Congressional Record, Volume 153 Issue 77 (Thursday, May 10, 2007)

[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 77 (Thursday, May 10, 2007)]
[House]
[Pages H4868-H4880]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

AGRICULTURAL DISASTER ASSISTANCE AND WESTERN STATES EMERGENCY
UNFINISHED BUSINESS APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2007

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 387, I call up
the bill (H.R. 2207) making supplemental appropriations for
agricultural and other emergency assistance for the fiscal year ending
September 30, 2007, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of H.R. 2207 is as follows:

H.R. 2207

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``Agricultural Disaster
Assistance and Western States Emergency Unfinished Business
Appropriations Act, 2007''.

SEC. 2. TABLE OF CONTENTS.

The table of contents for this Act is as follows:

TITLE I--AGRICULTURAL ASSISTANCE
TITLE II--EMERGENCY APPROPRIATIONS FOR WESTERN STATES

SEC. 3. STATEMENT OF APPROPRIATIONS.

The following sums in this Act are appropriated, out of any
money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for the
fiscal year ending September 30, 2007.

TITLE I--AGRICULTURAL ASSISTANCE

SEC. 1001. CROP DISASTER ASSISTANCE.

(a) Assistance Available.--There are hereby appropriated to
the Secretary of Agriculture such sums as are necessary, to
remain available until expended, to make emergency financial
assistance available to producers on a farm that incurred
qualifying quantity or quality losses for the 2005 or 2006
crop, or that part of the 2007 crop year before February 28,
2007, due to damaging weather or any related condition
(including losses due to crop diseases, insects, and delayed
planting), as determined by the Secretary. However, to be
eligible for assistance, the crop subject to the loss must
have been planted before February 28, 2007 or, in the case of
prevented planting or other total loss, would have been
planted before February 28, 2007 in the absence of the
damaging weather or any related condition.
(b) Election of Crop Year.--If a producer incurred
qualifying crop losses in more than one of the 2005, 2006, or
2007 crop years, the producer shall elect to receive
assistance under this section for losses incurred in only one
of such crop years. The producer may not receive assistance
under this section for more than one crop year.
(c) Administration.--
(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), the
Secretary of Agriculture shall make assistance available
under this section in the same manner as provided under
section 815 of the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and
Drug Administration and Related Agencies Appropriations Act,
2001 (Public Law 106-387; 114 Stat. 1549A-55), including
using the same loss thresholds for quantity and economic
losses as were used in administering that section, except
that the payment rate shall be 50 percent of the established
price, instead of 65 percent.
(2) Loss thresholds for quality losses.--In the case of a
payment for quality loss for a crop under subsection (a), the
loss thresholds for quality loss for the crop shall be
determined under subsection (d).
(d) Quality Losses.--
(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (3), the amount of a
payment made to producers on a farm for a quality loss for a
crop under subsection (a) shall be equal to the amount
obtained by multiplying--
(A) 65 percent of the payment quantity determined under
paragraph (2); by
(B) 50 percent of the payment rate determined under
paragraph (3).
(2) Payment quantity.--For the purpose of paragraph (1)(A),
the payment quantity for quality losses for a crop of a
commodity on a farm shall equal the lesser of--
(A) the actual production of the crop affected by a quality
loss of the commodity on the farm; or
(B) the quantity of expected production of the crop
affected by a quality loss of the commodity on the farm,
using the formula used by the Secretary of Agriculture to
determine quantity losses for the crop of the commodity under
subsection (a).
(3) Payment rate.--For the purpose of paragraph (1)(B) and
in accordance with paragraphs (5) and (6), the payment rate
for quality losses for a crop of a commodity on a farm shall
be equal to the difference between--
(A) the per unit market value that the units of the crop
affected by the quality loss would have had if the crop had
not suffered a quality loss; and
(B) the per unit market value of the units of the crop
affected by the quality loss.
(4) Eligibility.--For producers on a farm to be eligible to
obtain a payment for a quality loss for a crop under
subsection (a), the amount obtained by multiplying the per
unit loss determined under paragraph (1) by the number of
units affected by the quality loss shall be at least 25
percent of the value that all affected production of the crop
would have had if the crop had not suffered a quality loss.
(5) Marketing contracts.--In the case of any production of
a commodity that is sold pursuant to one or more marketing
contracts (regardless of whether the contract is entered into
by the producers on the farm before or after harvest) and for
which appropriate documentation exists, the quantity
designated in the contracts shall be eligible for quality
loss assistance based on the one or more prices specified in
the contracts.
(6) Other production.--For any additional production of a
commodity for which a marketing contract does not exist or
for which production continues to be owned by the producer,
quality losses shall be based on the average local market
discounts for reduced quality, as determined by the
appropriate State committee of the Farm Service Agency.
(7) Quality adjustments and discounts.--The appropriate
State committee of the Farm Service Agency shall identify the
appropriate quality adjustment and discount factors to be
considered in carrying out this subsection, including--
(A) the average local discounts actually applied to a crop;
and
(B) the discount schedules applied to loans made by the
Farm Service Agency or crop insurance coverage under the
Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.).
(8) Eligible production.--The Secretary of Agriculture
shall carry out this subsection in a fair and equitable
manner for all eligible production, including the production
of fruits and vegetables, other specialty crops, and field
crops.
(e) Payment Limitations.--
(1) Limit on amount of assistance.--Assistance provided
under this section to a producer for losses to a crop,
together with the amounts specified in paragraph (2)
applicable to the same crop, may not exceed 95 percent of
what the value of the crop would have been in the absence of
the losses, as estimated by the Secretary of Agriculture.
(2) Other payments.--In applying the limitation in
paragraph (1), the Secretary shall include the following:
(A) Any crop insurance payment made under the Federal Crop
Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.) or payment under
section 196 of the Federal Agricultural Improvement and
Reform Act of 1996 (7 U.S.C. 7333) that the producer receives
for losses to the same crop.
(B) The value of the crop that was not lost (if any), as
estimated by the Secretary.
(f) Eligibility Requirements and Limitations.--The
producers on a farm shall not be eligible for assistance
under this section with respect to losses to an insurable
commodity or noninsurable commodity if the producers on the
farm--
(1) in the case of an insurable commodity, did not obtain a
policy or plan of insurance for the insurable commodity under
the Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.) for
the crop incurring the losses;
(2) in the case of a noninsurable commodity, did not file
the required paperwork,

[[Page H4869]]

and pay the administrative fee by the applicable State filing
deadline, for the noninsurable commodity under section 196 of
the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 (7
U.S.C. 7333) for the crop incurring the losses; or
(3) were not in compliance with highly erodible land
conservation and wetland conservation provisions.
(g) Timing.--
(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), the Secretary of
Agriculture shall make payments to producers on a farm for a
crop under this section not later than 60 days after the date
the producers on the farm submit to the Secretary a completed
application for the payments.
(2) Interest.--If the Secretary does not make payments to
the producers on a farm by the date described in paragraph
(1), the Secretary shall pay to the producers on a farm
interest on the payments at a rate equal to the current (as
of the sign-up deadline established by the Secretary) market
yield on outstanding, marketable obligations of the United
States with maturities of 30 years.
(h) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Insurable commodity.--The term ``insurable commodity''
means an agricultural commodity (excluding livestock) for
which the producers on a farm are eligible to obtain a policy
or plan of insurance under the Federal Crop Insurance Act (7
U.S.C. 1501 et seq.).
(2) Noninsurable commodity.--The term ``noninsurable
commodity'' means a crop for which the producers on a farm
are eligible to obtain assistance under section 196 of the
Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 (7
U.S.C. 7333).

SEC. 1002. LIVESTOCK ASSISTANCE.

(a) Livestock Compensation Program.--
(1) Availability of assistance.--There are hereby
appropriated to the Secretary of Agriculture such sums as are
necessary, to remain available until expended, to carry out
the livestock compensation program established under subpart
B of part 1416 of title 7, Code of Federal Regulations, as
announced by the Secretary on February 12, 2007 (72 Fed. Reg.
6443), to provide compensation for livestock losses between
January 1, 2005 and February 28, 2007, due to a disaster, as
determined by the Secretary (including losses due to
blizzards that started in 2006 and continued into January
2007). However, the payment rate for compensation under this
subsection shall be 70 percent of the payment rate otherwise
applicable under such program. In addition, section
1416.102(b)(2)(ii) of title 7, Code of Federal Regulations
(72 Fed. Reg. 6444) shall not apply.
(2) Eligible applicants.--In carrying out the program
described in paragraph (1), the Secretary shall provide
assistance to any applicant that--
(A) conducts a livestock operation that is located in a
disaster county with eligible livestock specified in
paragraph (1) of section 1416.102(a) of title 7, Code of
Federal Regulations (72 Fed. Reg. 6444), an animal described
in section 10806(a)(1) of the Farm Security and Rural
Investment Act of 2002 (21 U.S.C. 321d(a)(1)), or other
animals designated by the Secretary as livestock for purposes
of this subsection; and
(B) meets the requirements of paragraphs (3) and (4) of
section 1416.102(a) of title 7, Code of Federal Regulations,
and all other eligibility requirements established by the
Secretary for the program.
(3) Election of losses.--
(A) If a producer incurred eligible livestock losses in
more than one of the 2005, 2006, or 2007 calendar years, the
producer shall elect to receive payments under this
subsection for losses incurred in only one of such calendar
years, and such losses must have been incurred in a county
declared or designated as a disaster county in that same
calendar year.
(B) Producers may elect to receive compensation for losses
in the calendar year 2007 grazing season that are
attributable to wildfires occurring during the applicable
period, as determined by the Secretary.
(4) Mitigation.--In determining the eligibility for or
amount of payments for which a producer is eligible under the
livestock compensation program, the Secretary shall not
penalize a producer that takes actions (recognizing disaster
conditions) that reduce the average number of livestock the
producer owned for grazing during the production year for
which assistance is being provided.
(5) Definitions.--In this subsection:
(A) Disaster county.--The term ``disaster county'' means--
(i) a county included in the geographic area covered by a
natural disaster declaration; and
(ii) each county contiguous to a county described in clause
(i).
(B) Natural disaster declaration.--The term ``natural
disaster declaration'' means--
(i) a natural disaster declared by the Secretary between
January 1, 2005 and February 28, 2007, under section 321(a)
of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act (7 U.S.C.
1961(a));
(ii) a major disaster or emergency designated by the
President between January 1, 2005 and February 28, 2007,
under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency
Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq.); or
(iii) a determination of a Farm Service Agency
Administrator's Physical Loss Notice if such notice applies
to a county included under (ii).
(b) Livestock Indemnity Payments.--
(1) Availability of assistance.--There are hereby
appropriated to the Secretary of Agriculture such sums as are
necessary, to remain available until expended, to make
livestock indemnity payments to producers on farms that have
incurred livestock losses between January 1, 2005 and
February 28, 2007, due to a disaster, as determined by the
Secretary (including losses due to blizzards that started in
2006 and continued into January 2007) in a disaster county.
To be eligible for assistance, applicants must meet all
eligibility requirements established by the Secretary for the
program.
(2) Election of losses.--If a producer incurred eligible
livestock losses in more than one of the 2005, 2006, or 2007
calendar years, the producer shall elect to receive payments
under this subsection for losses incurred in only one of such
calendar years. The producer may not receive payments under
this subsection for more than one calendar year.
(3) Payment rates.--Indemnity payments to a producer on a
farm under paragraph (1) shall be made at a rate of not less
than 30 percent of the market value of the applicable
livestock on the day before the date of death of the
livestock, as determined by the Secretary.
(4) Livestock defined.--In this subsection, the term
``livestock'' means an animal that--
(A) is specified in clause (i) of section 1416.203(a)(2) of
title 7, Code of Federal Regulations (72 Fed. Reg. 6445), or
is designated by the Secretary as livestock for purposes of
this subsection; and
(B) meets the requirements of clauses (iii) and (iv) of
such section.
(5) Definitions.--In this subsection:
(A) Disaster county.--The term ``disaster county'' means--
(i) a county included in the geographic area covered by a
natural disaster declaration; and
(ii) each county contiguous to a county described in clause
(i).
(B) Natural disaster declaration.--The term ``natural
disaster declaration'' means--
(i) a natural disaster declared by the Secretary between
January 1, 2005 and February 28, 2007 under section 321(a) of
the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act (7 U.S.C.
1961(a));
(ii) a major disaster or emergency designated by the
President between January 1, 2005 and February 28, 2007 under
the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency
Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq.); or
(iii) a determination of a Farm Service Agency
Administrator's Physical Loss Notice if such notice applies
to a county included under (ii).

SEC. 1003. EMERGENCY CONSERVATION PROGRAM.

There is hereby appropriated to the Secretary of
Agriculture $20,000,000, to remain available until expended,
to provide assistance under the Emergency Conservation
Program under title IV of the Agriculture Credit Act of 1978
(16 U.S.C. 2201 et seq.) for the cleanup and restoration of
farm and agricultural production lands.

SEC. 1004. PAYMENT LIMITATIONS.

(a) Reduction in Payments to Reflect Payments for Same or
Similar Losses.--The amount of any payment for which a
producer is eligible under sections 5101 and 5102 shall be
reduced by any amount received by the producer for the same
loss or any similar loss under--
(1) the Department of Defense, Emergency Supplemental
Appropriations to Address Hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico,
and Pandemic Influenza Act, 2006 (Public Law 109-148; 119
Stat. 2680);
(2) an agricultural disaster assistance provision contained
in the announcement of the Secretary on January 26, 2006, or
August 29, 2006; or
(3) the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for
Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Hurricane Recovery,
2006 (Public Law 109-234; 120 Stat. 418).
(b) Adjusted Gross Income Limitation.--Section 1001D of the
Food Security Act of 1985 (7 U.S.C. 1308-3a) shall apply with
respect to assistance provided under sections 5101, 5102, and
5103.

SEC. 1005. ADMINISTRATION.

(a) Regulations.--The Secretary of Agriculture may
promulgate such regulations as are necessary to implement
sections 5101 and 5102.
(b) Procedure.--The promulgation of the implementing
regulations and the administration of sections 5101 and 5102
shall be made without regard to--
(1) the notice and comment provisions of section 553 of
title 5, United States Code;
(2) the Statement of Policy of the Secretary of Agriculture
effective July 24, 1971 (36 Fed. Reg. 13804), relating to
notices of proposed rulemaking and public participation in
rulemaking; and
(3) chapter 35 of title 44, United States Code (commonly
known as the ``Paperwork Reduction Act'').
(c) Congressional Review of Agency Rulemaking.--In carrying
out this section, the Secretary of Agriculture shall use the
authority provided under section 808 of title 5, United
States Code.
(d) Use of Commodity Credit Corporation; Limitation.--In
implementing sections 5101 and 5102, the Secretary of
Agriculture may use the facilities, services, and authorities
of the Commodity Credit Corporation.

[[Page H4870]]

The Corporation shall not make any expenditures to carry out
sections 5101 and 5102 unless funds have been specifically
appropriated for such purpose.

SEC. 1006. MILK INCOME LOSS CONTRACT PROGRAM.

Section 1502(c)(3) of the Farm Security and Rural
Investment Act of 2002 (7 U.S.C. 7982(c)(3)) is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (A), by adding ``and'' at the end;
(2) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``August'' and all
that follows through the end and inserting ``September 30,
2007, 34 percent.''; and
(3) by striking subparagraph (C).

SEC. 1007. DAIRY ASSISTANCE.

There is hereby appropriated $20,000,000 to make payments
to dairy producers for dairy production losses in disaster
counties, as defined in section 1002 of this title, to remain
available until expended.

SEC. 1008. NONINSURED CROP ASSISTANCE PROGRAM.

For states in which there is a shortage of claims
adjustors, as determined by the Secretary, the Secretary
shall permit the use of one claims adjustor certified by the
Secretary in carrying out 7 CFR 1437.401.

SEC. 1009. EMERGENCY GRANTS TO ASSIST LOW-INCOME MIGRANT AND
SEASONAL FARMWORKERS.

There is hereby appropriated $21,000,000 to carry out
section 2281 of the Food, Agriculture, Conservation and Trade
Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 5177a), to remain available until
expended.

SEC. 1010. CONSERVATION SECURITY PROGRAM.

Section 20115 of Public Law 110-5 is amended by striking
``section 726'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``section 726;
section 741''.

SEC. 1011. ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES.

There is hereby appropriated $30,000,000 for the ``Farm
Service Agency, Salaries and Expenses'', to remain available
until September 30, 2008.

SEC. 1012. CONTRACT WAIVER.

In carrying out crop disaster and livestock assistance in
this title, the Secretary shall require forage producers to
have participated in a crop insurance pilot program or the
Non-Insured Crop Disaster Assistance Program during the crop
year for which compensation is received.

SEC. 1013. EMERGENCY DESIGNATION.

Amounts in this title are designated as emergency
requirements pursuant to section 402 of H. Con. Res. 95
(109th Congress), and pursuant to section 501 of H. Con. Res.
376 (109th Congress) as made applicable to the House of
Representatives by section 511(a)(4) of H. Res. 6 (110th
Congress).

TITLE II--EMERGENCY APPROPRIATIONS FOR WESTERN STATES

CHAPTER 1--FISHERIES DISASTER ASSISTANCE

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

operations, research, and facilities

For an additional amount for ``Operations, Research, and
Facilities'', $60,400,000, to remain available until
September 30, 2008: Provided, That the National Marine
Fisheries Service shall cause such amounts to be distributed
among eligible recipients of assistance for the commercial
fishery failure designated under section 312(a) of the
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16
U.S.C. 1861a(a)) and declared by the Secretary of Commerce on
August 10, 2006.

CHAPTER 2--WILDLAND FIREFIGHTING AND RURAL SCHOOLS

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

wildland fire management

(including transfer of funds)

For an additional amount for ``Wildland Fire Management'',
$100,000,000, to remain available until expended, for urgent
wildland fire suppression activities: Provided, That such
funds shall only become available if funds previously
provided for wildland fire suppression will be exhausted
imminently and the Secretary of the Interior notifies the
House and Senate Committees on Appropriations in writing of
the need for these additional funds: Provided further, That
such funds are also available for repayment to other
appropriations accounts from which funds were transferred for
wildfire suppression.

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service

wildland fire management

(including transfer of funds)

For an additional amount for ``Wildland Fire Management'',
$400,000,000, to remain available until expended, for urgent
wildland fire suppression activities: Provided, That such
funds shall only become available if funds provided
previously for wildland fire suppression will be exhausted
imminently and the Secretary of Agriculture notifies the
House and Senate Committees on Appropriations in writing of
the need for these additional funds: Provided further, That
such funds are also available for repayment to other
appropriation accounts from which funds were transferred for
wildfire suppression.

GENERAL PROVISION, THIS CHAPTER

SEC. 2201. SECURE RURAL SCHOOLS.

(a) For fiscal year 2007, payments shall be made from any
revenues, fees, penalties, or miscellaneous receipts
described in sections 102(b)(3) and 103(b)(2) of the Secure
Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000
(Public Law 106-393; 16 U.S.C. 500 note), not to exceed
$100,000,000, and the payments shall be made, to the maximum
extent practicable, in the same amounts, for the same
purposes, and in the same manner as were made to States and
counties in 2006 under that Act.
(b) There is appropriated $425,000,000, to remain available
until December 31, 2007, to be used to cover any shortfall
for payments made under this section from funds not otherwise
appropriated.
(c) Titles II and III of Public Law 106-393 are amended,
effective September 30, 2006, by striking ``2006'' and
``2007'' each place they appear and inserting ``2007'' and
``2008'', respectively.

CHAPTER 3--GENERAL PROVISION, THIS TITLE

SEC. 2301. EMERGENCY DESIGNATION.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 387, the
amendment printed in part B of House Report 110-143 is adopted and the
bill, as amended, is considered read.
The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:

H.R. 2207

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``Agricultural Disaster
Assistance and Western States Emergency Unfinished Business
Appropriations Act, 2007''.

SEC. 2. TABLE OF CONTENTS.

The table of contents for this Act is as follows:

TITLE I--AGRICULTURAL ASSISTANCE
TITLE II--EMERGENCY APPROPRIATIONS FOR WESTERN STATES

SEC. 3. STATEMENT OF APPROPRIATIONS.

The following sums in this Act are appropriated, out of any
money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for the
fiscal year ending September 30, 2007.

TITLE I--AGRICULTURAL ASSISTANCE

SEC. 1001. CROP DISASTER ASSISTANCE.

[[Page H4871]]

(3) Payment rate.--For the purpose of paragraph (1)(B) and
in accordance with paragraphs (5) and (6), the payment rate
for quality losses for a crop of a commodity on a farm shall
be equal to the difference between--
(A) the per unit market value that the units of the crop
affected by the quality loss would have had if the crop had
not suffered a quality loss; and
(B) the per unit market value of the units of the crop
affected by the quality loss.
(4) Eligibility.--For producers on a farm to be eligible to
obtain a payment for a quality loss for a crop under
subsection (a), the amount obtained by multiplying the per
unit loss determined under paragraph (1) by the number of
units affected by the quality loss shall be at least 25
percent of the value that all affected production of the crop
would have had if the crop had not suffered a quality loss.
(5) Marketing contracts.--In the case of any production of
a commodity that is sold pursuant to one or more marketing
contracts (regardless of whether the contract is entered into
by the producers on the farm before or after harvest) and for
which appropriate documentation exists, the quantity
designated in the contracts shall be eligible for quality
loss assistance based on the one or more prices specified in
the contracts.
(6) Other production.--For any additional production of a
commodity for which a marketing contract does not exist or
for which production continues to be owned by the producer,
quality losses shall be based on the average local market
discounts for reduced quality, as determined by the
appropriate State committee of the Farm Service Agency.
(7) Quality adjustments and discounts.--The appropriate
State committee of the Farm Service Agency shall identify the
appropriate quality adjustment and discount factors to be
considered in carrying out this subsection, including--
(A) the average local discounts actually applied to a crop;
and
(B) the discount schedules applied to loans made by the
Farm Service Agency or crop insurance coverage under the
Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.).
(8) Eligible production.--The Secretary of Agriculture
shall carry out this subsection in a fair and equitable
manner for all eligible production, including the production
of fruits and vegetables, other specialty crops, and field
crops.
(e) Payment Limitations.--
(1) Limit on amount of assistance.--Assistance provided
under this section to a producer for losses to a crop,
together with the amounts specified in paragraph (2)
applicable to the same crop, may not exceed 95 percent of
what the value of the crop would have been in the absence of
the losses, as estimated by the Secretary of Agriculture.
(2) Other payments.--In applying the limitation in
paragraph (1), the Secretary shall include the following:
(A) Any crop insurance payment made under the Federal Crop
Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.) or payment under
section 196 of the Federal Agricultural Improvement and
Reform Act of 1996 (7 U.S.C. 7333) that the producer receives
for losses to the same crop.
(B) The value of the crop that was not lost (if any), as
estimated by the Secretary.
(f) Eligibility Requirements and Limitations.--The
producers on a farm shall not be eligible for assistance
under this section with respect to losses to an insurable
commodity or noninsurable commodity if the producers on the
farm--
(1) in the case of an insurable commodity, did not obtain a
policy or plan of insurance for the insurable commodity under
the Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.) for
the crop incurring the losses;
(2) in the case of a noninsurable commodity, did not file
the required paperwork, and pay the administrative fee by the
applicable State filing deadline, for the noninsurable
commodity under section 196 of the Federal Agriculture
Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 (7 U.S.C. 7333) for the
crop incurring the losses; or
(3) were not in compliance with highly erodible land
conservation and wetland conservation provisions.
(g) Timing.--
(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), the Secretary of
Agriculture shall make payments to producers on a farm for a
crop under this section not later than 60 days after the date
the producers on the farm submit to the Secretary a completed
application for the payments.
(2) Interest.--If the Secretary does not make payments to
the producers on a farm by the date described in paragraph
(1), the Secretary shall pay to the producers on a farm
interest on the payments at a rate equal to the current (as
of the sign-up deadline established by the Secretary) market
yield on outstanding, marketable obligations of the United
States with maturities of 30 years.
(h) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Insurable commodity.--The term ``insurable commodity''
means an agricultural commodity (excluding livestock) for
which the producers on a farm are eligible to obtain a policy
or plan of insurance under the Federal Crop Insurance Act (7
U.S.C. 1501 et seq.).
(2) Noninsurable commodity.--The term ``noninsurable
commodity'' means a crop for which the producers on a farm
are eligible to obtain assistance under section 196 of the
Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 (7
U.S.C. 7333).

SEC. 1002. LIVESTOCK ASSISTANCE.

[[Page H4872]]

(5) Definitions.--In this subsection:
(A) Disaster county.--The term ``disaster county'' means--
(i) a county included in the geographic area covered by a
natural disaster declaration; and
(ii) each county contiguous to a county described in clause
(i).
(B) Natural disaster declaration.--The term ``natural
disaster declaration'' means--
(i) a natural disaster declared by the Secretary between
January 1, 2005 and February 28, 2007 under section 321(a) of
the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act (7 U.S.C.
1961(a));
(ii) a major disaster or emergency designated by the
President between January 1, 2005 and February 28, 2007 under
the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency
Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq.); or
(iii) a determination of a Farm Service Agency
Administrator's Physical Loss Notice if such notice applies
to a county included under (ii).

SEC. 1003. EMERGENCY CONSERVATION PROGRAM.

SEC. 1004. PAYMENT LIMITATIONS.

(a) Reduction in Payments to Reflect Payments for Same or
Similar Losses.--The amount of any payment for which a
producer is eligible under sections 1001 and 1002 shall be
reduced by any amount received by the producer for the same
loss or any similar loss under--
(1) the Department of Defense, Emergency Supplemental
Appropriations to Address Hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico,
and Pandemic Influenza Act, 2006 (Public Law 109-148; 119
Stat. 2680);
(2) an agricultural disaster assistance provision contained
in the announcement of the Secretary on January 26, 2006, or
August 29, 2006; or
(3) the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for
Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Hurricane Recovery,
2006 (Public Law 109-234; 120 Stat. 418).
(b) Adjusted Gross Income Limitation.--Section 1001D of the
Food Security Act of 1985 (7 U.S.C. 1308-3a) shall apply with
respect to assistance provided under sections 1001, 1002, and
1003.

SEC. 1005. ADMINISTRATION.

(a) Regulations.--The Secretary of Agriculture may
promulgate such regulations as are necessary to implement
sections 1001 and 1002.
(b) Procedure.--The promulgation of the implementing
regulations and the administration of sections 1001 and 1002
shall be made without regard to--
(1) the notice and comment provisions of section 553 of
title 5, United States Code;
(2) the Statement of Policy of the Secretary of Agriculture
effective July 24, 1971 (36 Fed. Reg. 13804), relating to
notices of proposed rulemaking and public participation in
rulemaking; and
(3) chapter 35 of title 44, United States Code (commonly
known as the ``Paperwork Reduction Act'').
(c) Congressional Review of Agency Rulemaking.--In carrying
out this section, the Secretary of Agriculture shall use the
authority provided under section 808 of title 5, United
States Code.
(d) Use of Commodity Credit Corporation; Limitation.--In
implementing sections 1001 and 1002, the Secretary of
Agriculture may use the facilities, services, and authorities
of the Commodity Credit Corporation. The Corporation shall
not make any expenditures to carry out sections 1001 and 1002
unless funds have been specifically appropriated for such
purpose.

SEC. 1006. MILK INCOME LOSS CONTRACT PROGRAM.

SEC. 1007. DAIRY ASSISTANCE.

SEC. 1008. NONINSURED CROP ASSISTANCE PROGRAM.

SEC. 1009. EMERGENCY GRANTS TO ASSIST LOW-INCOME MIGRANT AND
SEASONAL FARMWORKERS.

There is hereby appropriated $21,000,000 to carry out
section 2281 of the Food, Agriculture, Conservation and Trade
Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 5177a), to remain available until
expended.

SEC. 1010. CONSERVATION SECURITY PROGRAM.

Section 20115 of Public Law 110-5 is amended by striking
``section 726'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``section 726;
section 741''.

SEC. 1011. ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES.

There is hereby appropriated $30,000,000 for the ``Farm
Service Agency, Salaries and Expenses'', to remain available
until September 30, 2008.

SEC. 1012. CONTRACT WAIVER.

SEC. 1013. EMERGENCY DESIGNATION.

TITLE II--EMERGENCY APPROPRIATIONS FOR WESTERN STATES

CHAPTER 1--FISHERIES DISASTER ASSISTANCE

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

operations, research, and facilities

CHAPTER 2--WILDLAND FIREFIGHTING AND RURAL SCHOOLS

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

wildland fire management

(including transfer of funds)

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service

wildland fire management

(including transfer of funds)

GENERAL PROVISION, THIS CHAPTER

SEC. 2201. SECURE RURAL SCHOOLS.

CHAPTER 3--GENERAL PROVISION, THIS TITLE

SEC. 2301. EMERGENCY DESIGNATION.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and
the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin.

General Leave

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may

[[Page H4873]]

have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on
H.R. 2207.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Wisconsin?
There was no objection.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 8 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, in the bill which the President vetoed last week, in
addition to funding for the troops in Iraq, we provided funding for a
number of other high-priority purposes. We provided additional funding
above the President's request for veterans' health care, something
which the President did not want. We added additional funding to defend
the country against a potential epidemic from the pandemic flu virus
that our scientists are concerned about. The President asked for that
money 3 years ago, but this time around said he didn't want it in the
bill. The President said he did not want to see the money that we put
in the bill for homeland security and a variety of other programs.
It seemed to me the administration took special pleasure in also
objecting to the fact that we had agricultural disaster funding in the
bill and that we had the funding in the bill to respond to the court
decision on western salmon and we also had funding in the bill to deal
with Western school programs that had been allowed to lapse by the
previous Congress and several other provisions like that. The President
said that those programs didn't belong in this bill because they
weren't emergencies.
Well, in fact, I think the President had it backwards because what
the President seemed to suggest is that the only legitimate funding for
an emergency appropriation would be for the war in Iraq. In fact, the
war in Iraq should not be funded at all as an emergency appropriation.
After all, it has been around for more than 4 years, despite the
President's landing on that aircraft carrier. And the fact is that the
President, in order to hide the full cost of the war, asked for that
war to be funded in 11 different slices. Those funds should have been
provided in regular appropriation bills, not in supplementals. So it is
the President who has the usual practice figured out just backwards. We
didn't object to dealing with the Iraqi problem, and we would
appreciate it if he would not object to dealing with other legitimate
emergency problems.
The President seemed to suggest, in his veto message, that we didn't
have the courage to deal with the agriculture and other related issues
alone, that we had to slip them in, so to speak, in the Iraq bill. And,
frankly, that got my dander up. And so now that we are back in the
second bill, I have insisted that when the House votes on this matter
tonight that we vote on it separately to demonstrate to the President
that there is support in both parties, I believe, for dealing with some
of these issues, especially with the agriculture problem.
Now, I didn't declare 70 percent of the counties in this country to
be disaster areas. The President did. The Congress has an obligation
not to ignore those declarations and act accordingly, and that is what
we are trying to do. So very simply, we are going to have these votes
tonight, and I am glad that we are.
There are two items that are not in the bill that should be in the
bill. One is spinach. When the President vetoed the bill, his
administration made a lot of fun of the fact that we had funding for
spinach in the bill. Well, there is no spinach in my district, but let
me tell you why we had that funding. Nobody was laughing a year ago
when people were deathly sick because they had consumed spinach that
was contaminated with E. coli, and then the Federal Government went to
spinach growers and asked that they take their products off the shelf
voluntarily, and when they did that, that cost those spinach growers a
lot of money. Now, I have heard a lot of conservatives and liberals
alike in this House complain and cry and whine all over the floor when
the government engages in an uncompensated taking from a private
citizen. Well, if you tell an industry that they can't collect for
their product after they have been asked by the government to take it
off the market even though 99 percent of that spinach was perfectly
safe, then what have you done? You have engaged in an uncompensated
taking. Now, that may not bother many people in a city like Washington,
D.C., where a lot of people look down their noses at anything rural,
but the fact is that farmers are entitled and spinach growers are
entitled to the same kind of consideration any other economic group
would have in this country.
The second thing that isn't in here is funding for Great Lakes
fishery problems. We had several Members of the minority party make fun
of the bill 2 weeks ago because they claimed we had money in the bill
for tropical fish. Well, I want to tell you what we had in the bill.
The Federal Government discovered last year that fisheries in the Great
Lakes, especially in Lake Michigan, that fish were being found with a
disease called viral hemorrhagic septicemia. It does to fish what ebola
does to human beings. It is a bloody problem. And that problem, if left
unchecked, has the potential to destroy the entire Great Lakes
fisheries. That is an 8 to $9 billion annual business. So what we tried
to do was to simply recognize the plight of a few commercial fish
growers who were told by the government they could not ship their
product across State lines because it would endanger the entire
fisheries, and so they complied. The irony was under the law if the
fish produced by those farmers had been diseased, they could have
collected from the government, but because those fish were healthy,
they couldn't. So they were stuck in a catch-22 situation.
We tried to fund that, and we got laughed off the screen because the
demogogues in this institution and demogogues on the other end of the
avenue made fun of a problem that is a very serious environmental
problem. We have taken that item out of the bill, too, simply because
there is only so much bowl gravy that you can counter in a political
debate. So we are left with the bare bones proposition that deals with
legitimate problems faced by farmers and faced by Western States with
respect to wildfires and the other problems funded in this bill.
So I am happy we finally are going to have an opportunity to vote on
these items standing alone. I urge an ``aye'' vote.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Speaker, we are continuing our debate on the emergency
supplemental with a discussion of a separate measure that includes
billions of dollars of spending completely unrelated to the global war
on terror or legitimate emergencies in the gulf coast region.
This is an extraordinary amount of unauthorized spending, spending
that is not offset in any way, contained under the emergency
designation. As the ranking member of the House Appropriations
Committee, and the committee's former chairman, I believe the House
must firmly hold the line and reject this unnecessary spending.
Members on both sides of the aisle can, and will, argue that some of
this spending is justified. Members can correctly point out the need
for additional funds to address wildfire suppression or agricultural
assistance in various regions of the United States. However, I would
urge that many of the needs addressed in this bill could, and they
should, be addressed in regular order through the fiscal year 2008
funding bills.
Sadly, many items are being designated as emergencies for no other
reason than to make more room for additional spending under the fiscal
year 2008 caps, which, incidentally, we still do not have.
When the new majority assumed power earlier this year, it committed
to restoring pay-as-you-go, the practice of offsetting spending
increases with spending decreases. As I mentioned earlier, none of the
proposed spending included in this package has been offset in any way.
Lastly, Mr. Speaker, our colleagues should be aware that the
President has indicated that he will veto this legislation due to the
excessive nonemergency spending it contains. I urge our colleagues to
show spending restraint by opposing this package.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

[[Page H4874]]

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished
chairwoman of the Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee, Ms. DeLauro.

{time} 2030

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, with this supplemental appropriations bill,
we continue to confront urgent business which the 109th Congress left
unfinished last year and which the President continues to want to leave
unfinished. Today, that includes an important relief package for
agricultural disasters which occurred in 2005, 2006 and 2007.
I do not have to remind my colleagues about so many instances of
devastation that have struck every corner of our Nation. And the
President's response to these disasters is, ``You are on your own.''
With severe drought in the Midwest, wildfire in the Southwest and
floods in the Upper Plains, the United States Department of Agriculture
designated nearly three-quarters of all U.S. counties as primary or
contiguous disaster areas over the past 2 years. Hardworking farmers
struggling just to get by, struggling to deal with each disaster's
painful consequences, struggling to understand their deeply felt impact
on our businesses, our communities, on our everyday lives. What is the
President's response? ``You are on your own.''
These events are described by many as ``slow-motion disasters,'' but
they are disasters nonetheless. And we cannot turn our backs on those
who are hit hardest. Indeed, we have a responsibility to look honestly
at all of the hard choices which have been put off far too long by this
Congress and our President.
Outside the gulf region, there has been no disaster assistance in the
past 2 years, even though natural disasters hit our farmers hard. In
2000 and 2001, we had disaster assistance bills that cost over $11
billion in one year and $14 billion in the other. Our proposal is a
fraction of those.
While some time has passed since these natural disasters occurred, it
does not mean that they have ceased to be emergencies, and it does not
mean that we no longer have an obligation to help those in need.
What the Democrats tonight are telling those who are struggling in
the face of these disasters is that you are not alone. We are on your
side. I urge my colleagues to support the bill.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, because he is constantly
talking to me about the challenges of rural schools, it is my pleasure
to recognize Greg Walden of Oregon for 3 minutes.
Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. I thank the ranking member of the committee, my
friend and colleague from California.
Mr. Speaker, tonight I must rise to strongly urge my colleagues on
both sides of the aisle to help us deal with a very real emergency in
the West and across the country by supporting this measure to fund
rural schools and roads, and to help make sure that our farmers and
ranchers and those who fish get the disaster aid that they have needed
for some time.
And I have to forcefully disagree with the statement of
administration policy issued by this administration which threatens a
Presidential veto. To say that the closing of jails and schools and
libraries, as is occurring right now in my district and in others, is
not somehow an emergency is to simply ignore the reality of what is
happening in the rural West. It is outrageous. Enough is enough.
First, the Federal courts and the government shut down the timber
industry and timber harvest on Federal lands and took away our jobs in
rural communities. Then the Federal Government quit effectively
managing those forests. And last year, we again paid the price with 10
million acres of Federal land that burned at a cost of a billion and a
half for taxpayers to extinguish those fires. But it gets worse. The
Federal Government has failed to replant a million acres of Federal
forest lands, America's forest lands that have burned over the years.
And now it has broken a hundred-year promise to the rural communities
who used to depend on the revenues from these forests that now aren't
even managed.
And now the President threatens to veto this emergency funding bill
designed to pay for firefighting, designed to pay for fishermen whose
season was shut down last year, and to pay for keeping schools open and
jails open and roads open, and providing disaster aid to farmers and
ranchers. If we don't do this advanced funding for firefighting, they
will dip into the accounts of the Forest Service and they won't do the
very kind of work that needs to be done in the forest to prevent these
kind of catastrophic fires that we are seeing over and over and over
again. It is the same process that we decry is occurring in the
military if we don't properly fund our troops. They will rip into these
accounts. They will cancel the contracts, and they will set us behind.
That is what happened to the Forest Service.
Enough is enough. The President should not veto this bill, and this
Congress should pass it.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson).
Mr. THOMPSON of California. I thank the chairman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker and Members, this bill contains emergency disaster
funding that is needed because of a commercial fishing disaster that
happened last year and was not dealt with last year. It has devastated
fishing families and related businesses up and down the California and
the Oregon coast. Moreover, this disaster was the result of this
administration's failed and illegal water policy. This water policy
caused a virtual shutdown of the entire commercial fishing, salmon
fishing season last year. And their water policy has been unanimously
ruled arbitrary and capricious and a violation of the Endangered
Species Act by not one, not two, but three different courts.
Sadly, fishing families throughout my district and other parts of the
coast have lost their boats. They have lost their homes. And they can't
wait, as the ranking member suggested, for the 2008 funding cycle. The
ones who still have their boats can't afford to buy fuel to go fishing
if they do get a fishing season this year.
Marinas throughout my district have gone out of business. The few
that are left open have had to lay off up to 80 percent of their
employees. Fishing lodges throughout the coastal area are near
bankruptcy. And all of this because of a failed water policy and the
previous majority's failure to deal with this disaster declaration last
year, a disaster declaration that was made by the Secretary of
Commerce. These folks can't wait.
Also, as previously mentioned, this important bill contains rural
school funding that is critical to school districts throughout rural
America. And they are entitled to this funding because the Federal
Government owns the property that would otherwise generate taxes that
would fund these schools. This funding goes for schools and for the
road maintenance in these areas.
I have one county that has 80 percent federally owned property. And
to talk about rubbing salt on a wound, not only do they get their
school funding and their road maintenance funding taken away, but they
are still required to maintain the roads throughout this federally
owned property. This is an incredibly important bill that needs to be
passed and should not be vetoed by this administration.
I urge an ``aye'' vote.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to yield 5 minutes
to my colleague from the committee, Mike Simpson.
Mr. SIMPSON. I appreciate the gentleman yielding time, and I
appreciate the leadership of the ranking member from California on this
committee.
Mr. Speaker, one of the difficulties we often have is you are tasked
if you are a member of the party of the administration to sometimes
defend the administration. But sometimes the administration, quite
frankly, does things that are undefendable. If you read the statement
of administration policy and what they would do and why they would veto
this bill, I have got to tell you, I believe it is undefendable.
I want to thank Chairman Obey for recognizing that even in a time of
war, not all emergencies are war-related, that unanticipated
circumstances occur that require our attention. Unanticipated floods
and droughts and hurricanes occur that require our attention.
Unanticipated wildfires occur that require our attention. Unanticipated
actions that are taken that

[[Page H4875]]

would impact our county schools and road budgets need to be taken into
account.
If you read the administration's statement of administration policy,
I want to read from it, if I could.
The Office of Management and Budget, Statement of Administration
Policy.
The administration strongly supports efforts to increase
opportunities for America's farmers and ranchers in rural communities.
However, H.R. 2207 would allow almost $7 billion in unrequested
spending that is unjustified and not appropriate for an emergency
spending bill.
Mr. Speaker, I will tell you that if you look at the funding in this
bill, it is exactly what emergency spending is for. As an example, if
you look at what we have done in the agricultural section of this bill;
we have had droughts, we have had problems in the agricultural
community. And while the administration talks about how good the ag
economy is and how good the 2001 farm bill worked, and that the ag
economy is up like $16 billion in income this year, the fact is that,
in isolated cases and in isolated situations, you have disasters, you
have floods, you have droughts. We have a responsibility to help those
people. That's what an emergency is. I don't think the administration
recognizes that.
When you have wildfires that occur throughout this country that are
more than we anticipate, and if you will look at the news any given
night, wildfires are occurring now in California and other places, we
have to put out those wildfires. If we don't, the costs grow and become
enormous.
If you look at the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-
Determination Act, I don't know if most people understand what that is.
Counties used to get a part of the timber sales to help fund their
roads and their schools. Timber sales were being reduced so much that
those funds were drying up and it was affecting those counties that
were predominantly rural counties and had many public lands in them.
Mr. Thompson said he has one that is 80 percent Federal land. I've got
one that is 96 percent Federal land.
What we did was we put this into place 10 years ago. The problem was
it said that we will wean the schools off of this and find a way to
replace those funds. How do you replace those funds if you are a county
that is 96 percent Federal land? You have no private land for taxes.
How are they going to find the resources to replace that funding?
So we did it in the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-
Determination Act. Now, the administration says they have come up with
a perfectly reasonable alternative to fund this, an offset, if you
will. They want to sell public lands. They proposed that last year,
selling nearly 250,000 acres in Idaho. The people of this country stood
up and rejected that idea. The people of this country do not want to
willy-nilly sell public lands.
We have a responsibility, when the Federal Government owns an
overwhelmingly majority of public lands in a lot of the western States,
64 percent in Idaho, we have a responsibility to help those counties
with some of the funds where they don't have the tax base to address
these needs themselves. Otherwise, you are going to have schools that,
quite frankly, don't have a budget next year. Is it an emergency? Can
we wait until 2008? I don't think so. They start school before that,
and we have to address it.
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the fact that the administration is trying
to address the deficit, but to suggest that these needs are
nonemergency, that we should be able to anticipate them, I think is
just wrong.
I hope my colleagues will vote for this bill. And again, I thank the
chairman of the committee. I thank the ranking member of the committee
for the work that they do. It is always difficult when you are trying
to address both the deficit and the needs of this country, and they do
a very, very good job of it.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to control the
remaining time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from Connecticut?
There was no objection.
Ms. DeLAURO. I would like to recognize the gentleman from Minnesota,
the Chair of the Agriculture Committee (Mr. Peterson) for 2 minutes.
Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. I want to thank the gentlelady and Mr.
Obey and others for working to put together this bill.
The Agriculture Committee is very interested, obviously, in the
disaster provisions in this bill. It's something that we've been
working on for a long time and we've been trying to get accomplished
the last couple of years.
In my particular district, we had our agriculture disaster back in
May of 2005, and the guys are still having a tough time keeping their
head above water. We've been waiting a long time for this.
As has been said by other people, this is something that affects just
about every part of the country. And it is a true emergency because
this is something that is beyond the control of producers, and it is
something that we ought to, as a government, be responding to. We do it
for homeowners and businesses, when we have a hurricane or a flood or a
tornado or some kind of event like that, with FEMA. We have a process
where we take care of this. A lot of times we put emergency money into
that to take care of the disaster, and it is only fit and proper that
we do the same kind of thing for folks in agriculture.
We, on the committee, have been working with the ranking member of
the Agriculture Subcommittee and the full committee on this language. I
just want people to know that this is the tightest language that has
ever been written on a disaster bill. It has really been focused in on
the folks that had the problem.

{time} 2045

One of the most important things, for the first time, and this has
not been something that has been able to be accomplished in the past,
we are going to require that people have crop insurance in order for
them to be able to be paid under this disaster bill. That is a big
reform, and it gets us a long ways in the right direction. What we are
hoping to do this year in the farm bill is put in a provision so that
we can have this covered in the regular order as part of our regular
farm program.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes
to the gentleman from Montana (Mr. Rehberg), a member of our committee.
Mr. REHBERG. Mr. Speaker, I would like to associate myself with Mr.
Walden and Mr. Simpson when I say the President is dead wrong. In fact,
he is almost to the level of being cruel, when an administration
doesn't clearly understand a sense of urgency, when you only have 3
minutes to talk about something as serious as the lives of family
members within places like Montana.
Rural schools, it hits 33 of my counties of the 56. The disaster with
the farmers and ranchers hits the rest of the State. Virtually our
entire State has been under a disaster since 2005.
It is always interesting to me when we debate on the floor the
seriousness of Hurricane Katrina, or we talk about the hurricanes and
we talk about floods. Drought sneaks up on you. It occurs during a
period of years.
I can tell you in Montana we have seriously had to consider setting
up crisis counseling for farmers and ranchers because of the
emotionalism of not being able to pay for your children's food, their
clothing, their shoes, their college education or even your own
retirement, because it continually eats away at you.
It doesn't happen overnight like a flood or a tornado. It creeps up
on you like a cancer. And to have an administration that doesn't have
any more sense of urgency to understand that 2005 still has not been
addressed, 2006 has not been addressed, and now we are in 2007 and we
are arguing about the fact we want to veto this bill? That's cruel.
Clearly the administration needs to understand that there are
emergencies beyond. Now, it's not without some criticism I level on the
majority party when they tied it to the timelines in the Iraq
supplemental. That's cruel as well, because essentially it held them
hostage. And not one farmer or ranch group in Montana came up and said
I want you to vote for the timelines in the Iraq supplemental because
we need our money.

[[Page H4876]]

They were smarter than that. They can't be bribed. They don't want to
be held hostage. They did not apply pressure. I thought it was unfair
to tie it together in the first place.
So we finally come to where we need to be, and I want to thank the
majority party for recognizing that. I hope they won't tie it again,
because ultimately this is too important. We are in fact talking about
lives and families and futures. The future of the State of Montana, it
is an agricultural State. We need the opportunity to become whole by
being able to go to the bank and to borrow the money to stay in
business.
Please support this bill.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Montana's words are
eloquent.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\3/4\ minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr.
DeFazio).
Mr. DeFAZIO. I thank the gentlelady for the time.
Mr. Speaker, the ranking Republican on the other side said there is
no other reason for this than to make room for the fiscal year 2008
spending.
No, this is the unfinished business of the 109th Congress, the
Republican Congress led by the Republican President in the White House,
who allowed county and school payments to lapse without lifting a
finger. Nothing was done. 780 counties are on the brink of losing
essential services, closing jails, laying off deputy sheriffs, no rural
law enforcement, no public health, other essential services
jeopardized, thousands of jobs. 4,400 rural schools, already
underfunded, struggling to make ends meet for their kids, are going to
lose money if these payments aren't renewed. And the President says
that does not meet any reasonable definition of an emergency.
Well, I guess if you live in the White House and you ride in
motorcades protected by the Secret Service and you fly in a private
747, you're not too worried about cops in rural areas. You're not too
worried about public health. You get free health care up at Walter
Reed. You're not too worried about educating the Nation's kids and the
kids in rural areas. But I am, and I represent that district. This is
long overdue. This is an emergency.
And then for them to denigrate the emergency assistance to the
fishermen? We had to drag the administration kicking and screaming last
year to finally declare an emergency when they closed down the season
and people couldn't work and they are losing their boats. Now they say
it is unwarranted funding for the fishermen.
How distant from the reality of the American people can you get?
Twice in one day we have tried to bring this President back to Earth,
on a new course in Iraq and on the needs of the American people here at
home.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moran).
Mr. MORAN of Kansas. I thank the distinguished gentleman from
California for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight in support, strong support, of the
legislation that is before us this evening. In fact, my number one
agriculture priority for 2007 is the passage of legislation similar to
what we are addressing this evening.
We are going to deal with the farm bill later this year, but the
reality is that many farmers in America and certainly the farmers I
know in Kansas will not be around to take advantage of the provisions
of the 2007 farm bill, absent some kind of assistance, due to no fault
of their own.
In Kansas, we have struggled through five and six years of drought
followed by this year's December 31, 2006, winter storms that caused 44
of Kansas' 105 counties to be declared natural disasters, followed by a
winter freeze, three nights in April in which the temperatures were in
the teens and much of what we thought was going to be a wonderful wheat
harvest is now destroyed due to the cold weather. And as you have all
seen most recently here just a few nights ago, tornadoes, hail and
floods have now affected this part as well as the rest of the State of
Kansas.
So, Mr. Speaker, if we care about an agricultural economy, this
disaster assistance is so important. The average age of a farmer today
in Kansas is 59 years old. There is almost no next generation. If we
want young family farmers, we have got to make certain that the
economic opportunities are there.
People will look to crop insurance. It doesn't work in the
circumstances that we are talking about, multiyear disasters. Many
crops, including livestock, are not covered. And we look to the farm
bill. It is there for purposes of when the price of the commodity that
the farmer sells is lower than the cost of production. So it is only
through this type of agricultural assistance that we can see our
farmers through from day to day.
If you care about life in rural America, if you care about the future
of farmers, if you care about the future of the communities they live
in, this is an important piece of legislation. In fact, you don't have
to be a farmer to gain benefits from agriculture disaster. This is
about whether or not in rural America we have people who shop on our
Main Streets, whether or not we have kids in our schools.
So, Mr. Speaker, this is an important piece of legislation, and I ask
my colleagues, both Republicans and Democrats, to support this
legislation.
I thank the majority for allowing it to be brought to the floor
tonight.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy).
Mr. POMEROY. I thank the gentlelady for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I represent farm families in desperate need of the
disaster assistance in this bill, and that is why I am so offended by
this Statement of Administration Policy threatening veto on this bill.
Consider some of the words in the veto threat of the President: ``The
farm economy is strong. Both crop and livestock receipts are forecast
to be record high in 2007.''
You know, I don't think they get it. National numbers. National
averages. These are of no value whatsoever to the individual farm
family that gets wiped out in a disaster.
Most of the country on Labor Day of 2005 had a perfectly delightful
Labor Day weekend. But part of the country got hammered to bits with
Hurricane Katrina. I represent people living more than 1,000 miles from
there, but we think we need to help those people. When it comes to the
North Dakota farmers, who have been devastated, well, they need our
help too. These are natural disasters certified by the President.
Take a look at this corn. You've heard of ``knee high by the 4th of
July''? Well, this was taken in early July. When the wind starts
blowing, the temperature soars and the rain stops and the drought takes
hold, the families' income goes away. Family farmers lose their crops.
Family farmers forced to sell their cattle. Family farmers lose their
income. And without our help, without our help tonight, family farmers
are going to lose their farms.
In North Dakota, this was the third worst drought on record, only
following the thirties and the fifties. But we are not alone. Look at
this figure. We had farmers through the great heartland, an area by the
way providing some of the President's staunchest support, deeply
hurting from these droughts and in need of this disaster bill.
We need to send a strong bipartisan signal and send it right now,
tonight, help is on its way. Please vote for this bill.
Mr LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my
time.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
South Dakota (Ms. Herseth Sandlin).
Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of this legislation to
provide desperately needed disaster assistance to farmers and ranchers
across this country who are suffering from natural disasters.
Over the past several years, large swaths of my home State of South
Dakota have experienced persistent, severe, devastating drought. It has
been particularly hard on livestock producers in my State. Its
epicenter has been across central and western South Dakota, some of the
Nation's prime cattle and sheep grazing land.
The drought worsened dramatically early last summer. Customary spring
rains never came. By June, we were seeing temperature records being
broken weekly and water holes going dry. The landscape was brown. By
August it was black; bare, parched Earth where we usually have lush
green grass.

[[Page H4877]]

Ranchers in my State had two options, purchase and haul feed and
water at substantial cost to their cattle, or sell or dramatically cull
their herds. Many of them chose the latter because of the persistence
of this drought. Livestock auction markets across the region reported
record sale numbers. Many producers were, in essence, selling their
factories.
This is particularly hard on younger ranchers. So many of these
ranchers now don't have adequate breeding stock to produce the calves
today that they would have sold this fall. Thus, many of the real
economic impacts are still to come. Once a ranch family leaves the
land, they are gone forever. Small towns and local businesses suffer,
schools and churches suffer, the very fabric of our communities is torn
apart.
As devastating as this drought has been to our economy, the lack of
appreciation for its seriousness among some who don't come from rural
America has been equally frustrating. Many of my colleagues and I have
been trying for almost 2 years to get this done. The administration has
threatened to veto the assistance for the past 2 years through today.
We filed a discharge petition at the end of the last Congress which
nearly every Democratic Member and a handful of Republican Members
signed, but Republican leadership failed to take action.
Supporters of this necessary relief have been criticized by some for
trying to attach it to the emergency supplemental. Well, because the
last Congress couldn't get its work done last year, this is all we
have. We make no apologies for it. We have been forced to wait until
today, and suffering U.S. farmers and ranchers have been forced to wait
until today too.
The economic and psychological damage that these droughts cause is
just as real as that caused by hurricanes, tornadoes and floods. This
bill can alleviate some of that pain. Let's pass it tonight and get
this assistance out to those throughout rural America, those who are
quietly suffering on the land.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar).
Mr. OBERSTAR. I thank the gentlelady for yielding this precious time.
Mr. Speaker, I heard our colleagues from Oregon, from Idaho and
Montana speak about the disasters that are striking their area and the
need for funding and assistance from this legislation.
As we speak, there is a 22,000-acre segment of the Boundary Waters
Canoe Area Wilderness in the Superior National Forest in the heart of
my district on fire; 470 firefighters are out there trying to put the
blaze out.
We need help every bit as much as do the people in Iraq for water and
sewer and infrastructure investment. We need that help right here at
home. If we don't have a strong and vibrant economy at home, we can't
support our troops overseas. We can't support other countries and their
needs. We have got to rebuild America. We have got to protect our land
here at home. And this is only today's fire. We had just a year-and-a-
half ago a huge blaze that ripped through the Boundary Areas Canoe
Area.
We need this assistance, we need it now, and we need it in this bill.

{time} 2100

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take up where my good
friend from Minnesota left off in terms of dealing with the money that
is in this legislation that would help us deal with the crisis that is
occurring in our Nation's forests.
One of the legacies, unfortunately, of the last Congress where we had
a meltdown of the budget process is that these issues were left
unresolved. We have eviscerated the budgets for the Department of the
Interior, shifting money out of operating budgets for purposes of
firefighting. This is going to help us move back in the right
direction.
One of the other casualties was the county payments program. In the
last session, the implosion of the budget process where the Republican
majority and the administration could not follow through, left 4,600
school districts across the west, including a number in my State in
Oregon in a lurch.
This legislation steps up and meets the needs. It is not extraneous.
I sincerely hope the President changes his tune and withdraws his veto
threat.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Oregon (Ms. Hooley).
Ms. HOOLEY. Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that when we talk about
Hurricane Katrina, a horrible disaster that affected hundreds of
thousands of lives, left people homeless; we talk about the recent
tornado or hurricane wiping away a city, people ask me, particularly
those from the urban areas, why they should vote for this. What is in
it for them?
Well, this is just as much a disaster, but it is a different kind of
disaster. This has salmon money. We have fishermen who can no longer
pay for their boat. They can't pay for their crew or housing, and they
are hurting. That is what supplemental budgets are for.
We have rural schools laying off teachers, disappearing sheriff
departments, rural roads not being able to be fixed. This is a bill
that impacts every single person in this room. This is a disaster. That
is what supplemental budgets are all about. Please vote ``yes.''
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Doggett).
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlelady.
When parts of Texas endure an extreme drought, the burden is felt
most heavily by our farm families. A devastating lack of water left
many of our counties parched. Sam Berry, a rancher from Lavaca County
wrote me to say: ``After back-to-back bad seasons and with all my
reserve hay gone, how much worse could it get''?
Well, as bad as that drought was down in Texas, it is nothing like
the drought of understanding for the plight of farmers and ranchers
here in Washington. They have faced indifference on top of
indifference.
Federal disaster assistance dried up. I received similar pleas from
farmers and ranchers like David Wagner in Lavaca County and others from
Bastrop County and Caldwell County and Fayette and Colorado counties.
The last Congress, with $10 billion to burn every month in Iraq, had
nothing to offer these ranchers here at home. When our new Congress
finally passed emergency help this March, that help was vetoed by the
President.
The bill that we pass today is another attempt to provide much-needed
assistance to these farmers and ranchers.
I know that ranching looks mighty easy over in the Oval Office when
some over there seem to think that clearing out brush in August is
vacation work. But for those for whom ranching is not a hobby, who have
found that their fields turned fallow; for those like Pat Peterson of
Red Rock whom high-priced hay means selling their best livestock,
disaster endangers a life and a livelihood.
This spring, Texas has had some relief. But who is to say this wet
spring will last, and it is not enough to make up for the last two
really bad seasons that our farmers and ranchers have endured. Helping
our farmers and ranchers now cannot guarantee them success, but it will
go a long way in helping restore what has been lost and protect what
remains.
I hope the House tonight will approve this bill and that the
President will finally get behind the relief that his fellow Texans
need so very much.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston).
Mr. KINGSTON. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I wanted to say, Mr. Speaker, as I listen to this debate tonight, I
am reminded of my old alley cat, Hercules. When I was growing up in
Athens, Georgia, I had a mean, tough cat. He was an alley cat who
basically adopted me. You know, we humans don't really adopt cats.
Athens, Georgia, kind of a hilly, foothills Appalachian town with ivy
bank. In the ivy bank, we had lots of cute little chipmunks.
Hercules, being tough and could be the bully, could be somewhat like
the majority party in some respects in that he was the alpha cat of the
neighborhood. He would catch chipmunks at will. He would usually kill
them and

[[Page H4878]]

eat them, dispensing of them quickly. But every now and then, and it is
an interesting thing about cats, it is not unique to my cat, but he
would catch a chipmunk and he would toy with it awhile. He would just
play with it.
You would think: Did he have a change of heart? Is he going to let
this chipmunk go? No, he would just play with it awhile.
Well, that is what is going on tonight. We are hearing a lot of
discussion, a lot of administration bashing about how cruel the White
House is and a lot of lamenting about the Republican Party, and a lot
of talk about compassion for the farmers and the rural communities and
schools. There has been talk about the horrors of fire, drought and
windstorm.
And yet as we look at the rule that is governing this bill, which
would be known as H. Res. 387 in the House Calendar No. 59, introduced
by Ms. Slaughter, of New York, if we turn to page 3, section 4, we read
the fine print. And it says: ``Sec. 4.(a) In the engrossment of H.R.
2206, the Clerk shall--
``(1) await the disposition of H.R. 2237 and H.R. 2207;
``(2) add the respective texts of H.R. 2237 and H.R. 2207, as passed
by the House, as new matter at the end of H.R. 2206;
``(3) confirm the title of H.R. 2206 to reflect the addition of H.R.
2237 and H.R. 2207, as passed by the House, to the engrossment,'' which
as the Speaker knows and followed very closely, what this means is this
is Hercules toying with the chipmunk.
It means there is not a disaster bill at all. It just means the
majority party is toying with a disaster bill, because what happens,
this goes right back to the President attached to the war funding bill.
Here is my point, Mr. Speaker. If all these things are true, why is
the majority party toying with a disaster? We are right back where we
started from. We have just jumped out from the war funding bill only
temporarily for I guess some purpose of voting here, and I understand
politics, you can't remove that from the House of Representatives, but
the reality is we are toying with a disaster bill because we already
know two things: All the gobbledygook on page 4 that the Clerk shall do
means this bill gets rejoined with the military funding bill. That is a
fact.
Number two, the President has already said he is going to veto the
military funding bill, and one of the reasons is because of the
extracurricular, nonmilitary items that are being added to it.
So what I would say to Hercules, if you were worried about that
little old chipmunk, you really would let it go. And I would say to the
majority party, if you really were sincere about disaster relief, you
would separate it from this rule, this H. Res. 367 introduced by Ms.
Slaughter of New York and say, you know, we are going to have an up-or-
down vote on a straight, freestanding separate disaster bill so that
the farmers and ranchers and people out west can get the relief that we
have heard over and over again on a bipartisan basis that they need so
badly.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my
time.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Let me keep it short and sweet, Mr. Speaker. Let me simply point out
that the items contained in this bill are not new add-ons. They are
essentially items that clean up and finish last year's unfinished
business. That is certainly the case with agriculture disaster. It is
certainly the case with rural schools, a program which the previous
Congress allowed to lapse. It is certainly the case with western
wildfire, and it is certainly the case with the western fisheries'
issues which the Congress of last year should have dealt with but
didn't.
I ask for an ``aye'' vote on the bill.
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I support this supplemental
appropriations bill.
Among other things, it will provide critically important funding for
farmers and ranchers in southeastern Colorado who were hit hard by
storms last winter. Thousands of cattle were killed.
While I have not seen a final total of the damage resulting from this
winter's storms, it seems evident that they will be even worse than
those resulting from an October 1997 storm that killed approximately
30,000 cattle and cost farmers and ranchers an estimated $28 million.
The struggles that family agriculture producers and small counties
face are significant and are having a negative impact on the livelihood
of hundreds of farmers and ranchers and their communities.
Besides heavy crop and livestock losses and increased production
costs associated with rapidly escalating input costs, many producers
also face infrastructure losses that pose serious, long-term challenges
to economic recovery.
So, I am pleased that the bill includes financial assistance for our
beleaguered farmers and ranchers, as well as for many others in other
parts of the country who need and deserve assistance.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 387, the
previous question is ordered on the bill, as amended.
The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.

Motion to Recommit Offered by Mr. Lewis of California

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
Mr. LEWIS of California. I am opposed to the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Lewis of California moves to recommit the bill, H.R.
2207, to the Committee on Appropriations to report the same
promptly with an amendment to make the bill deficit neutral.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
California is recognized for 5 minutes in support of his motion to
recommit.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, this is a simple motion to
recommit that sends the bill back to committee and instructs the
committee to find offsets.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to
recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Wisconsin is recognized
for 5 minutes.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, this motion is really quite interesting. What
it says is that the same folks who want to spend $57 billion on tax
cuts on millionaires this year, all paid for with borrowed money, the
same folks who are comfortable with the idea that we have got over a
trillion dollars in unfunded tax cuts, all paid for with borrowed
money, the same folks that want us to spend, no questions asked, at
least $600 billion in a sad, sad war in Iraq, these folks have suddenly
gotten religion, and they now have a motion that says they would like
to see this bill be deficit neutral.
What that mean is they are going to ask the farmers of America to
bear the full weight of deficit reduction in this bill. This is simply
a device to kill the bill because instead of asking that the bill be
reported forthwith, it asks that the bill be reported promptly. That,
as you know, is code language for killing the bill. I don't think I
need to say anything further.
If you want to provide the funding in this bill, you will vote
against this motion to recommit. If you care about the farmers, if you
care about the western wildfire problem, if you want to meet our
obligation to the parts of the country that generally get stiffed and
ignored, then you vote against the motion to recommit. If you care
about these folks, you will vote against the motion to recommit.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is
ordered on the motion to recommit.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the
ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a
quorum is not present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.

[[Page H4879]]

Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair may reduce to 5 minutes
the minimum time for any electronic vote on the question of passing the
bill.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 184,
nays 233, not voting 15, as follows:

[Roll No. 335]

YEAS--184

Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachmann
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Boehner
Bonner
Bono
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Cooper
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
English (PA)
Everett
Fallin
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Forbes
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Hall (TX)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Hill
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hulshof
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Jindal
Jones (NC)
Jordan
Keller
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Lamborn
Latham
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Murphy, Patrick
Murphy, Tim
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Reichert
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Sali
Saxton
Schmidt
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shays
Shimkus
Shuster
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Stearns
Sullivan
Tancredo
Taylor
Terry
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walberg
Walsh (NY)
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NAYS--233

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boozman
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Braley (IA)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson
Castor
Chandler
Clarke
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Lincoln
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Emerson
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Filner
Fortenberry
Frank (MA)
Giffords
Gillibrand
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Klein (FL)
Kucinich
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lucas
Lynch
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murtha
Musgrave
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Rehberg
Renzi
Reyes
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shuler
Simpson
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Space
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Sutton
Tanner
Tauscher
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walden (OR)
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Wexler
Wilson (OH)
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Yarmuth

NOT VOTING--15

Baca
Blunt
Brady (PA)
Clay
Conyers
Davis, Jo Ann
Drake
Engel
Fattah
Hastert
Johnson, Sam
McMorris Rodgers
Peterson (PA)
Pickering
Souder

{time} 2137

Mr. MITCHELL and Mr. WELCH changed their vote from ``yea'' to
``nay.''
Messrs. LATHAM, SHIMKUS and TAYLOR of Mississippi changed their vote
from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the motion to recommit was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Mrs. DRAKE. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 335, the Lewis motion to
recommit H.R. 2207, I am not recorded. Had I been present, I would have
voted ``yea.''
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
Pursuant to clause 10 of rule XX, the yeas and nays are ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 302,
nays 120, not voting 10, as follows:

[Roll No. 336]

YEAS--302

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Alexander
Allen
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blumenauer
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boustany
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (TX)
Braley (IA)
Brown, Corrine
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Buyer
Camp (MI)
Cannon
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson
Carter
Castor
Chandler
Clarke
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Conyers
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crowley
Cubin
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Lincoln
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly
Doolittle
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Emerson
English (PA)
Eshoo
Etheridge
Everett
Fallin
Farr
Filner
Fortenberry
Frank (MA)
Gallegly
Gerlach
Giffords
Gilchrest
Gillibrand
Gillmor
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Gordon
Graves
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hall (TX)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Herger
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Hulshof
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jindal
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
King (IA)
Kingston
Klein (FL)
Kucinich
Kuhl (NY)
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lucas
Lynch
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (CA)
McCarthy (NY)
McCaul (TX)
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McIntyre
McNerney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murtha
Musgrave
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Neugebauer
Nunes
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pearce
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Pickering
Poe
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (NC)
Radanovich
Rahall
Rangel
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Rodriguez
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sali
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shuler
Simpson
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NE)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Space
Spratt
Stupak
Sullivan
Sutton
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)

[[Page H4880]]

Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (OH)
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Yarmuth

NAYS--120

Akin
Bachmann
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Bean
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Calvert
Campbell (CA)
Cantor
Castle
Chabot
Coble
Cooper
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Forbes
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Garrett (NJ)
Gingrey
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Hensarling
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Jordan
Keller
King (NY)
Kirk
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
LaHood
Lamborn
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Linder
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McKeon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Murphy, Patrick
Murphy, Tim
Myrick
Paul
Pence
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Ramstad
Regula
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Roskam
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Schmidt
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shays
Shimkus
Shuster
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Stark
Stearns
Tancredo
Terry
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walberg
Wamp
Waxman
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Westmoreland
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--10

Brady (PA)
Clay
Davis, Jo Ann
Engel
Fattah
Hastert
Johnson, Sam
McMorris Rodgers
Peterson (PA)
Souder

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Members are advised there
are 2 minutes remaining in the vote.

{time} 2145

So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

____________________