will make.
The sugar program costs the United States consumers up to $1.9
billion every year, and a recent Department of Commerce report noted
that the domestic price of United States wholesale refined sugar over
the last 25 years has been two to three times the world price, two to
three times the world price.
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the Department of
Commerce, American taxpayers are paying over $200,000 per job for every
year, every year, to subsidize low-wage, low-skilled growing and
harvesting jobs.
This is absolutely nuts. The Department of Commerce estimates that
between 1997 and the year 2002, 10,000 confectionary manufacturing jobs
were lost due to the high price of sugar right here in the good ole
U.S.A.
A responsible sugar policy would result in a net increase in
employment in the higher paying sugar manufacturing and confectionary
industries and in increased savings to the American taxpayer.
I urge my colleagues to support a responsible sugar policy that
benefits U.S. food manufacturers, increases U.S. exports, helps
consumers save money at the grocery store, decreases government
spending, and creates more jobs for U.S. workers. That's why I'm voting
for the Blumenauer-Flake Amendment to H.R. 5384.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, may I ask how much time is remaining?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) has 4\1/2\
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) has 3\1/
2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure to yield 1 minute to
the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy).
Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, I very much thank my chairman for
yielding.
We are at a time when we have the greatest trade imbalance that we
have ever had in the history of our country, and the effect of this
amendment would be to significantly encroach upon a sugar program that
has kept domestic sugar production part of the agricultural production
in this country.
It is very much on the bubble. Throw open the doors, there are
countries around the world heavily subsidizing their domestic product,
providing a global dump price well below fair cost to production,
meaning the end of U.S.
[[Page H3092]]
production, reliance entirely upon imported sugar.
Now, that has a consequence that goes well beyond trade imbalance
because, at that point in time, the pricing of our groceries, turning
in part upon the sugar ingredient found in so many of our processed
foods, is like the oil we import and burn, out of our control. Volatile
pricing of global sugar, volatile pricing of groceries.
What we have with the sugar program is fair pricing, a stable food
market, a program that needs to continue.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
Two very brief points. One is, because of the nature of this lavish
subsidy, it has concentrated activity so that 1 percent of the sugar
producers get 42 percent of the benefit. A massive amount goes to just
two companies in Florida alone.
Second, it is driving jobs overseas. We have three-quarters of 1
million workers who are in sugar-using industries that are at a
competitive disadvantage and are moving out of the United States.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hinojosa).
Mr. HINOJOSA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this Blumenauer
amendment.
Nearly every year an anti-sugar farmer amendment is offered to the
agriculture appropriations bill, and almost every year, the same
misinformation is recklessly spread about sugar farmers. This is an
appropriations bill, not a farm bill.
All U.S. commodities covered under the 2002 farm bill receive loans
from the Federal Government. Sugar is not receiving special treatment.
Sugar prices for farmers have declined since 1990. Over that same
period, the price of candy, cookies, cake, and ice cream have steadily
risen by as much as 50 percent. Food companies, not the sugar farmers,
are making the big profits.
America already has one of the most open sugar markets in the world,
importing sugar from 41 countries whether we need the sugar or not.
In light of this information and in the spirit of fairness, I ask my
House colleagues to oppose this amendment.
The only difference is that sugar farmers rarely default on their
loans. Sugar farmers pay loans back with interest.
Loan levels for sugar farmers have remained unchanged for 20 years,
even though the cost of doing business has steadily risen--inflation
since 1985 has been 81 percent.
Sugar prices in the United States are low by world standards. Grocery
shoppers in other developed countries pay 30 percent more for sugar
than U.S. consumers. and, U.S. retail prices remained steady, at 43
cents per pound, in 2005, despite the devastating hurricanes that
ravaged cane country in Louisiana and Florida. Remarkably, 43 cents was
the average U.S. retail sugar price as long ago as in 1990, and even in
1980.
Sugar prices for farmers have declined since 1990. Over that same
period the price of candy, cookies, cake and ice cream have steadily
risen, by as much as 50 percent. Food companies, not sugar farmers, are
making the big profits.
America already has one of the most open sugar markets in the world,
importing sugar from 41 countries whether we need the sugar or not. As
the world's second largest sugar importer, we're the only major sugar-
producing country that is a net importer.
146,000 Americans are employed by sugar and depend on strong sugar
policy. A vote for the Blumenauer Amendment to H.R. 5384 is a vote
against 146,000 hard-working farmers and workers in 19 States.
In light of this information and in the spirit of fairness, I ask my
House colleagues to oppose this amendment.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute again to the gentleman
from Arizona (Mr. Flake), my colleague and the cosponsor of this
amendment.
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Let me
just talk about some of the groups outside that are supporting this
amendment.
This is the Consumer Federation of America: ``American consumers pay
almost $1 billion per year for sugar and products containing sugar than
they would if the U.S. market for sugar were fully competitive.''
The National Taxpayers Union: ``Sugar interests like to make the
claim that the Federal sugar program is run at no cost to the taxpayer,
yet they conveniently ignore the cost of staffing and operating the
bureaucracy necessary to run this monstrous program.''
Also, we talked about the cost to the consumer that is borne, about
$1 billion dollars a year.
Consumers for World Trade: ``The U.S. sugar program is an outdated
entitlement program that props up uncompetitive farmers at the expense
of American consumers.''
The sugar program is making it increasingly difficult to have real
free trade agreements because it is impacting on the Doha round, and
any other round we have on trade negotiations it makes it more
difficult because of trade distorting practices like our sugar program.
{time} 1630
The Competitive Enterprise Institute said: ``How can a domestic
program that raises a family's cost, harms the environment, and hurts
poor farmers in developing countries be justified?''
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Arkansas (Mr. Berry).
Mr. BERRY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. Chairman, the only justification for a farm program is to ensure
adequate production and processing capacity for our own security. Now,
it has been talked about here today about how terrible the sugar
program is. The fact is every country does this. To unilaterally disarm
our producers makes absolutely no sense in the world trade scheme, and
we simply cannot be allowed to be led down this path.
At the point when the rest of the world is willing to give up their
subsidies and play on a level playing field, our producers can be just
as successful as they are, if not more so. But until that time comes,
and it is not likely to show up in my lifetime, we have to ensure
adequate production and processing for the American people.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, who has the right to close? I just have
one speaker remaining.
The CHAIRMAN. The sponsor of the amendment, the gentleman from
Oregon, has the right to close.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I will go ahead and close.
This has been a very interesting debate. It is just the wrong place
for this debate. This is important agricultural policy that should not
be determined based upon a 20-minute debate in the middle of an
appropriation bill that funds agricultural programs. This is a debate
that needs to wait until the 2007 farm bill.
I hear the arguments. I am very much interested in good policy for
agriculture, including addressing some of the concerns that have been
raised about the sugar policy. This isn't the place to do it.
So I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I look forward
to addressing this in the writing of a new farm bill.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I want to inquire as to the time
remaining. We have 2 minutes left?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Oregon has 2 minutes remaining.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Connecticut
(Mr. Shays).
Mr. SHAYS. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I hope I don't use
the whole minute, but just to say that as a Republican who believes in
free markets, it is one of the big contradictions for me to constantly
see some of my conservative colleagues argue for a Depression program,
a program from the Depression era.
This is a program that costs a billion dollars, it distorts the
marketplace, and the reason we are debating it here is because we
rarely get an opportunity to debate this kind of issue. It needs to be
gone.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, one of the problems here is this is
not, with all due respect, some sort of major massive pruning. We are
talking about a 6 percent reduction on how the American consumer and
taxpayer is on the hook. That is not unilaterally disarming. That is
not a massive overhaul. We need this modest step.
I look forward to working with the chairman of the Ag Committee,
although I hope he is not the chairman of the Ag Committee next
session, but in
[[Page H3093]]
whatever capacity I look forward to working with him to have that
honest debate. The last time it went through the legislative process,
the sugar provisions got worse, not better. It was more egregious.
There were more things that were added to it to make it work against
the consumer and the taxpayer.
Only in Washington, D.C. would this be regarded as no-cost. That
survey that has been talked about should have asked consumers: Do they
like paying two to three times the world price of sugar? Do they like
driving overseas thousands of confectionery jobs, making our trade
imbalance worse? Do they like working against the ecological health of
the everglades and then spending $7.5 billion of taxpayer money to
start cleaning up some of the toxic residue of the sugar industry? And
do they want to discriminate against poor countries like Ethiopia,
Mozambique, and Mali that could benefit from freer trade in sugar?
I urge support of the Blumenauer-Flake amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired.
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Oregon
(Mr. Blumenauer).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Oregon will be
postponed.
Amendment Offered by Ms. Slaughter
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment offered by Ms. Slaughter:
At the end of the bill, insert after the last section
(preceding the short title) the following section:
Sec. 753. Of the total amount made available in title VI in
the first undesignated paragraph under the heading ``Food and
Drug Administration--salaries and expenses'', $1,000,000 is
available to the Center for Veterinary Medicine for
application review activities to assure the safety of animal
drugs with respect to antimicrobial resistance, pursuant to
section 512 of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, in
addition to all other allocations for such purpose made from
such total amount.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the
gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter) and a Member opposed each
will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from New York.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I shall be very brief.
As a microbiologist as well as a Member of Congress, I have been very
concerned for some time about the overuse of antibiotics and the rise
of drug-resistant bacteria. So what we are asking today is just a sum
of money, $1 million, to be set aside from the FDA budget to begin to
study the overuse of antibiotics in animals and using animals basically
as incubators to breed the drug-resistant bacteria.
I think it is a matter of top concern. It has been labeled that by
the CDC and the World Health Organization, which says it has become a
crisis; so I am pleased to put this amendment forward today.
Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
MR. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, we have worked with the gentlewoman on
this amendment, and I am happy to accept the amendment and would move
it to a vote if the gentlewoman would agree.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. I appreciate that very much, and thank you, sir.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today to address an issue that concerns me not
just as a microbiologist, but as a mother and a grandmother as well.
Americans have a right to trust the safety of the food they eat and
feed their families.
Today, that safety has been put in jeopardy by a new threat, one that
is the unintended result of our own advancements.
The threat comes from antibiotic resistant bacteria.
We take antibiotics for granted in this country. Just over 60 years
ago, a pneumonia diagnosis was a death sentence. A case of bacterial
meningitis would have been hopeless.
With the introduction of antibiotics, however, we have been able to
treat these, and many other, once fatal diseases.
Unfortunately, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have
reported that the most significant human infections are becoming
resistant to the antibiotics commonly used to treat them.
In fact, antibiotic resistance has been labeled a ``top concern'' by
the CDC, and the World Health Organization has called the situation a
crisis.
Resistant bacterial infections increase health care costs by 4 to 5
billion dollars each year.
Two million Americans acquire a bacterial infection annually during
stays at hospitals. Seventy percent of the infections they contract are
resistant to the drugs prescribed for treatment.
Salmonella infections, the cause of food poisoning, 1.4 million
illnesses, and 500 deaths in America every year are increasingly
resistant to the numerous drugs used against them.
And thirty-eight patients in American hospitals die every day as a
result of diseases contracted during their stay that no longer respond
to antibiotics.
While the overuse and misuse of antibiotics in humans is a factor
contributing to this problem, it is not its only cause.
There are currently seven classes of antibiotics used in both animals
and humans, including basic drugs like Penicillin.
In fact, 70 percent of all U.S. antibiotics are used by meat
producers on their livestock for nontherapeutic purposes.
Unwittingly, we are permitting animals to serve as incubators for
resistant bacteria.
And as a result, a parent on a trip to the grocery store could end up
bringing home meat contaminated with diseases that will put their
family's health at risk and prove difficult to treat.
In 2003, a National Academy of Sciences report stated that if we hope
to make headway against this danger, we must reduce overuse of
antibiotics not just in humans, but in animals and agriculture as well.
This huge and tremendously important task has fallen largely on the
FDA's Center for Veterinary Medicine.
And yet, despite its position on the front lines of this fight, the
CVM is ill-equipped to carry out its duties. It needs additional
resources to review the drugs currently approved for animal use.
The amendment I am offering here today will give CVM the much needed
boost necessary to do its job.
It will make available 1 million dollars from within its budget to
make sure we have the drugs we need to treat bacterial infections.
With all of the new challenges modern medicine faces, we cannot allow
a resurgence of ailments no longer seen as a source of concern.
Our failure to address this problem will result in a less secure, and
less healthy, future for our children and grandchildren.
I urge all of my colleagues to support this common-sense amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 13 Offered by Mr. Gutknecht
Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 13 offered by Mr. Gutknecht:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following new section:
Sec. 7__. (a) Limitation on Use of Funds.--None of the
funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act
shall be used to implement the limitation in section 720 of
this Act.
(b) Corresponding Reduction in Funds.--The amounts
otherwise provided by this Act are revised by reducing the
amount made available for ``Agricultural Research Service--
buildings and facilities'' and the amount made available for
``Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension
Service--research and education activities'' by $65,319,000
and $16,681,000, respectively.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht) and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Minnesota.
Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, it is a very simple amendment, but I
think it is very important and one that an awful lot of groups are
paying attention to.
[[Page H3094]]
There is a program we have had in the farm bill for a very long time,
the Wetland Reserve Program, that has become extremely important on a
variety of fronts. It is important to wildlife, it is important to our
water quality, it is important to flood control, and I think it is
important to most Americans who care about the environment.
It is especially important to those of us in Minnesota. We have
10,000 lakes. We take water very seriously. And the Wetland Reserve
Program is something that we want to do everything we can to preserve
and keep at its current levels.
Currently, we authorize in the farm bill about 250,000 acres for the
Wetland Reserve Program. And I understand how difficult it has been for
the subcommittee and the chairman and the staff to squeeze all of the
requests into the amount of money that they have been allocated in this
appropriation bill, so I have a great deal of empathy for the problems
that they have. But I wanted to come to the floor today to offer an
amendment to restore to 250,000 acres the overall authorization for the
Wetland Reserve Program.
Currently, under this bill that authorization drops to about 144,000
acres. I understand that the committee had to find $82 million. And by
passing this amendment we create an $82 million hole in their bill, and
I am empathetic to that. So what we have done, working with the
Department, we take $65 million from the ARS Facilities area and $16.5
million from the CSREES Research and Education Activities fund.
No one likes to take money from those funds, but as we looked at all
the potentials for offsets, those were the best we could find. So,
Members, I think this is an important amendment. I think it is one that
will be watched by the Ducks Unlimited, the Pheasants Forever, lots of
the wildlife groups and sportsmen groups, and it is important as well
to the folks who are really concerned about preserving our wetlands and
improving our environment.
So this is a very important amendment, and I hope my colleagues will
join me in supporting the Gutknecht amendment.
MR. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment and
claim the time in opposition.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I strongly oppose the gentleman's
amendment, and I know the gentleman has worked hard to try to perfect
the language in this amendment; but as we see it, very clearly the
gentleman's amendment scores at zero. So it would, in essence, not have
the effect the gentleman is hoping to have on the WRP program, but it
will cost $82 million in cuts.
This is for a program that the Inspector General of the Department of
Agriculture cited for $159 million in overpayments over 5 years. So I
am glad to see that mismanagement does not bother the gentleman from
Minnesota, but it certainly bothers me and other Members of this body.
Again, there is a technicality here that we have a problem with, as
we have had some professional staff review this language over and over
again. So I would ask the gentleman, since his amendment would not
accomplish what he is trying to accomplish, if he would withdraw the
amendment and perhaps seek a different remedy.
Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BONILLA. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, I would be more than happy to work with
the chairman on this. We worked with the professionals who draft these
amendments. We told them what we wanted. We were willing to find
offsets. We worked with the Department for those offsets. We understand
those offsets do cause some heartburn for the Department, but it is my
understanding they can work with those offsets.
I would appreciate it if we could at least adopt this amendment, and
we will work with you through the conference committee process to
perfect that language, if that is necessary. I hope that this body
wants to send a clear message that the Wetlands Reserve Program is a
high-priority program. And I would work with you on that, but I would
like to have this amendment adopted, even if it is not perfect in your
eyes.
MR. BONILLA. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, it is not a matter of
my eyes; it is a matter of the professionals that have scrubbed this
language; and again, the gentleman would not be accomplishing what he
is hoping to accomplish.
I might say as an aside, too, there is an issue related to this. We
understand that there may have been some unethical and perhaps even
illegal activity by the Department involved directly with this issue,
in terms of attempting to lobby Congress on it. And I want to say for
the record that we are not done with this issue after we vote on this
amendment.
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I rise in favor of the
amendment offered by my colleague from Minnesota.
Whether it is breeding grounds in the north or wintering grounds in
the south, the Wetland Reserve Program--WRP--is worthy of strong
funding. Besides wildlife habitat restoration, WRP has an impressive
record of providing flood protection, improving water quality and
conserving water quantity.
Farmer interest in these programs greatly exceeds the availability of
funds. For example, in 2005 in my district, there were 240 farmers with
unfunded applications totaling 34,000 acres and $49 million. These
lands are marginal, high risk lands that are vulnerable both to floods
and droughts because of the high content of hydric soils. These
marginal lands detract from a farmer's cash flow and tend to experience
repeated losses requiring disaster recovery assistance. Furthermore, it
has been shown that WRP can reduce expenses in Federal crop insurance
and other farm programs.
WRP provides a lump sum easement payment that assists financially
distressed farmers. The easement payment may be used to pay off current
debts or to meet current operating fund needs. Additionally, WRP may
provide farmers with both a temporary alternative source of income
through the wetlands restoration contract and a permanent source of
income from the recreational and lease hunting income generated by the
restored wetland wildlife habitat. The public benefits from both the
reduced demand placed on disaster assistance funds from lands that
previously experienced repeated losses and from significant long-term
conservation benefits obtained from the protection of wildlife habitat,
improvement of water quality, increase of flood storage and reduction
of soil erosion.
As the ranking member of the Homeland Security Committee, I have seen
avian influenza become increasingly more important. Although there has
not been a case of a human contracting the disease from a wild bird
anywhere in the world, it is feasible. The more we can disperse wild
birds and improve their overall health, the less risk we will have,
especially in an area that my colleague from Minnesota and I represent,
the Mississippi Flyway.
Let's not continue with empty rhetoric of supporting the 2002 farm
bill. In 2002 we passed a farm bill consisting of an annual 250,000
acres of land to be enrolled in the WRP. If we are going to say that we
support the 2002 farm bill, then we should support this amendment
because it does just that and I strongly encourage its adoption.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Minnesota will be
postponed.
MR. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I wonder if my distinguished ranking member, Ms.
DeLauro, might engage in a colloquy with me about what remains on the
bill. We are a little puzzled, and I include my side on this.
If Members are serious about offering amendments, I wonder where they
are, on my side as well as on the minority's side. If we can't get
Members here, perhaps we should seek a remedy to move through this bill
and finish it.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BONILLA. I yield to the gentlewoman from Connecticut.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman makes a good point.
I know we have called those on our side to come down, and I do not know
the disposition on your side. It looks to me like we have on our side
three amendments, and I was just trying to tally up on your side. There
are about five or six; is that correct?
[[Page H3095]]
MR. BONILLA. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I know the gentlewoman
would agree on her side that she is not a babysitter, nor am I. If I
had an amendment to offer, I would be in a three-point stance ready to
go on something that was of great importance to my constituents.
So I would throw out for thought that perhaps after another 5 minutes
passes, if nobody is here, we might look for a unanimous consent to
shut it down and move to final passage.
Ms. DeLAURO. That is something I would very much like to consider,
Mr. Chairman. So let us wait the 5 minutes and see what we have.
MR. BONILLA. We will wait 5 minutes, and if we don't see anyone, then
perhaps we can work on a UC, again with a bipartisan shutdown of the
bill and move forward.
{time} 1645
Sequential Votes Postponed in the Committee of the Whole
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings will
now resume on those amendments on which further proceedings were
postponed, in the following order:
An amendment by Mr. Weiner of New York.
Amendment No. 17 by Mr. Kennedy of Minnesota.
Amendment No. 4 by Mr. Paul of Texas.
Amendment No. 12 by Mr. Chabot of Ohio.
Amendment No. 8 by Mr. Hefley of Colorado.
Amendment No. 6 by Mr. Blumenauer of Oregon.
The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote
after the first vote in this series.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Weiner
The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner) on
which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes
prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 234,
noes 184, not voting 14, as follows:
[Roll No. 182]
AYES--234
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Bartlett (MD)
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boehlert
Bono
Boswell
Boucher
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burton (IN)
Camp (MI)
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carson
Case
Chandler
Chocola
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Conyers
Costa
Costello
Crowley
Cubin
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dent
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Ehlers
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Fattah
Ferguson
Filner
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Fossella
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Gerlach
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green (WI)
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutknecht
Harman
Harris
Hastings (FL)
Herseth
Higgins
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inglis (SC)
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jindal
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kelly
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kind
King (NY)
Kirk
Kucinich
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy
McCaul (TX)
McCollum (MN)
McCotter
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Oxley
Pallone
Pascrell
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Pickering
Platts
Poe
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Ramstad
Rangel
Reyes
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sabo
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz (PA)
Schwarz (MI)
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Shays
Sherman
Simmons
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Solis
Souder
Spratt
Stark
Stearns
Strickland
Stupak
Sweeney
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tiberi
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walsh
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Wilson (NM)
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NOES--184
Abercrombie
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Boozman
Boren
Boustany
Boyd
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Burgess
Butterfield
Buyer
Calvert
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Cooper
Cramer
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeLay
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Edwards
Emerson
English (PA)
Everett
Farr
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gingrey
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Hall
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hyde
Istook
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Keller
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
Kingston
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Latham
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
McCrery
McHenry
McKeon
McMorris
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Mollohan
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Osborne
Otter
Pastor
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pitts
Pombo
Price (GA)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rahall
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Schmidt
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Skelton
Smith (TX)
Sodrel
Sullivan
Tancredo
Tanner
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Turner
Walden (OR)
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--14
Brown, Corrine
Davis (FL)
Evans
Feeney
Gibbons
Gohmert
Gutierrez
Hunter
Issa
Kennedy (RI)
Larson (CT)
Meek (FL)
Payne
Snyder
{time} 1717
Messrs. WALDEN of Oregon, BARTON of Texas, BARROW, BASS, SAM JOHNSON
of Texas, WILSON of South Carolina, TURNER, REGULA, KUHL of New York
and NEY changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Messrs. HINCHEY, ROGERS of Michigan, MURTHA, HOEKSTRA, PETERSON of
Minnesota, CHOCOLA, RUSH, KIRK, BERRY, BOSWELL, WELDON of Pennsylvania
and SALAZAR changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment No. 17 Offered by Mr. Kennedy of Minnesota
The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kennedy)
on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes
prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 345,
noes 76, not voting 11, as follows:
[Roll No. 183]
AYES--345
Ackerman
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Baldwin
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
[[Page H3096]]
Bean
Beauprez
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blumenauer
Boehlert
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boustany
Bradley (NH)
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (OH)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carson
Case
Chabot
Chandler
Chocola
Clyburn
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conyers
Costa
Costello
Cramer
Crenshaw
Cubin
Cuellar
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (KY)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doolittle
Doyle
Drake
Duncan
Ehlers
Engel
English (PA)
Etheridge
Everett
Fattah
Feeney
Ferguson
Filner
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Forbes
Ford
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Frank (MA)
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Graves
Green (WI)
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Harman
Harris
Hart
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Herseth
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hostettler
Hoyer
Inglis (SC)
Inslee
Israel
Istook
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jenkins
Jindal
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Keller
Kennedy (MN)
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kirk
Kline
Kucinich
Kuhl (NY)
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Mack
Maloney
Manzullo
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy
McCaul (TX)
McCollum (MN)
McCotter
McCrery
McGovern
McHenry
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Mica
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Musgrave
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Osborne
Owens
Oxley
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Sabo
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz (PA)
Schwarz (MI)
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Shadegg
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Skelton
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Sodrel
Solis
Souder
Spratt
Stark
Stearns
Strickland
Stupak
Sullivan
Tancredo
Tanner
Taylor (MS)
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Westmoreland
Wexler
Whitfield
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Young (FL)
NOES--76
Abercrombie
Barrett (SC)
Biggert
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonilla
Boyd
Capps
Carter
Castle
Clay
Cleaver
Conaway
Cooper
Crowley
Culberson
Cummings
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
Delahunt
DeLay
Dreier
Edwards
Emanuel
Emerson
Eshoo
Farr
Flake
Foley
Gibbons
Granger
Grijalva
Hall
Hensarling
Higgins
Hobson
Hulshof
Hyde
Jackson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Kelly
Kingston
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Lewis (CA)
Marchant
McDermott
McMorris
Miller, George
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Otter
Radanovich
Reichert
Rush
Ryun (KS)
Schmidt
Shaw
Simpson
Slaughter
Smith (TX)
Sweeney
Tauscher
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thornberry
Turner
Weldon (FL)
Wicker
Wynn
Young (AK)
NOT VOTING--11
Brown, Corrine
Davis (FL)
Evans
Hunter
Issa
Kennedy (RI)
Larson (CT)
Meek (FL)
Payne
Pelosi
Snyder
{time} 1726
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California changed his vote from ``aye'' to
``no.''
Mr. CAPUANO changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
____________________