[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.

                          ____________________