[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 122 (Friday, July 27, 2007)]
[House]
[Pages H8769-H8789]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
FARM, NUTRITION, AND BIOENERGY ACT OF 2007
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 574 and rule
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House
on the state of the Union for the further consideration of the bill,
H.R. 2419.
{time} 1149
In the Committee of the Whole
Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for the further consideration of
the bill (H.R. 2419) to provide for the continuation of agricultural
programs through fiscal year 2012, and for other purposes, with Mr.
Schiff (Acting Chairman) in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole rose earlier
today, amendments en bloc by the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr.
Peterson) had been disposed of.
Amendment No. 21 Offered by Mr. Udall of Colorado
The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 21
printed in part B of House Report 110-261.
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 21 offered by Mr. Udall of Colorado:
In section 1102(b)(6), strike ``$0.0667'' and insert
``$0.06''.
In section 2104 strike subsection (b) and insert the
following new subsection:
(b) Enrollment of Acreage.--Subsection (b)(1) of section
1238N of the Food Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3838n(1))
is amended by striking ``2,000,000 acres'' and inserting
``2,224,000 acres''.
In section 2401, insert after subsection (c) the following
new subsection (and redesignate subsequent subsections
accordingly):
(d) Grassland Reserve Program.--Section 1241(a) of the Food
Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3841(a)) is amended by
striking paragraph (5) and inserting the following new
paragraph:
``(5) For each of fiscal years 2008 through 2012, the
grassland reserve program under subchapter C of chapter 2.''.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 574, the gentleman
from Colorado (Mr. Udall) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Colorado.
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, let me start by thanking
Chairman Peterson and Ranking Member Goodlatte for their hard work on
this important piece of legislation. I will be very proud to support
the bill on final passage.
While clearly this reform legislation, and I want to underline this
is reform legislation, is a positive step forward in ag policy, I
believe my amendment improves the bill. It is a win-win for ranchers
and the environment.
Mr. Chairman, the amendment is modest and very simple. It would make
a small reduction in the direct payment rate for cotton, just two-
thirds of a cent. That savings, which would be $127 million, would be
used to fund additional enrollment in the Grassland Reserve Program.
The Grassland Reserve Program is a jointly administered program by the
National Resources Conservation Service and the Farm Service Agency. It
uses long-term rental agreements and easements to help landowners and
producers restore and protect grasslands while maintaining them in a
condition suitable for grazing.
This investment of Federal dollars also helps to leverage State and
local monies to expand these preservation areas. The reserves that I am
speaking of provide habitat for diverse wildlife, including prairie
chickens, grassland birds, game species, and prairie plants.
Unfortunately, it was underfunded in the previous farm bill. There
remains, therefore, a significant backlog for those wanting to access
the program.
According to data from the United States Department of Agriculture,
the 2006 backlog of unfunded applications totaled more than $1.1
billion, or 11 million acres, and interest continues to grow.
Now, the Agriculture Committee has made great strides to enhance this
grasslands program, but their hard work will be for naught unless there
is additional funding to ease the backlog of program applicants. We
really cannot wait to make this investment because much of America's
grassland continues to be converted to row crops, and other grasslands
throughout the west are being developed and subdivided.
According to CRS, between 1982 and 2003, we have lost more than 10
percent of our pastureland, which is over 10 million acres.
The amendment would reduce total direct payments in the bill by less
than one-tenth of 1 percent. Direct payments are not the only support
for cotton producers in the bill. As the committee report notes, there
are important changes in the loan program to make American cotton more
competitive and move stocks out of storage. The bill also allows the
Department of Agriculture to continue to pay for upland cotton storage
until 2012.
So the amendment doesn't cause real great hardship for cotton
producers, but it would help many of our ranchers. I urge the House to
support the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, I have to oppose the
gentleman's amendment. Not that I don't support the Grassland Reserve
Program, but the provisions of the commodity title were worked out by
the committee very carefully in an effort to balance all of the various
commodities' needs in that process. We don't think that it is fair to
single out one commodity for changes even though it is for a worthwhile
purpose. Cotton has already seen major changes with the bill's
termination of the storage payments and also major reforms in payment
limitations.
Additionally, the bill provides 1,340,000 acres to be enrolled in
GRP, a substantial increase. I know that the gentleman from Colorado
has been a leader in the coalition that has been advocating this
program, and I appreciate his efforts and leadership in this area.
Unfortunately, targeting any single commodity, in this case, cotton,
for further reductions in their safety net is unwarranted and unfair.
Therefore, I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment.
I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Neugebauer).
Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Mr. Chairman, I also rise in strong opposition to the
Udall amendment. This amendment singles out one commodity for reduction
in order to increase an unrelated program.
This bill already increases funding to enroll nearly 1 million new
acres in the Grassland Reserve Program. That is a significant amount of
land.
Some might think this is a small change in direct payment. It doesn't
seem like much; however, this bill does not make changes in any of the
current direct payments, and this would single out only one commodity,
that being cotton, for reduction in direct payments.
The House Agriculture Committee has already made significant changes
to cotton. The bill reduces cotton target prices and eliminates cotton
loan storage credits. In addition, payment limit changes are more
likely to affect cotton farmers than any other commodity.
If you want to increase the grasslands program, the offsets should
not come from one commodity that is already taking a fairly major
change in this bill. Let's treat all commodities the same and oppose
the Udall amendment.
[[Page H8770]]
Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the
chairman of the General Farm Commodity Subcommittee that deals with
this issue, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Etheridge).
Mr. ETHERIDGE. I thank the gentleman for his leadership.
Mr. Chairman, as you've heard, this commodity has already taken a
major hit, a major change in the whole list of that commodity. It is
really unfair to single out cotton.
I agree with the gentleman from Colorado; we have done some things in
conservation and wish we could have done more and wish we had more
money. You have already heard how we have been strapped for cash, but
the truth is this amendment is unfair. And I will oppose the
gentleman's amendment, and I would encourage my colleagues to oppose it
as well.
We will continue to work with him as the bill moves forward to try
and help, but it is absolutely unfair, once we have reached this very
delicate balance within the bill, to reach in and single out one
commodity that has already been hit harder in terms of cuts than any
other commodity within all of the commodity titles.
Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Conaway).
Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for giving me a
quick minute.
I, too, rise in opposition to the Udall amendment, not because I am
opposed to conservation of grasslands, but simply because hard choices
were made to craft a bill that was as balanced as we can get it. If you
were on the living end of the commodity program and cotton, you know
already the dramatic changes that are going to be in the offing if this
bill does pass. To come in now and ask for one more change, one more
reduction, is inappropriate, and I would oppose that and hope that our
good colleagues who support conservation would understand this is a
very difficult process. We have set priorities, and I think the finely
tuned bill that came out of the committee is one we ought to support
and not make this change. I respectfully oppose the gentleman's
amendment.
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, how much time remains?
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Colorado has 2 minutes. The
gentleman from Minnesota has 1 minute.
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, I think that the other
gentlemen have eloquently stated the case, and I want to reiterate that
this is not a fair process to single out one commodity.
I want to take the balance of my time to recognize the tremendous
efforts of the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Berry) in working with us
on this farm bill. And also, if he were here, he would be speaking out
very strongly on this amendment as well. We oppose this amendment and
encourage our colleagues to support us in that regard.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my
time.
As I close my arguments for this important amendment, I would again
like to thank the chairman and ranking member for a bill that truly is
about reform. That is the theme I would like to strike here. This
amendment would take us further down the path of reform.
This is less than one-tenth of 1 percent to expand the Grassland
Reserve Program. I would note for the record that a number of
organizations that are highly respected in the States of Texas and
Minnesota and all over the country support the amendment. The American
Farmland Trust, Environmental Working Group, Republicans for
Environmental Protection, the National Wildlife Federation, the
American Bird Conservancy, Defenders of Wildlife, the Trust for Public
Land all think that this amendment makes real sense.
It is $127 million, less than one-tenth of 1 percent out of the
direct payments program to preserve these important legacy areas, our
grasslands, in the great American west. I urge an ``aye'' vote. This is
an important amendment that would help strengthen the bill.
{time} 1200
Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Udall).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the
noes appeared to have it.
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado
will be postponed.
Amendment No. 25 Offered by Mr. Putnam
The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 25
printed in House Report 110-261.
Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 25 offered by Mr. Putnam:
At the appropriate place in the conservation title, add the
following new section:
SEC. 2__. ADJUSTED GROSS INCOME LIMITATION REGARDING PAYMENTS
UNDER CONSERVATION PROGRAMS.
Section 1001D(b)(1) of the Food Security Act of 1985 (7
U.S.C. 1308-3a(b)(1)), as amended by section 1504 [and the
manager's amendment, pages 34 and 35], is further amended by
adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
``(C) Special rule for conservation programs.--
Notwithstanding subparagraphs (A) and (B), in the case of
covered benefits described in paragraph (2)(C), an individual
or entity shall not be eligible to receive any benefit
described in such paragraph (2) during a crop year if the
average adjusted gross income of the individual or entity
exceeds $1,000,000, unless not less than 75 percent of the
average adjusted gross income of the individual or entity is
derived from farming, ranching, or forestry operations, as
determined by the Secretary.''.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 574, the gentleman
from Florida (Mr. Putnam) and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr.
Peterson) each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Chairman, we have a number of speakers on this so I
want to be brief.
One of the common misperceptions about the farm bill that didn't used
to be a misperception, it used to be a reality and was very frustrating
to taxpayers, was that professional athletes and broadcasters and
people like that could game the system to receive conservation
payments. And to the chairman and Mr. Goodlatte's credit, this bill
does make significant strides towards improving the commitment to
conservation. However, there is a change in the bill that is disturbing
which lowers the AGI limit for eligibility for conservation payments.
The effect of that is that it takes out what had been a requirement
that 75 percent of your income be farm income, and in the process of
doing that, it eliminates many of the most successful farmers who are
doing their best to take advantage of government-matching dollars to
improve their operations from an environmental perspective. It
eliminates their ability to do so.
And setting aside the family farm narrative, if you are truly a
family farm, where you have multiple generations operating, then for
sheer survival you have to grow in order to feed grandpa and dad and
two brothers and their families who are all in the dairy business or in
the livestock business.
If this language were to remain in the bill as is, the Florida
Department of Agriculture reports unofficially that roughly half of
Florida producers would be ineligible for conservation payments. Many
of the producers on the Chesapeake watershed, we've heard a lot today
about the Chesapeake, the Everglades watershed, irrigation projects in
the American West would be ineligible for these matching dollars
because of this new AGI limitation.
And I would urge Members to review this carefully and adopt this
amendment so that these conservation payments would find their way to
the farmers that are doing the best job, that are the most successful
and are full-time. These are not hobby farmers. These are full-time
agricultural producers in America who are feeding this country.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my fellow cosponsor from Florida
(Mr. Mahoney).
[[Page H8771]]
Mr. MAHONEY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my friend and
colleague from Florida. I'm proud to cosponsor this important amendment
with the gentleman, as he and his family are champions of Florida
agriculture.
One recurring theme we've heard throughout this debate is that
although this farm bill is historic for American agriculture, it does
not give everyone what they wanted.
In the case of conservation programs, I believe it's a mistake for
this bill to further restrict the American farmers' access to important
conservation programs by lowering the adjusted gross income limits.
This is bad policy because it hurts farmers that produce high-value
crops from accessing conservation programs. In Florida, we are fighting
to protect our environment. We've spent billions to preserve the
Everglades. These new, more restrictive limits will disincent Florida
ranchers and growers from investing with the Federal Government to
preserve our lands and clean our waters.
I urge my colleagues to use common sense. This amendment provides
real farmers, not millionaires, access to critical conservation
programs.
I urge my colleagues to take an important step in keeping our rural
lands green, to protect our wetlands, and to support our national
agricultural heritage.
This is a good amendment, and it deserves your support.
Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, we had a debate similar to
this not too long ago, and I'll say it again, that while we've added
several billion dollars to the conservation baseline, we still have
backlogs in most of those programs.
And the question to me is the same: if large farms shouldn't be
eligible for title I payments, why should they be eligible for title II
payments? If these operations are diversified enough to have problems
with farm income exemption, same question, do they really need Federal
payments?
So I'd like to hear the arguments against because, to me, a strong
title I is necessary to even carry out our conservation programs. If
the farmers don't have a strong safety net, that work on conservation
is going to be the first thing that's sacrificed. So with limited
Federal funds for conservation, we need to make priorities, and
providing funds for larger producers and folks with lots of off-the-
farm income is a tough choice; but it's a choice we have to make.
I'd just like to say that one of the most important reforms that
people have pointed to in this bill is that we have finally put a hard
cap on adjusted gross income, and this has caused a lot of pain for a
lot of people. So it just is not right to have a hard cap on the
commodity title and not have a hard cap on conservation.
So I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Chairman, does the gentleman have additional speakers
opposed to the amendment?
Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. I guess we have no further speakers, so I
yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. PUTNAM. How much time is remaining, Mr. Chairman?
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Florida has 1\1/2\ minutes
remaining. The gentleman from Minnesota has yielded back.
Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Chairman, I just want to reiterate, while this has a
major impact on specialty crop and dairy and livestock States like
California and Florida, it is a national issue because under current
law, if 75 percent of your income is from farms, then you are eligible
for this higher AGI. By taking that out, you are redirecting
conservation dollars from people who are full-time farmers, full-time
producers, presumably the people that the farm bill is intended to
benefit, and directing it to hobby farmers, people who are enjoying
their gentlemanly estates in the suburbs of Washington or New York or
other metropolitan areas, where they enjoy the bucolic lifestyle, while
the people who get up before dawn every morning and go to bed after
dark every night, and live and die by the vagaries of the marketplace
and pests and disease will be ineligible for the additional
conservation help.
So you either drive them out of business because of the impact on
watersheds, or you will pay for it out of a different program; but one
way or the other you will either drive agriculture out of the
Chesapeake, drive agriculture out of the Glades, drive agriculture out
of the prairie potholes, out of the Dakotas, out of the flyways, or we
can make this minor amendment to let the people who farm full time
eligible for the green payments that recognize the social benefits that
come from their activities.
I urge the adoption of this amendment, and I thank my friend from
Florida for his assistance.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Putnam).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the
noes appeared to have it.
Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida will
be postponed.
Amendment No. 27 Offered by Mr. Cooper
The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 27
printed in House Report 110-261.
Mr. COOPER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 27 offered by Mr. Cooper:
At the end of the bill, insert the following new title:
TITLE XII--CROP INSURANCE
SEC. 1201. CONTROLLING CROP INSURANCE PROGRAM COSTS.
(a) Administrative Fee for Catastrophic Risk Protection.--
Section 508(b)(5) of the Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C.
1508(b)(5)) is amended by striking subparagraph (A) and
inserting the following:
``(A) Basic fee.--
``(i) In general.--Except as provided in clause (ii), each
producer shall pay an administrative fee for catastrophic
risk protection in an amount which is, as determined by the
Corporation, equal to 25 percent of the premium amount for
catastrophic risk protection established under subsection
(d)(2)(A) per crop per county.
``(ii) Maximum amount.--The total amount of administrative
fees for catastrophic risk protection payable by a producer
under clause (i) shall not exceed $5,000 for all crops in all
counties.''.
(b) Payment of Portion of Premium by Corporation.--Section
508(e)(2) of the Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C.
1508(e)(2)) is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (B)(i), by striking ``67 percent'' and
inserting ``62 percent'';
(2) in subparagraph (C)(i), by striking ``64 percent'' and
inserting ``59 percent'';
(3) in subparagraph (D)(i), by striking ``59 percent'' and
inserting ``54 percent'';
(4) in subparagraph (E)(i), by striking ``55 percent'' and
inserting ``53 percent'';
(5) in subparagraph (F)(i), by striking ``48 percent'' and
inserting ``46 percent''; and
(6) in subparagraph (G)(i), by striking ``38 percent'' and
inserting ``36 percent''.
(c) Reduction in Portion of the Premium Paid by the
Corporation.--Section 508(e) of the Federal Crop Insurance
Act (7 U.S.C. 1508(k)(3)) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(6) Premium payment incentive.--The Corporation may
increase payment of a part of the premium from the amounts
provided under subsection (e)(2) by not more than 5 percent
for a policy or plan of insurance that is not based on
individual yield to provide an additional incentive to create
broader use of such policies.''.
(d) Share of Risk.--Section 508(k)(3) of the Federal Crop
Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1508(k)(3)) is amended by striking
paragraph (3) and inserting the following:
``(3) Share of risk.--The reinsurance agreements of the
Corporation with the reinsured companies shall require the
reinsured companies to cede to the Corporation 22 percent of
its cumulative underwriting gain or loss.''
SEC. 1202. CROP INSURANCE PROGRAM COMPLIANCE.
(a) Use of Unused Funding to Improve Program Integrity.--
Section 522(e)(3) of the Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C.
1522(e)(3)) is amended by striking ``the Corporation may
use'' through the end of the paragraph and inserting the
following: ``the Corporation may use--
``(A) not more than $10,000,000 for each fiscal year to
improve program integrity, such as
[[Page H8772]]
``(i) increasing the number of compliance personnel;
``(ii) increasing compliance related training;
``(iii) improving analysis tools and technology related to
compliance;
``(iv) identifying, utilizing, and expanding innovative
compliance strategies and technology; and
``(v) developing and maintaining the information management
system developed pursuant to section 10706(b) of the Farm
Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (7 U.S.C. 8002(b));
and
``(B) any excess amounts to carry out other activities
authorized under this section.''.
(b) Conforming Amendment Regarding Violation of Highly
Erodible Land Conservation Requirements.--Section 1211(a)(1)
of the Food Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3811(a)(1)) is
amended--
(1) by striking ``or'' at the end of subparagraph (C);
(2) by inserting ``or'' at the end of subparagraph (D); and
(3) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
SEC. 1203. REAUTHORIZATION OF, AND INCREASED ENROLLMENT
AUTHORITY FOR GRASSLAND RESERVE PROGRAM.
(a) Extension and Funding.--Section 1241(a) of the Food
Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3841(a)) is amended by
striking paragraph (5) and inserting the following new
paragraph:
``(5) For each of fiscal years 2002 through 2013, the
grassland reserve program under sub chapter C of chapter
2.''.
(b) Enrollment Goals.--Section 1238N(b)(1) of the Food
Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3838N(b)(1)) is amended by
striking ``2,000,000 acres'' and inserting ``5,000,000
acres''.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 574, the gentleman
from Tennessee (Mr. Cooper) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Tennessee.
Mr. COOPER. Mr. Chairman, everyone should be able to support the
upcoming Cooper amendment, whether you're for or against the farm bill.
It really doesn't make any difference because my amendment doesn't
affect 99 percent of what's in the farm bill, but it does affect 1
percent.
And what is that? It's called the crop insurance industry, a little
known curious part of the insurance world that is completely dominated
by 16 fabulously rich companies. These companies, at taxpayer expense,
made $2.8 billion in profits, underwriting gains, in the last 5 years.
I don't begrudge anyone big profits out in the real world; but when
it's at taxpayer subsidy expense, I get a little worried.
So what my amendment would do is two things. Number one, it would
reform that industry and reform it in the way that the U.S. Department
of Agriculture has recommended, and I'm proud that they strongly
support my amendment.
But it also does something else, and we only found this out
yesterday, and this is very important because it could well not only
save the bill, it could save the reputation of many of our colleagues
in the House because there is a provision in the bill today that I'm
sure was unintended. I have no idea how it got in there, how it found a
place on page 668 of the bill. It just happens to enrich forever these
16 crop insurance companies.
Now, what does that little slender provision do which the Bush
administration has already said allows them to collude to raise prices
for consumers and the government? That little provision allows them an
antitrust exemption, an antitrust exemption that, of course, was never
referred to the Judiciary Committee. No one on the Judiciary Committee
knows about it. I haven't found anybody on the Agriculture Committee
who knew about it, but it's a long-sought goal of the crop insurance
industry so that they can collude to price-fix, to bid-rig in their
negotiations with the government so they can get even more subsidies,
because apparently $2.8 billion in profits in the last 5 years was not
enough.
So my amendment is the only way to cut out that provision. Unless
some of our colleagues are not attuned to antitrust laws, these
antitrust obligations are not just wrong. Talking in contract
negotiations is supposed to be an open-bidding process, a real free
market competition. This sort of behavior is not just wrong; it is
criminal, criminal.
So unintentionally and apparently unbeknownst to most folks on the
committee, we are giving them a license to conduct what would otherwise
be criminal antitrust behavior. This is wrong. This is so wrong it
should not be part of any of this bill, and I am sure that no one
intended it, although it just happens to benefit these 16 companies.
Now, these are not bad people who work for these companies; but it's
a rotten system, and it doesn't need to be destroyed, but it does need
to be reformed; and we need to follow the guidelines of the Bush
administration in reforming it because I haven't found anybody else
who's willing to take on this task.
But surely this can bring us together in a bipartisan fashion to cure
this flaw in the bill.
Modification to Amendment No. 27 Offered by Mr. Cooper
Mr. COOPER. Mr. Chairman, in order to discourage this illegal
criminal behavior, I ask unanimous consent for a modification of my
amendment so that it can be handled properly according to parliamentary
fashion.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will report the modification.
The Clerk read as follows:
Modification to amendment No. 27 offered by Mr. Cooper:
The amendment as modified is as follows:
In section 2104 strike subsection (b) and insert the
following new subsection:
(b) Enrollment of Acreage.--Subsection (b)(1) of section
1238N of the Food Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3838n) is
amended by striking ``2,000,000 acres'' and inserting
``2,500,000 acres''.
In section 2104, add at the end the following new
subsection:
(f) Funding.--Section 1241(a) of the Food Security Act of
1985 (16 U.S.C. 3841(a)) is amended by striking paragraph (5)
and inserting the following new paragraph:
``(5) For each of fiscal years 2002 through 2013, the
grassland reserve program under subchapter C of chapter 2.''.
At the end of subtitle A of title XI, add the following new
section:
SEC. 110__. ADDITIONAL CROP INSURANCE AMENDMENTS.
(a) Expected Loss Ratio.--
(1) Projected loss ratio.--Section 506(o)(2) of the Federal
Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1506(o)(2)) is amended--
(A) in the paragraph heading, by striking ``1998'' and
inserting ``2007'';
(B) by striking ``1998'' and inserting ``2007''; and
(C) by striking ``1.075'' and inserting ``1.00''.
(2) Premiums required.--Section 508(d)(1) of the Federal
Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1508(d)(1)) is amended by
striking ``1.1'' and all that follows through ``October 1,
1998'' and inserting ``1.00 on and after October 1, 2007''.
(3) Effective date.--This subsection shall take effect on
September 30, 2007.
(4) Annual reporting requirement.--The Risk Management
Agency will report annually, by March 1st, in the Federal
Register--
(A) the projected loss ratio upon which premiums are based
for the coming reinsurance year; and
(B) the projected loss ratio of the Corporation for the
coming reinsurance year that excludes the portion of the
premium paid by the Corporation.
(b) Controlling Crop Insurance Program Costs.--
(1) Administrative fee for catastrophic risk protection.--
Section 508(b)(5) of the Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C.
1508(b)(5)) is amended by striking subparagraph (A) and
inserting the following:
``(A) Basic fee.--
``(i) In general.--Except as provided in clause (ii), each
producer shall pay an administrative fee for catastrophic
risk protection in an amount which is, as determined by the
Corporation, equal to 25 percent of the premium amount for
catastrophic risk protection established under subsection
(d)(2)(A) per crop per county.
``(ii) Maximum amount.--The total amount of administrative
fees for catastrophic risk protection payable by a producer
under clause (i) shall not exceed $5,000 for all crops in all
counties.''.
(2) Payment of portion of premium by corporation.--Section
508(e)(2) of the Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C.
1508(e)(2)) is amended--
(A) in subparagraph (B)(i), by striking ``67 percent'' and
inserting ``62 percent'';
(B) in subparagraph (C)(i), by striking ``64 percent'' and
inserting ``59 percent'';
(C) in subparagraph (D)(i), by striking ``59 percent'' and
inserting ``54 percent'';
(D) in subparagraph (E)(i), by striking ``55 percent'' and
inserting ``53 percent'';
(E) in subparagraph (F)(i), by striking ``48 percent'' and
inserting ``46 percent''; and
(F) in subparagraph (G)(i), by striking ``38 percent'' and
inserting ``36 percent''.
(3) Reduction in portion of the premium paid by the
corporation.--Section 508(e) of the Federal Crop Insurance
Act (7 U.S.C. 1508(k)(3)) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(6) Premium payment incentive.--The Corporation may
increase payment of a part of the premium from the amounts
provided under subsection (e)(2) by not more than 5 percent
for a policy or plan of insurance that is not based on
individual yield to provide an additional incentive to create
broader use of such policies.''.
[[Page H8773]]
(4) Share of risk.--Section 508(k)(3) of the Federal Crop
Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1508(k)(3)) is amended by striking
paragraph (3) and inserting the following:
``(3) Share of risk.--The reinsurance agreements of the
Corporation with the reinsured companies shall require the
reinsured companies to cede to the Corporation 30 percent of
its cumulative underwriting gain or loss.''
(5) Reimbursement rate.--Section 508(k)(4)(A) of the
Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1508(k)(4)(A)) is
amended by striking clause (ii) and inserting the following:
``(ii) for each of the 2008 and subsequent reinsurance
years, 15 percent of the premium used to define loss
ratio.''.
(c) Renegotiation of Standard Reinsurance Agreement.--
(1) In general.--Section 508(k) of the Federal Crop
Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1508(k)) is amended by adding at the
end the following:
``(8) Renegotiation of standard reinsurance agreement.--The
Corporation may renegotiate the financial terms and
conditions of each Standard Reinsurance Agreement not more
frequently than once every 3 years. Crop insurance companies
are not allowed to collude during the renegotiation of
financial terms of the Standard Reinsurance Agreement.''.
(2) Conforming amendments.--Sections 536 of the
Agricultural Research, Extension, and Education Reform Act of
1998 (7 U.S.C. 1506 note; Public Law 105-185) and section 148
of the Agricultural Risk Protection Act of 2000 (7 U.S.C.
1506 note; Public Law 106-224) are repealed.
(d) Crop Insurance Program Compliance.--
(1) Use of unused funding to improve program integrity.--
Section 522(e)(3) of the Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C.
1522(e)(3)) is amended by striking ``the Corporation may
use'' through the end of the paragraph and inserting the
following: ``the Corporation may use--''
``(A) not more than $10,000,000 for each fiscal year to
improve program integrity, such as
``(i) increasing the number of compliance personnel;
``(ii) increasing compliance related training;
``(iii) improving analysis tools and technology related to
compliance;
``(iv) identifying, utilizing, and expanding innovative
compliance strategies and technology; and
``(v) developing and maintaining the information management
system developed pursuant to section 10706(b) of the Farm
Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (7 U.S.C. 8002(b));
and
``(B) any excess amounts to carry out other activities
authorized under this section.''.
(2) Conforming amendment regarding violation of highly
erodible land conservation requirements.--Section 1211(a)(1)
of the Food Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3811(a)(1)) is
amended--
(A) by striking ``or'' at the end of subparagraph (C);
(B) by inserting ``or'' at the end of subparagraph (D); and
(C) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
``(E) crop insurance under the Federal Crop Insurance Act
(7 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.);''.
The Acting CHAIRMAN (during the reading). Without objection, the
reading is dispensed with.
There was no objection.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the modification?
Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, this is
ridiculous. We have an Agriculture Committee. The Agriculture Committee
has under it the jurisdiction of the crop insurance program. The crop
insurance program's largely governed by the crop insurance law which is
going to be up for reauthorization in the next Congress. We are close
to completing a farm bill. The gentleman, who is not on the committee
but participated in a hearing in the Government Oversight Committee,
has developed a keen interest in the crop insurance program. He has
advanced an amendment which has been made in order. It would have
substantial consequences to the crop insurance program, and it has not
had a hearing in the Agriculture Committee.
But beyond that, as with all amendments, there are timelines to
submit to the Rules Committee, printed in the Record. Everyone has a
chance to evaluate precisely what the gentleman is saying.
{time} 1215
Well, that's not enough, because this morning, he comes to the floor
and says that he has discovered, almost like a Grisham novel,
discovered, on page 668, language. It's not just wrong, it's criminal,
and if we only followed this man, we can alleviate ourselves of
wrongdoing that must be criminal and save the reputation of our House
and Members in it. Oh, what drama is unfolding here. What nonsense is
purported by the gentleman asking for this unanimous consent request.
I will assert objection to the unanimous consent request. This is not
accidental language. It didn't fall from the sky. It's part of a
complete plan on crop insurance and the structure of a public-private
partnership.
I look forward to working with the gentleman in an ongoing effort to
really dig to the bottom of the gentleman's questions. But I will tell
you something, none of us, certainly not me, is so doggone smart that
after a hearing I go off and do a little more study, write a bill
totally undoing vital risk protection to our farmers, and if that's not
enough, come to the floor of the House and ask for unanimous consent to
try and further rewrite this program right here as we go, without even
having printed language before us.
Mr. Chairman, I assert the objection to the unanimous consent
request.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard. The amendment is not
modified.
Mr. COOPER. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Tennessee has 1 minute
remaining.
Mr. COOPER. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman who just spoke knows that we
discussed this precise matter at dinner last night. He was not caught
unawares at all. We discussed it at some length at dinner.
Second, it is the prerogative of any Member of this House to defend
the honor of this institution. I am personally extremely disappointed
that our provision allowing what would otherwise be antitrust
violation, wrongful, possibly criminal behavior, would be allowed to be
inserted in this bill, apparently without the knowledge of anyone on
the committee, certainly not of anyone on the Judiciary Committee.
I regret his objection. But my intention is clear. We need to reform
crop insurance in America. I only found out about this issue, as the
gentleman said correctly, because I am fortunate enough to be a member
of the Government Reform Committee.
Under the hearings led by Henry Waxman, we did more to uncover abuse
in this area than the Agriculture Committee ever did. In fact, when I
attended the agriculture hearing, only four members of that committee
were present to hear the government witnesses to describe the ongoing
abuse in the crop insurance industry, witnesses from the GAO and USDA
IG.
This is important information that every Member of the House deserves
to have, because we should not be party to handing out free antitrust
exemptions without anybody knowing about it.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition and yield the
customary 2\1/2\ minutes to the ranking member from Virginia.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr.
Scott), a member of the committee.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman from Virginia
may control 2\1/2\ minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, with all due respect to the
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cooper) whose intentions are certainly
well meaning, here is the situation. This was never brought before our
committee. We spent hour after hour, most times till 1:00 or 2:00 in
the morning, working on a variety of these issues.
Now, if there are charges that he is speaking of, and they appear to
be serious, they belong in the jurisdiction of the Justice Department,
not in the Agriculture Committee.
That is where this argument needs to be taken, but not at this late
hour at a time when it has not been brought before our committee. And,
as he said, he might have mentioned it to the gentleman, Mr. Pomeroy,
at dinner, but that's a hue and a cry from having this discussion in
the full Agriculture Committee.
The other point is that there are 16 companies who provide crop
insurance. If this rather draconian amendment were even adopted, it
would severely wreak havoc in the crop insurance industry as we know it
and provide fewer choices for our farmers.
Again, it is beyond the jurisdiction of the Agriculture Committee.
[[Page H8774]]
I respectfully ask that we oppose the gentleman's amendment.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, the committee bill makes significant
reforms to the Crop Insurance Program. The bill reduced the statutory
loss ratio to an actuarially sound 1.0. By doing this, we were able to
include a provision by Mr. Neugebauer that makes additional crop
insurance available, which has to be paid for, which will lessen need
for disaster assistance.
Mr. Neugebauer's provision is similar in many respects to the
administration's crop insurance plan. The committee bill increases
premiums for the catastrophic level of coverage.
We authorize the USDA to renegotiate the standard reinsurance
agreement every 5 years. The committee bill specifically authorizes
data mining to ensure compliance with rules of the program. The
committee bill also reduces the reimbursement rate by 2 percentage
points. These are significant changes that make the program more
actuarially sound and make the program more responsible with taxpayer
dollars.
Additionally, the committee-passed bill authorized an additional 1
million acres in the GRP land to protect sensitive grasslands in this
country. While we all would like more money for many programs, this is
a carefully balanced approach. I think we have done a good job of
balancing the needs of both commodity producers and those that would
like to preserve native grasslands.
I strongly oppose this amendment.
Mr. COOPER. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GOODLATTE. I would be happy to yield.
Mr. COOPER. I have the highest respect for the gentleman and for all
the members of the Agriculture Committee. I am sure this was not
intentional. That's why I am trying to correct the problem.
When I looked into it, 84 percent of the savings that are in the
agriculture bill from crop insurance happened only in year 5. Nothing
happens in year 1, 2, 3, 4. Year 5 is the year in which the next
agriculture bill will be drafted. It's very unlikely that those cuts
will ever occur, when 84 percent of them are back-loaded in year 5. So
that was my concern about those cuts.
But the larger provision, allowing these collusive discussions and
negotiations with the government, surely the gentleman is disturbed by
those.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Reclaiming my time from the gentleman, let me just say
that these changes are real, they are legitimate, they will be put into
effect. The chairman has committed to holding additional hearings and
investigation into the matter. We will do that.
But to pull the safety net out from under American farmers and
ranchers by doing something in a precipitous fashion is not a good
idea.
Therefore, I oppose the amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy).
Mr. POMEROY. Some quick facts: the insurance industry operates in
this country under an antitrust exemption. It was passed into law in
1945 in the McCarron-Ferguson Act. But for a relatively recent
interpretation of the Department of Justice, in constant negotiation,
the Federal Government to the private sector partner has always been
conducted under the way anticipated under the bill.
Twenty years ago I was a State insurance commissioner. At that time
there were more than 60 companies writing crop insurance. Now they are
down to 16. Why is that? Because there is so doggone much money here?
Heck, no. It's because it's a tough line of business to work.
I am not saying that we don't need to look at it, but the committee
takes out $2.9 billion, and now we got a guy that thinks he knows we
can take out billions more. I tell you, you take out billions more, my
farmers don't have the vital risk protection they need when crops fail
and they need to make the payment back to the banker on their loans. So
this is serious stuff. This isn't an academic exercise. This is vital
risk protection for the farmers.
Vote ``no'' on this amendment.
Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Chairman, as chairman of the Subcommittee on
General Farm Commodities and Risk Management, we have already held
three hearings this year. The chairman has indicated that the committee
is going to hold more hearings. We are going to look into this deeper.
I think that's appropriate. To make this kind of change on the floor of
the House at the 11th hour is unfair to the farmers of America.
I oppose the gentleman's amendment and would ask the Members of this
body to do the same. Let it go back to the committee so we will have
the opportunity to do it at committee level where it should be done.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cooper).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the
noes appeared to have it.
Mr. COOPER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Tennessee
will be postponed.
Announcement by the Acting Chairman
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings
will now resume on those amendments printed in part B of House Report
110-261 on which further proceedings were postponed, in the following
order:
Amendment No. 7 by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas.
Amendment No. 12 by Mr. Rangel of New York.
Amendment No. 13 by Mr. Boehner of Ohio.
Amendment No. 19 by Mr. Davis of Illinois.
Amendment No. 21 by Mr. Udall of Colorado.
Amendment No. 25 by Mr. Putnam of Florida.
Amendment No. 27 by Mr. Cooper of Tennessee.
The Chair will reduce to 2 minutes the time for any electronic vote
after the first vote in this series.
Amendment No. 7 Offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Texas
(Ms. Jackson-Lee) on which further proceedings were postponed and on
which the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. This will be a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 422,
noes 3, not voting 12, as follows:
[Roll No. 748]
AYES--422
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Allen
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Bachmann
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Baldwin
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Bordallo
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boustany
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Braley (IA)
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Chandler
Christensen
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Cohen
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Davis, Lincoln
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly
Doolittle
Doyle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Edwards
Ehlers
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emerson
Engel
English (PA)
Eshoo
Etheridge
Everett
Faleomavaega
Fallin
Farr
Fattah
Feeney
Ferguson
Filner
Flake
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Giffords
Gilchrest
Gillibrand
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
[[Page H8775]]
Granger
Graves
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hall (TX)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hobson
Hodes
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jindal
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Jordan
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Keller
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Klein (FL)
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kuhl (NY)
Lamborn
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Mack
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Manzullo
Marchant
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (CA)
McCarthy (NY)
McCaul (TX)
McCollum (MN)
McCotter
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McHenry
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Mica
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murphy, Tim
Murtha
Musgrave
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Neugebauer
Norton
Nunes
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Pearce
Pence
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Rodriguez
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Salazar
Sali
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schmidt
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Sestak
Shadegg
Shays
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Sires
Skelton
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Souder
Space
Spratt
Stark
Stearns
Stupak
Sullivan
Sutton
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tierney
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Walz (MN)
Wamp
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Weller
Westmoreland
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (OH)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Yarmuth
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOES--3
Gohmert
King (IA)
Weldon (FL)
NOT VOTING--12
Castor
Clarke
Cubin
Davis, Jo Ann
Emanuel
Fortuno
Frank (MA)
Hastert
Issa
Kucinich
LaHood
Slaughter
{time} 1249
Mrs. CAPPS and Messrs. CANTOR, BARROW, CAMPBELL of California, FRANKS
of Arizona and FEENEY changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 748 I voted
``no.'' I meant to vote ``aye.''
Amendment No. 12 Offered by Mr. Rangel
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York
(Mr. Rangel) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which
the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. This will be a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 182,
noes 245, not voting 10, as follows:
[Roll No. 749]
AYES--182
Abercrombie
Allen
Baird
Baldwin
Bartlett (MD)
Becerra
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boozman
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Camp (MI)
Capps
Capuano
Carney
Carson
Castle
Christensen
Clay
Cleaver
Cohen
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Lincoln
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Edwards
Ehlers
Ellison
Emerson
Eshoo
Etheridge
Faleomavaega
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Flake
Giffords
Gilchrest
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Grijalva
Hall (NY)
Harman
Herger
Herseth Sandlin
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jindal
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Loebsack
Lowey
Lynch
Maloney (NY)
Manzullo
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
McNulty
Meeks (NY)
Michaud
Miller, George
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Norton
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Peterson (MN)
Poe
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Ross
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shays
Shea-Porter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Stark
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Thompson (CA)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Woolsey
Wynn
NOES--245
Ackerman
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Bachmann
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Barton (TX)
Bean
Berkley
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono
Bordallo
Boustany
Boyd (FL)
Braley (IA)
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Buyer
Calvert
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carter
Castor
Chabot
Chandler
Clyburn
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Crenshaw
Cuellar
Culberson
Davis (AL)
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Donnelly
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ellsworth
Engel
English (PA)
Everett
Fallin
Feeney
Ferguson
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gillibrand
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Green, Gene
Gutierrez
Hall (TX)
Hare
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Higgins
Hobson
Hodes
Hoekstra
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Jordan
Keller
Kennedy
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Klein (FL)
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kuhl (NY)
Lamborn
Latham
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren, Zoe
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Mahoney (FL)
Marchant
Marshall
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Meek (FL)
Melancon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Murphy, Patrick
Murphy, Tim
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Pallone
Pascrell
Pearce
Pence
Perlmutter
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Rodriguez
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Rothman
Royce
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Salazar
Sali
Saxton
Schiff
Schmidt
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Space
Spratt
Stearns
Sullivan
Sutton
Tancredo
Terry
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Wamp
Wasserman Schultz
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Westmoreland
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (OH)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Wu
Yarmuth
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
[[Page H8776]]
NOT VOTING--10
Clarke
Cubin
Davis, Jo Ann
Emanuel
Fortuno
Frank (MA)
Hastert
Issa
Kucinich
LaHood
Announcement by the Acting Chairman
The Acting CHAIRMAN (during the vote). Members are advised that they
have 1 minute remaining in this vote.
{time} 1255
Mr. HODES changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment No. 13 Offered by Mr. Boehner
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Boehner) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the
noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. This will be a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 153,
noes 271, not voting 13, as follows:
[Roll No. 750]
AYES--153
Allen
Bachmann
Bachus
Baird
Baldwin
Barrett (SC)
Bean
Berman
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehner
Bono
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Castle
Chabot
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (CA)
Davis, David
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doggett
Donnelly
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
English (PA)
Everett
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gillmor
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Granger
Hall (TX)
Harman
Heller
Hensarling
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holt
Honda
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Israel
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Keller
Kind
King (NY)
Kirk
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Lamborn
Lewis (CA)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Matheson
McCaul (TX)
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Mitchell
Moore (WI)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Myrick
Paul
Pence
Petri
Pitts
Poe
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Reichert
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Saxton
Schmidt
Schwartz
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Sestak
Shadegg
Shays
Sherman
Shuler
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Space
Stark
Stearns
Sullivan
Tancredo
Tiberi
Tierney
Turner
Upton
Walberg
Wamp
Waxman
Weldon (FL)
Westmoreland
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Wu
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOES--271
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baker
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Becerra
Berkley
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blackburn
Bonner
Boozman
Bordallo
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boustany
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown, Corrine
Burgess
Butterfield
Camp (MI)
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson
Carter
Castor
Chandler
Christensen
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Cohen
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
Davis, Lincoln
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dent
Dicks
Dingell
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emerson
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Faleomavaega
Fallin
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Forbes
Fortenberry
Gerlach
Giffords
Gilchrest
Gillibrand
Gingrey
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Graves
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hare
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Herger
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
Hooley
Hoyer
Hulshof
Inslee
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jindal
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
King (IA)
Kingston
Klein (FL)
Kuhl (NY)
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lucas
Lynch
Mahoney (FL)
Markey
Marshall
Matsui
McCarthy (CA)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum (MN)
McCotter
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McHenry
McHugh
McIntyre
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy, Tim
Murtha
Musgrave
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Neugebauer
Norton
Nunes
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pearce
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Pickering
Platts
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Rehberg
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Rodriguez
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (MI)
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Shea-Porter
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NE)
Snyder
Solis
Souder
Spratt
Stupak
Sutton
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Weller
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (OH)
Woolsey
Wynn
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--13
Broun (GA)
Clarke
Cubin
Davis, Jo Ann
Emanuel
Fortuno
Frank (MA)
Hastert
Issa
Kucinich
LaHood
Maloney (NY)
Sali
Announcement by the Acting Chairman
The Acting CHAIRMAN (during the vote). Members are advised that there
is 1 minute remaining in this vote.
{time} 1259
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment No. 19 Offered by Mr. Davis of Illinois
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois
(Mr. Davis) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. This will be a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 144,
noes 282, not voting 11, as follows:
[Roll No. 751]
AYES--144
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baldwin
Barrett (SC)
Bean
Berkley
Berman
Biggert
Bilbray
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehner
Bono
Boozman
Brady (PA)
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Burton (IN)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Castle
Chabot
Christensen
Clay
Cooper
Costello
Courtney
Culberson
Davis (IL)
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
Dent
Doggett
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Ellison
English (PA)
Eshoo
Ferguson
Flake
Fossella
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gordon
Gutierrez
Heller
Hensarling
Higgins
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holt
Inglis (SC)
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (OH)
Jordan
Kanjorski
Keller
Kind
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Langevin
Lee
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lungren, Daniel E.
Manzullo
McCarthy (NY)
McKeon
Mitchell
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy, Patrick
Murphy, Tim
Myrick
Pallone
Pascrell
Paul
Payne
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Ramstad
Regula
Reichert
Rohrabacher
Roskam
Royce
Rush
Ryan (WI)
Schiff
Schmidt
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Sestak
Shadegg
Shays
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Souder
Stark
Sullivan
Tancredo
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walberg
Wamp
Waters
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Westmoreland
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (FL)
[[Page H8777]]
NOES--282
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Arcuri
Bachmann
Baker
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Becerra
Berry
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Bonner
Bordallo
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boustany
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (TX)
Braley (IA)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Butterfield
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson
Carter
Castor
Chandler
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Cohen
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Conyers
Costa
Cramer
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Davis, Lincoln
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Donnelly
Doolittle
Doyle
Edwards
Ellsworth
Emerson
Engel
Etheridge
Everett
Faleomavaega
Fallin
Farr
Fattah
Feeney
Filner
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Giffords
Gilchrest
Gillibrand
Gillmor
Gonzalez
Goode
Granger
Graves
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Hall (NY)
Hall (TX)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Herger
Herseth Sandlin
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jindal
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (NC)
Kagen
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
King (IA)
Klein (FL)
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kuhl (NY)
Lamborn
Lampson
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lucas
Lynch
Mack
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Marchant
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul (TX)
McCollum (MN)
McCotter
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McHenry
McHugh
McIntyre
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Mica
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moran (KS)
Murphy (CT)
Murtha
Musgrave
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Neugebauer
Norton
Nunes
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pastor
Pearce
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Pickering
Poe
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (NC)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rahall
Rangel
Rehberg
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Rodriguez
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sali
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NE)
Snyder
Solis
Space
Spratt
Stearns
Stupak
Sutton
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Watson
Watt
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (OH)
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Yarmuth
Young (AK)
NOT VOTING--11
Clarke
Cubin
Davis, Jo Ann
Emanuel
Fortuno
Frank (MA)
Hastert
Issa
Kucinich
LaHood
Saxton
Announcement by the Acting Chairman
The Acting CHAIRMAN (during the vote). Members have 1 minute
remaining in this vote.
{time} 1303
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated against:
Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Chairman, on July 27, 2007, I inadvertently voted
``aye'' on Davis Amendment to H.R. 2419 (rollcall No. 751). I intended
to vote ``no'' on the amendment.
Amendment No. 21 Offered by Mr. Udall of Colorado
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado
(Mr. Udall) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. This will be a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 175,
noes 251, not voting 11, as follows:
[Roll No. 752]
AYES--175
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baird
Baldwin
Bean
Berkley
Berman
Biggert
Bilbray
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boucher
Boyda (KS)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Capps
Carney
Castle
Chabot
Clay
Cleaver
Cooper
Courtney
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Dent
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dreier
Ehlers
Ellison
English (PA)
Eshoo
Ferguson
Flake
Fortenberry
Fossella
Frelinghuysen
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gordon
Green, Al
Hall (NY)
Harman
Heller
Higgins
Hinchey
Hobson
Hodes
Hoekstra
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Kaptur
Keller
Kennedy
Kind
King (NY)
Kirk
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kuhl (NY)
Lamborn
Langevin
Lantos
Larson (CT)
Lee
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Maloney (NY)
Manzullo
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McNerney
McNulty
Meeks (NY)
Michaud
Miller (MI)
Miller, George
Mitchell
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Musgrave
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Obey
Olver
Pallone
Pascrell
Payne
Perlmutter
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Pomeroy
Porter
Putnam
Ramstad
Rangel
Reichert
Reynolds
Rohrabacher
Royce
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sestak
Shays
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Souder
Stark
Stearns
Stupak
Sutton
Tancredo
Tauscher
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Tiberi
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Van Hollen
Walsh (NY)
Waters
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Wexler
Wilson (OH)
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Yarmuth
Young (FL)
NOES--251
Abercrombie
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Arcuri
Baca
Bachmann
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Becerra
Berry
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Bordallo
Boren
Boswell
Boustany
Boyd (FL)
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Braley (IA)
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Cantor
Capito
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carson
Carter
Castor
Chandler
Christensen
Clyburn
Coble
Cohen
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Conyers
Costa
Costello
Cramer
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cuellar
Culberson
Davis (AL)
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Davis, Lincoln
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
Delahunt
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Donnelly
Doolittle
Doyle
Drake
Duncan
Ellsworth
Emerson
Engel
Etheridge
Everett
Faleomavaega
Fallin
Farr
Fattah
Feeney
Filner
Forbes
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Gallegly
Giffords
Gilchrest
Gillibrand
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (TX)
Hare
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth Sandlin
Hill
Hinojosa
Hirono
Holden
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Jefferson
Jindal
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Jordan
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kildee
Kilpatrick
King (IA)
Kingston
Klein (FL)
Lampson
Larsen (WA)
Latham
LaTourette
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Mahoney (FL)
Marchant
Marshall
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Meek (FL)
Melancon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Mollohan
Moran (KS)
Murphy, Tim
Murtha
Myrick
Neugebauer
Norton
Nunes
Oberstar
Ortiz
Pastor
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Pickering
Poe
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Radanovich
Rahall
Regula
Rehberg
Renzi
Reyes
Rodriguez
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Salazar
Sali
Sarbanes
Schmidt
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Sessions
Shadegg
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NE)
Smith (TX)
Snyder
Solis
Space
Spratt
Sullivan
Tanner
Taylor
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Turner
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Walz (MN)
[[Page H8778]]
Wamp
Wasserman Schultz
Watson
Watt
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
NOT VOTING--11
Clarke
Cubin
Davis, Jo Ann
Edwards
Emanuel
Fortuno
Frank (MA)
Hastert
Issa
Kucinich
LaHood
Announcement by the Acting Chairman
The Acting CHAIRMAN (during the vote). Members are advised there is 1
minute remaining in this vote.
{time} 1309
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN changed her vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Mr. WYNN, Mr. TOWNS, and Mrs. BOYDA of Kansas changed their vote from
``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment No. 25 Offered by Mr. Putnam
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida
(Mr. Putnam) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. This will be a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 175,
noes 252, not voting 10, as follows:
[Roll No. 753]
AYES--175
Abercrombie
Akin
Alexander
Bachmann
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Barton (TX)
Bean
Berman
Biggert
Bilirakis
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehner
Bono
Boyd (FL)
Brady (TX)
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Cardoza
Carter
Castle
Castor
Chabot
Costa
Crenshaw
Crowley
Culberson
Cummings
Davis, David
Davis, Lincoln
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doggett
Doolittle
Duncan
Ehlers
Ellison
Engel
English (PA)
Eshoo
Farr
Feeney
Ferguson
Filner
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Granger
Green, Gene
Hall (TX)
Harman
Hastings (WA)
Heller
Herger
Hill
Hinchey
Hirono
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hunter
Johnson, Sam
Keller
Kind
Klein (FL)
Knollenberg
Lamborn
Langevin
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Linder
LoBiondo
Mack
Mahoney (FL)
Manzullo
Marchant
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Musgrave
Myrick
Nunes
Paul
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Reichert
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (KY)
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Salazar
Sali
Sanchez, Linda T.
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schmidt
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Sestak
Shays
Shea-Porter
Shuster
Simpson
Sires
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Spratt
Stearns
Sullivan
Tancredo
Taylor
Thompson (CA)
Thornberry
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Wamp
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Welch (VT)
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Wexler
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (OH)
Wilson (SC)
Woolsey
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOES--252
Ackerman
Aderholt
Allen
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Becerra
Berkley
Berry
Bilbray
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Bonner
Boozman
Bordallo
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boustany
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown, Corrine
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Buyer
Campbell (CA)
Capuano
Carnahan
Carney
Carson
Chandler
Christensen
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Cohen
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Conyers
Cooper
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Cuellar
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Donnelly
Doyle
Drake
Dreier
Edwards
Ellsworth
Emerson
Etheridge
Everett
Faleomavaega
Fallin
Fattah
Flake
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Giffords
Gilchrest
Gillibrand
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Graves
Green, Al
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hare
Hastings (FL)
Hayes
Hensarling
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hinojosa
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Hulshof
Inglis (SC)
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jindal
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Jordan
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline (MN)
Kuhl (NY)
Lampson
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
Lee
Levin
Lewis (KY)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Marshall
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCaul (TX)
McCollum (MN)
McCotter
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murphy, Tim
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Neugebauer
Norton
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pearce
Pence
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Poe
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Rehberg
Reyes
Rodriguez
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ross
Rothman
Ruppersberger
Rush
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Shadegg
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuler
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Space
Stark
Stupak
Sutton
Tanner
Tauscher
Terry
Thompson (MS)
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tierney
Towns
Turner
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walsh (NY)
Walz (MN)
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wolf
Wu
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--10
Clarke
Cubin
Davis, Jo Ann
Emanuel
Fortuno
Frank (MA)
Hastert
Issa
Kucinich
LaHood
{time} 1313
Mr. POE changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment No. 27 Offered by Mr. Cooper
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Tennessee
(Mr. Cooper) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. This will be a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 175,
noes 250, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 11, as follows:
[Roll No. 754]
AYES--175
Ackerman
Allen
Altmire
Andrews
Baird
Baldwin
Bartlett (MD)
Bean
Berman
Biggert
Bilbray
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boucher
Buchanan
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Capps
Capuano
Carnahan
Castle
Castor
Chabot
Chandler
Christensen
Cohen
Cooper
Costello
Courtney
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis, David
Davis, Lincoln
Davis, Tom
DeFazio
DeGette
Dent
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Ellison
English (PA)
Eshoo
Faleomavaega
Ferguson
Flake
Fossella
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Giffords
Gillibrand
Gillmor
Gordon
Green, Al
Grijalva
Hall (NY)
Harman
Hensarling
Higgins
Hill
Hinchey
Hodes
Hoekstra
Holt
Honda
Inslee
Israel
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Kaptur
Kind
King (NY)
Kirk
Knollenberg
Kuhl (NY)
Langevin
Lantos
Larson (CT)
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Maloney (NY)
Marchant
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McKeon
McNulty
Michaud
Miller (MI)
Miller, George
Mitchell
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Myrick
Nadler
Neal (MA)
Olver
Pallone
Pascrell
Payne
Pence
Petri
Pitts
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Rahall
Ramstad
Reichert
Rogers (MI)
Rothman
[[Page H8779]]
Ryan (WI)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Sensenbrenner
Sestak
Shadegg
Shays
Sherman
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Solis
Stark
Sullivan
Tancredo
Tauscher
Taylor
Terry
Tiberi
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Van Hollen
Visclosky
Wamp
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Yarmuth
Young (FL)
NOES--250
Abercrombie
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Arcuri
Baca
Bachmann
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Barton (TX)
Becerra
Berkley
Berry
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Bordallo
Boren
Boswell
Boustany
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Braley (IA)
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Cantor
Capito
Cardoza
Carney
Carson
Carter
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Conyers
Costa
Cramer
Crenshaw
Cuellar
Culberson
Davis (AL)
Davis (KY)
Deal (GA)
Delahunt
DeLauro
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Doyle
Drake
Edwards
Ellsworth
Emerson
Engel
Etheridge
Everett
Fallin
Farr
Fattah
Feeney
Filner
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Gilchrest
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Green, Gene
Gutierrez
Hall (TX)
Hare
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Herger
Herseth Sandlin
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hobson
Holden
Hooley
Hoyer
Hulshof
Inglis (SC)
Jackson (IL)
Jindal
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Jordan
Kagen
Kanjorski
Keller
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
King (IA)
Kingston
Klein (FL)
Kline (MN)
Lamborn
Lampson
Larsen (WA)
Latham
LaTourette
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Loebsack
Lucas
Mack
Mahoney (FL)
Manzullo
Marshall
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McIntyre
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moran (KS)
Murphy, Patrick
Murphy, Tim
Murtha
Musgrave
Napolitano
Neugebauer
Norton
Nunes
Oberstar
Obey
Ortiz
Pastor
Paul
Pearce
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Pickering
Platts
Poe
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (GA)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Rodriguez
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sali
Sarbanes
Schmidt
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sessions
Shea-Porter
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (TX)
Snyder
Souder
Space
Spratt
Stearns
Stupak
Sutton
Tanner
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Turner
Velazquez
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Westmoreland
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (OH)
Wilson (SC)
Young (AK)
ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1
Gingrey
NOT VOTING--11
Clarke
Cubin
Davis, Jo Ann
Emanuel
Fortuno
Frank (MA)
Hastert
Hunter
Issa
Kucinich
LaHood
Announcement by the Acting Chairman
The Acting CHAIRMAN (during the vote). Members are reminded they have
1 minute remaining in this vote.
{time} 1318
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an
amendment today to give pollinator protection and the concern of Colony
Collapse Disorder a prominent presence in H.R. 2419, the Farm Bill
Extension Act of 2007. This amendment reflects the contributions of
countless organizations and a bi-partisan coalition of Members of
Congress who share a common concern for pollinator decline.
When issues like Colony Collapse Disorder and pollinator decline
threaten one-third of American agriculture, they must be taken
seriously. I commend Chairman Peterson and the Committee on Agriculture
for their tireless work on provisions in the current Farm Bill
Extension Act to address pollinator research. However, my amendment
demonstrates the need to clarify that significant research and
conservation programs will play an important role in combating Colony
Collapse, Disorder and North American pollinator decline in years to
come. If we want our children to enjoy food grown in this nation in the
coming years, then we must save bees and other pollinators.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment adds a section to the bill authorizing
$86.5 million over 5 years for facilities improvement and research
grants to combat Colony Collapse Disorder and North American native/
managed pollinator decline. These funds would be authorized through a
combination of initiatives at the U.S. Department of Agriculture, USDA,
including the Agricultural Research Service, ARS, the Cooperative State
Research, Education, and Extension Service, CSREES, and the Animal
Plant and Health Inspection Service, APHIS. This section of the
amendment is very similar to my legislation H.R. 1709, the Pollinator
Protection Act, which has the bi-partisan support of 50 cosponsors.
This amendment also incorporates welcome adjustments to the Pollinator
Protection Act which I collaborated with Senator Barbara Boxer to
develop in the companion legislation, S. 1694, the Pollinator
Protection Act of 2007.
My amendment also clarifies the importance of native and managed
pollinators in vital conservation programs of USDA. This component of
the amendment reflects the content of H.R. 2913, the Pollinator Habitat
Protection Act of 2007, which Representative Earl Blumenauer and I
recently introduced, similar to S. 1496 introduced by Senator Max
Baucus. On the Senate side, this similar legislation has received vast
bi-partisan support from 33 cosponsors.
Mr. Chairman. Moments like this truly demonstrate the collaborative
capacity of this great Congress to meet a dire need with thoughtful
policy that truly engages stakeholders and impacted communities.
I thank Members of Congress that worked with me in both chambers of
Congress in this effort to save American agriculture. I also thank the
many scientists and organizations for their endorsement of this
amendment, namely: the American Beekeeping Federation, Inc., American
Honey Producers Association, American Farmland Trust, California Farm
Bureau Federation, California State Beekeepers Association, Center for
Biological Diversity, Coevolution Institute, Defenders of Wildlife,
Environmental Defense, Florida Farm Bureau Federation, National
Wildlife Federation, Partners for Sustainable Pollination, Sonoma
County Beekeepers Association, Sustainable Agriculture Coalition, Wild
Farm Alliance, and the Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation.
I thank Chairman Peterson for his support and I urge my colleagues
support this vital amendment.
Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to
continuation of a failed farm policy that takes from the poor to give
to the rich. Although the Farm Bill, H.R. 2419 before us is being sold
as a reform package, it is little more than a dressed up version of
previous ``Farm Bills'' that have paid over $1 billion to dead farmers
and $1.3 billion to individuals who do not farm.
Our so-called ``farm policy'' overwhelmingly benefits the wealthiest
landowners at the expense of small farmers. The top 10 percent of
recipients collect 60 percent of all payments. Large landowners receive
the most subsidies, which allows them to purchase the best land from
smaller farmers. This drives many farmers out of business and increases
the price of land.
This bill does lower the income cap and prohibits individuals with
more than $1 million in annual income from receiving direct payments.
Unfortunately, there are numerous loopholes in this provision, which
led the Bush Administration's own Agriculture Department to estimate
that as few as 3,000 out of the 1.5 million individuals receiving
direct payments will be cut off. This bill therefore does little to end
the corporate welfare that has become the hallmark of our agriculture
policy.
Congressmen Kind and Flake are offering real reform. I support their
Fairness in Farm and Food Policy Amendment because it creates a
meaningful income limit to make sure no subsidies go to farmers with a
yearly income over $250,000. It gradually reduces direct payments and
reforms the bloated crop insurance program. These savings are then
invested into conservation, minority farmers, fruit and vegetable
production, and a $5.6 billion boost to vital nutrition programs. This
is the new direction in which America's farm policy should be headed.
I applaud the efforts of my many colleagues who worked hard to
include additional funding for the Food Stamps program and the
McGovern/Dole International Food program. Their efforts
[[Page H8780]]
will help millions of hungry families in this country and around the
world. However, this bill, does not go far enough to provide food for
the hungry and looks to the wrong place to pay for the limited funding
it does provide. If we are truly concerned about our Nation's hungry
and poor, we could stop subsidizing agri-business and put the money we
recoup from eliminating current subsidies to feed our neighbors and
support family farms.
I urge my colleagues to vote for meaningful reform, support the Kind/
Flake amendment, and oppose the underlying bill.
Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, during debate tonight on the Fairness in Farm
and Food Policy Amendment to the farm bill I offered with my colleagues
Mr. Flake, Mr. Blumenauer, Mr. Ryan, and others, a false claim was made
regarding the budgetary impact of the amendment, and I would like to
correct the record to reflect the truth. While the error, to the best
of my knowledge, was not intentional and the false statement was not
made knowingly, I believe it is important that I make the accurate
information known.
Tonight, Chairman Peterson stated that the savings claimed by the
reforms made by the amendment were not realized, and he questioned,
therefore, the validity of these reforms. Unfortunately, the statement
was based on inaccurate information. After consulting with the
Congressional Budget Office, it appears the Chairman was basing his
comments on a comparison with current law rather than a comparison to
H.R. 2419, which was how our amendment was drafted. The official CBO
score shows that our amendment would have, in fact, saved the
government billions of dollars during both the five- and 10-year
windows in relation to the bill as reported by the Agriculture
Committee.
It is unfortunate this mistake was made on the House floor tonight
and was not corrected at the time. When writing policy that affects
every single American, it is important that we base our decisions on
timely and accurate information. I appreciate this opportunity to
provide the real facts on our amendment.
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of section
10404 of the 2007 Farm Bill, which would provide $35 million in funding
over the next five years for farmers' markets through the Farmer
Marketing Assistance Program. This provision also designates that 10
percent of the funding will be used to support the use of Electronic
Benefits Transfer, EBT, technology at farmers' markets. I want to thank
Representative Kagen for his leadership and his amendment to the bill
that strengthens our nation's farmers' markets and provides much needed
resources for food stamp recipients to use their benefits at farmers'
markets. I also appreciate his working with me on this issue.
As someone who regularly shops at a farmers' market in my hometown of
Evanston, IL, I have seen first hand that farmers' markets are a
positive force wherever they crop up, providing consumers with fresh
food options, preserving family farms, increasing health and nutrition
and connecting urban and rural Americans. Direct marketing of farm
products has ballooned in recent years from 1,755 farmers markets in
1994 to over 4,385 in 2006. These markets average $245,000 per year in
revenue, with the typical farmer netting about $7,108. Even though
farmers' markets are highly seasonal, 25 percent of vendors rely on
them as their sole source of farm-based income.
Even as farmers' markets are expanding to unprecedented numbers, the
2006 USDA Farmers' Market Survey found that only 6 percent of these
markets have implemented EBT technology. In my home city of Chicago, we
only have one farmers' market that can accept EBT cards: the Logan
Square market became the first farmers' market in Illinois just last
month. However, at a time when obesity, food insecurity and chronic
illnesses impact millions of low-income Americans, most still cannot
use their food stamp benefits to purchase nutritious food at farmers'
markets.
This past May, I participated in the Food Stamp Challenge and lived
on the national average food stamp benefit for one week. Even though
the $3 per day allotment was inadequate, I had the good fortune of
access to nearby grocery stores. Millions of Americans, however, have
no grocery stores near their homes and live in what are known as ``food
deserts.'' In fact, a 2004 study by Mississippi State University found
that in the midwest, 34 percent of Americans live in food deserts, with
this percentage approaching 50 percent in western States. Investments
in farmers' markets are a low-cost solution to the crisis of food
deserts and provide new options for Americans who currently have
limited access to healthy food.
In 2006, USDA received over $15 million in grant applications from
farmers' markets across the country under the Farmer Marketing
Assistance Program and with only $1 million in available funds, it was
only able to meet a fraction of the need. That represents a tremendous
missed opportunity to improve the health of Americans. Today's raising
of funding of the Farmer Marketing Assistance Program to $35 million
over 5 years will help us get closer to meeting the need we know is out
there. I urge my colleagues to pass the 2007 Farm Bill, which includes
the Kagen Amendment, and to retain this important measure in
Conference.
Ms. BORDALLO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 2419, the Farm,
Nutrition, and Bioenergy Act, because I recognize its value to rural
America and the promise it brings for renewing our national commitment
to agriculture, nutritional research and food safety, and alternative
energy and conservation.
I recognize that this legislation has been carefully crafted by a
committee chaired by our highly respected colleague, the gentleman from
Minnesota, Mr. Peterson. I commend him for his leadership. This
legislation sets Federal farm policy and will be the basis for
agricultural governance over the next 5 years. Importantly, it takes
into account in several respects, the needs and priorities of farmers
and ranchers residing in the territories.
The bill earns my support because it provides a reliable safety net
for commodity crops, buttresses, in many respects, core conservation
programs, and will now strengthen important domestic and international
food nutrition programs.
Within this bill is a renewed and increased commitment to specialty
crops. Specialty crops are important to the farmers and ranchers and
consumers in the territories. Mr. Chairman, in the territories, we live
and share the experiences of everyday life in rural America. We have
much in common with our fellow Americans living and working in the
small States and in the heartland of the U.S. mainland. We are
economically challenged and strong Federal-local partnerships are the
backbone of our ability to grow and diversify our economies.
Conservation in the islands is achieved through such partnerships.
This bill presents a means through which such partnerships can be
continued and strengthened. Historically, the Government of Guam has
sought and utilized loans and programs under the Rural Development
umbrella of the United States Department of Agriculture, USDA, to build
its public works and infrastructure. Our utilities have largely and
historically been constructed with Rural Development support. The
continuation of authority for the range of Rural Development programs
administered by USDA through Title VI of H.R. 2419 is one reason why I
lend my support to this bill. These programs will be relied upon as a
means to help our community of Guam meet additional and projected needs
associated with the rebasing of Marines from Okinawa to Guam and
realignment of defense forces in the Pacific Rim.
The bill carries other provisions of unique interest to me and to my
colleagues from the territories. In particular, I am grateful for the
accommodations made and the support received from Chairman Peterson and
the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Goodlatte, for two specific
provisions.
First, now within the research title of the bill, as a result of the
amendment I sponsored with the gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands,
Mrs. Christensen, the gentleman from American Samoa, Mr. Faleomavaega,
and the gentleman from Puerto Rico, Mr. Fortuno, that was packaged into
the en bloc amendment offered by Chairman Peterson, USDA will have
authority to award grants to the land grant institutions in the
territories for facilities improvements, construction, and equipment
acquisition and repair.
Congress designated the University of Guam and the University of the
Virgin Islands as land grant institutions by an Act passed in 1972.
That Act was amended by Congress in 1980 to designate American Samoa
Community College, the Northern Marianas College, and the College of
Micronesia, as land grant institutions.
The land grants colleges and universities in the territories are a
unique set of institutions with special needs and challenges within the
national land grant college and university family. Our institutions are
known informally as the 1972 community, and like the 1890 and 1994
communities, are an underserved set of institutions that USDA has
authority to support in key areas.
The new authority under this bill for a grants program in support of
facilities improvements and equipment acquisition will strengthen the
institutional capacity at the land grant institutions in the
territories to sponsor research and execute extension activities of
national value. This is a $40 million authorization across 5 years. We
have requested that this authority be included within the bill to
complement USDA resources to support research and extension and
instruction capacity building in the territories. Our land grant
institutions are vital to our success in the islands--economically,
[[Page H8781]]
agriculturally, scientifically, and environmentally. Our institutions
have limited resources, but these institutions and the territorial
governments meet the matching requirements under the Hatch Act each
year because these programs are so important to our communities.
The bill also extends the authorization for two grants programs
authorized by the 2002 farm bill. These are the resident instruction
and distance education grants programs for the territories.
Second, is an amendment that we proposed and that was placed into the
bill to amend the definition of ``State'' in the Specialty Crops
Competitiveness Act of 2004 to include American Samoa, Guam, the
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and the Virgin Islands of
the United States, as eligible recipients of block grant funding that
stands to be reauthorized by this bill. The inclusion of this provision
is a significant victory for the territories. I am grateful for the
support received from the gentleman from California, Mr. Cardoza, for
its inclusion in the bill.
Our farmers have invested in harvesting many traditional and tropical
fruits, nuts, and horticultural specialties. Avocados, bananas, beans,
betel nuts, breadfruits, coconuts, cucumbers, grapefruit, guavas, limes
and lemons, mangoes, oranges, papayas, peppers, pineapples, squash,
sweetsops, tangerines, tomatoes, and watermelons, are, for example,
several of the specialty crops harvested in the territories whose
market competitiveness stands to be improved now as a result of this
bill.
The inclusion of the territories in this block grant funding will
help our local Departments of Agriculture increase the capacity of our
farmers to competitively farm and sell specialty crops. On Guam alone,
the market value of specialty crops sold was estimated in 2002 by the
National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) at $3.4 million. We
hope this new funding will result in increased production of fresh
vegetables and local fruits and make Guam's market prices competitive.
It is for these reasons, and others, that I support H.R. 2419. As the
Chairwoman of the Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife and Oceans, I
recognize the value the bill presents for conservation. I support it
because of its conservation provisions. I look forward to working with
the leadership to protect the provisions important to the territories
and to national conservation by the conference committee.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this bipartisan Farm
Bill, and, in particular, section 4302. This section includes language
directing the Secretary of Agriculture to undertake training, guidance,
and enforcement of current Buy American Statutory requirements. I
applaud the Agriculture Committee for including this important
provision in the Farm Bill.
Congress has time and time again expressed its desire that taxpayer
dollars be used to purchase domestically produced goods. We have
consistently stated, through public law and senses of the Congress,
that American-made goods should be given top priority.
Despite the repeated efforts of Congress, however, the United States
Department of Agriculture (USDA) has chosen not to enforce the law.
Schools, if they are even aware of the Buy American requirement, need
training and assistance in how to incorporate the requirement into
their bid solicitations.
Some companies blatantly disregard the requirement. A year ago, at a
national school food conference, a food company marketed their peaches
to school foodservice authorities. However, these peaches were clearly
marked: ``peaches from China, packed in Thailand.'' If a school
foodservice authority were to purchase this product for use in the
national school lunch and breakfast programs, it would be an outright
violation of Federal law.
After this was brought to the attention of USDA, a letter was issued
to the conference host. No additional guidance, no additional training,
no attempt to bring awareness to the issue. Obviously, the problem has
not been adequately dealt with. A year later, at the same national
school food conference, held just a week ago, the same product was
exhibited: ``peaches from China, packed in Thailand.'' Evidently,
nothing has changed. USDA needs to take responsibility to fulfill its
duty to implement the law.
We produce, and should be promoting, plenty of high quality fresh,
canned, and frozen product in the U.S. There is no reason to violate
the law and purchase foreign goods. Now, more than ever, when our
farmers need support, when we are facing food imports of questionable
safety, it is vital that we ensure our school children are eating
products produced by American Agriculture.
I applaud the Agriculture Committee for including this important
language.
Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Farm
Bill.
I commend Chairman Peterson and Ranking Member Goodlatte for
producing a fair compromise that will go a long way in sustaining our
agricultural system as well as supporting vital nutrition, conservation
and research programs.
I would also like to thank the Chairman for including language
directing the Government Accountability Office to conduct a study of
waste water infrastructure along the U.S.-Mexico border.
Many rural communities along the border are living with inadequate
waste water treatment plants and sewer management systems.
Without improved infrastructure and access to clean water these
communities face significant public health threats.
This study will determine what steps the Federal Government can take
to bring inadequate waste water systems in rural border communities up
to date.
In my district alone I have heard from the communities of Sabinal,
Clint, Fort Stockton, Presidio and Fort Hancock, Texas, all of which
are in desperate need of assistance with their waste water management
systems.
I represent over 600 miles of the U.S.-Mexico border and when I
travel through my district I hear over and over again that these
communities need help.
Our rural and underserved populations need our support in addressing
the health hazards that come with insufficient water management systems
and this study is a critical first step.
Current programs at the USDA Rural Development agency provide for
loan/grant awards for rural infrastructure needs.
More often than not, the loan portion is 75 percent or more of the
award. As we all know, waste water systems can range from $5 to $10
million or more. Rural communities do not have the revenue or tax base
to take on loans for millions of dollars.
If these programs are the only assistance we have to offer, then we
need to reevaluate these programs.
It is my hope, that this GAO study will shed some light on this issue
and will provide a critical first step to bring adequate waste water
systems to our rural communities on the border.
Again, I thank the Chairman for his work on the Farm Bill and for the
inclusion of this important language.
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I would first like to commend Chairman
Peterson and the members of the Agriculture Committee for completing
the difficult task of bringing this bill to the floor in a bipartisan
fashion.
I supported the 2002 farm bill, which has served Michigan farmers
well. The agricultural sector in this country is strong, and it is a
good time to take a look at our farm support system and figure out how
we can make it better for small farmers and specialty crop farmers.
We must recognize that farming is an inherently risky enterprise;
producers are exposed to both production and price risks. Therefore, it
is incumbent upon our government to be there for farmers when markets
fail. We cannot afford to turn our back on America's farmers and our
farm policy should be structured so that those who produce the safest
and most abundant food supply in the world have an adequate safety net.
We should also promote research to find new uses for the agricultural
products grown in our fields and to promote these products in the
global marketplace. However, it is not our responsibility to give cash
payouts to millionaires, dead farmers or suburbanites who have no
involvement in farming but just happened to purchase a house located on
farmland.
In 2005, 92 percent of the total farm payments last year went to just
five crops. Michigan has the second-most diverse agriculture base in
the Nation and I am glad to see that for the first time, the farm
legislation before us today guarantees a historic $1.5 billion in
funding for fruit and vegetable programs, including the school fresh
fruit and vegetable program, the farmer's market promotion program,
specialty crop block grants and research and organic food programs--all
of which provide valuable support for the fresh fruit and vegetable
growers in Michigan.
The legislation before us today strengthens incentives for farmers to
conserve valuable natural resources and protect the environment.
Currently, three out of four farmers are turned away from conservation
programs due to lack of funding. It is unacceptable for farmers who are
trying to do the right thing for the environment to be rejected because
we have not allocated enough resources to help them. H.R. 2419, the
Farm, Nutrition, and Bioenergy Act of 2007, adds $4.3 billion more to
preserve farm and ranchland, improve water quality and quantity, and
enhance soil conservation, air quality, and wildlife habitat on working
lands.
I support the Fairness amendment offered by my colleague Ron Kind not
because I am dissatisfied with H.R. 2419 but because I believe that it
goes one step farther towards curbing taxpayer subsidies by reforming
our farm payment system to direct aid to those who need assistance.
Make no mistake, the Fairness amendment does not dismantle the
[[Page H8782]]
safety net--it just modernizes the program so that it works better for
family farms and 348 Congressional Districts, including Michigan's 15th
District, which would gain $6 million under the Kind proposal.
The Fairness amendment does not weaken any of the commendable
nutrition or conservation provisions in H.R. 2419--rather, it makes
them better by adding $2 billion for nutrition programs and $3 billion
for conservation programs. Moreover, it does all of this without
requiring spending offsets or new taxes.
Mr. Chairman, H.R. 2419 contains no legislative text expressing a
view on whether manure should be deemed a hazardous substance pursuant
to the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act, CERCLA, or the Emergency Planning and Community Right to
Know Act, EPCRA. The absence of any such text is proper both for
parliamentary and policy reasons.
The report that accompanies this legislation, however, references a
``sense of the committee'' amendment that farm animal manure should not
be deemed a hazardous substance pursuant to CERCLA and EPCRA.
I strongly disagree with these sentiments, which would create a
blanket exemption from important environmental laws for those large
concentrated animal feeding operations that pollute public drinking
water supplies with phosphorous and emit more than 100 pounds per day
of ammonia and hydrogen sulfide into the air.
Manure is not at risk of being deemed a ``hazardous substance'' or
``hazardous waste.'' That is misinformation put forth by some.
Phosphorous, however, is a ``hazardous substance'' under CERCLA and the
Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, has determined that both ammonia
and hydrogen sulfide are ``extremely hazardous substances'' for the
``reportable quantity'' reporting requirements of EPCRA.
Congress clearly intended that the Superfund program deal with the
improper and excessive application of fertilizer that pollutes drinking
water supplies or damages natural resources. This is manifestly clear
because Section 101 (22) of the Superfund statute creates an exemption
from the definition of release for ``the normal application of
fertilizer.'' If substances such as phosphorous that emanate from the
excessive application of manure fertilizer are exempted, the only
people being protected are the bad actors.
These large concentrated animal feeding operations produce huge
amounts of animal waste. For example, an animal feeding operation with
2 million hogs produces a volume of manure equal to the solid waste
stream of a U.S. city of about 2.7 million--a city similar in size to
Chicago's 2.8 million population.
The Environmental Protection Agency has found that large-scale
concentrated animal feeding operations present significant human health
and environmental risks. Let me quote EPA's findings:
``Significant human health and environmental risks are generally
associated with large-scale Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations,
CAFOs. Improper handling of manure from feedlots, lagoons and improper
land application can result in excessive nutrients (nitrogen and
phosphorous); pathogens (i.e., fecal coli form); and other pollutants
in the water. This pollution can kill fish, cause excessive algae
growth, and contaminate drinking water. In addition, emissions of air
pollutants from very large CAFOs may result in significant health
effects for nearby residents.''
A blanket exemption from CERCLA for excessive application of manure
fertilizer would also shift the costs onto community water systems and
their ratepayers for additional treatment to make water potable. I
attach the July 23, 2007, letter from the Association of Metropolitan
Water Agencies that highlights the serious consequences that any such
an exemption would have for the quality our Nation's drinking water
supplies.
Mr. Chairman, the Farm Bill Extension Act also makes changes to the
Rural Utilities Service broadband loan and loan guarantee program.
While this program is in dire need of reform, I am concerned about
several provisions in the measure as drafted.
The measure wisely limits loans and loan guarantees in areas where
consumers already have broadband service available to them. I am deeply
concerned, however, that it describes those areas where broadband is
available too broadly, so that applications to provide broadband to
large areas of a community that currently have no broadband service at
all would be denied.
The bill also prohibits support in areas where more than 75 percent
of households have access to broadband. National satellite broadband
providers can in theory reach close to 100 percent of households.
However, while satellite-delivered broadband is a rapidly-improving and
valuable service, particularly in remote areas, today it is often not
comparable to terrestrially-delivered broadband. It typically cannot
reach the same speeds and is more expensive and subject to outages in
heavy rainstorms and other severe weather. While I appreciate the
bill's commitment to technological neutrality, if satellite-delivered
broadband is not excluded from the 75-percent requirement, there may be
few areas that would be eligible for loans.
When it comes to broadband service, speed is critical, and the
measure could also be improved by giving priority to applications that,
other things being equal, propose to offer higher broadband speeds to
consumers.
I also strongly disagree with creating within the Department of
Agriculture a National Center for Rural Telecommunications Assessment
to increase broadband penetration and develop assessments of broadband
availability in rural areas. These are matters that fall squarely
within the expertise of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and
should be left to that agency's expertise. Likewise, any report
describing a comprehensive rural broadband strategy should be developed
by the FCC rather than by the Department of Agriculture. I applaud the
goal of working toward universal broadband availability and urge my
colleagues to ensure that we attain that goal by allowing the FCC, the
agency with the most expertise, to spearhead that effort.
Association of
Metropolitan Water Agencies,
Washington, DC, July 23, 2007.
Subject: Oppose CERCLA Animal Waste Exemption in Farm Bill.
Dear Representatives: As the House of Representatives
prepares this week to consider legislation to reauthorize the
Farm Bill, we urge you to reject language that would exempt
components of animal waste from designation as a hazardous
substance pursuant to the Comprehensive Environmental
Response Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA). Enactment
of such an exemption would bring about serious consequences
for the quality of America's drinking water supplies.
During last week's markup of the legislation, the
Agriculture Committee adopted an amendment expressing the
``sense of the committee that farm animal manure should not
be considered as hazardous substance'' under CERCLA. This
follows the introduction earlier this year of legislation in
the House and Senate that would specifically exempt animal
waste and its components from the law.
As representatives of community drinking water systems, we
believe it is important to note that animal manure itself is
not currently considered a hazardous substance, pollutant or
contaminant under CERCLA. Moreover, the law already contains
an exemption for the normal application of fertilizer that
includes manure.
However, phosphorus and other CERCLA-regulated hazardous
substances that are known to compromise the quality of
drinking water are commonly present in animal manure. If
Congress were to provide a blanket CERCLA exemption for
animal waste, consolidated animal feeding operations (CAFOs)
would be free to discharge manure containing such hazardous
substances into the environment without regard to its impact
or liability for its damages. As a result, the costs of
additional treatment to make water potable would be forced
upon community water systems and their ratepayers, unfairly
shifting the burden of cleanup away from polluters.
Later this year, Congress will celebrate the 35th
anniversary ofthe Clean Water Act, landmark legislation
modeled on the belief that all Americans must share the
responsibility of maintaining the health of our nation's
water supply. Exempting CAFOs from their fair share of this
duty not only threatens to reverse the water quality gains
that have been realized over the recent decades, but would
also set a dangerous precedent encouraging other polluters to
seek waivers from our environmental laws.
Again, we urge you to oppose a blanket exemption for animal
waste and its components from the important requirements of
CERCLA.
Sincerely,
Diane VanDeHei,
Executive Director.
Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. Mr. Chairman, during debate on H.R. 2419,
the Department of Agriculture Appropriations bill, the issue of school
nutrition came before the House. As the Chairwoman of the Committee on
Education and Labor's Subcommittee on Healthy Families and Communities,
ensuring our Nation's youth have access to healthy school lunches and
understand the importance of a healthy lifestyle is of vital importance
to me.
As a nurse, I have seen first hand the importance of a balanced diet.
Many health issues can be avoided by simply maintaining a balanced
diet. Unfortunately, our Nation's youth do not always have healthy
options. The high sugar snacks they see advertised on television
provide no nutrition and are a major factor in weight gain. It is
important that our Nation's youth have healthy options that taste good
and are appealing to them.
Obesity is a major problem facing our Nation's youth. Childhood
diabetes is also on the rise. Type II diabetes, which only used to be
seen in older adults is now becoming prevalent in children. These
issues clearly extend
[[Page H8783]]
beyond children to the whole family and the community in which they
live. One way Congress can help reduce these numbers is by providing
healthy school lunches.
Although meals provided in schools are required by law to follow
nutrition standards in accordance with the ``Dietary Guidelines for
Americans'', a child with the money available can just as easily avoid
nutrition and grab a soda and a bag of chips down the hall in the
vending machines. These items, although bad for one's health, often
taste better to students and there are no guidelines for schools on
healthy living and eating.
Another issue facing school nutrition is the reduced price meal
program. This is a vital program that helps low-income families afford
meals for their children. Unfortunately, for many families, the cost is
found to be a challenge. It breaks my heart to read that families
struggle to afford the 30 cents for breakfast and 40 cents for lunch
which is the charge for the reduced price meals.
Families cannot afford less than $1 a day to have two solid,
nutritious meals provided to a child. This is a travesty, and I support
study to see the effects of using the WIC income guidelines as the free
meal guidelines,
As Chairwoman of the Subcommittee on Healthy Families and
Communities, I understand the importance of a healthy lifestyle, and as
a parent I know that we must teach our children the value of nutritious
food and healthy living. We cannot ignore the factors outside the
classroom that contribute to the education of our youth. They are the
future of our Nation.
Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 2419, the Farm,
Nutrition, and Bioenergy Act of 2007 and urge my colleagues to pass
this meaningful legislation.
I want to thank Chairman Peterson for crafting this legislation and I
also want to again thank the Chairman for visiting my district and
talking and listening with my farmers and ranchers on the Central Coast
of California.
I am glad the Chairman got to experience the rangelands of South
County Monterey and the mile after mile of nutritious fresh produce as
we drove through the Salad Bowl of the World, the Salinas Valley.
As the number one agriculture State in the union, California for too
long has been the stepchild of farm policy. My own district grows more
than 85 crops commercially with a value of more than $4 billion.
Our region leads the nation in the production of artichokes,
broccoli, brussels sprouts, cauliflower, celery, garlic, several
varieties of lettuce, spinach, strawberries, flowers and foliage.
The Central Coast contains some of the most fertile and productive
farm land in the world. It's a combination of soil, climate, and
private risk capital because for too long specialty crop growers in
California have sat on the sidelines as other commodities received the
largess of Federal assistance.
H.R. 2419 takes farm policy in a new direction, for the first time in
the history of the Farm Bill we have a package that has something for
everyone.
Specialty crop growers finally will get the investment of mandatory
funds for vital research, technical assistance, pest detection, market
promotion, and much needed produce food safety will all receive
mandatory funding.
With this influx of money we can go beyond new farm policy, we can
promote health policy as part of the farm bill.
This great health debate is taking place in American homes, in the
medical community, and in schools. For the first time we now have a
link from farm programs to healthy nutritious fruits and vegetables.
Here we are as a society, talking constantly about obesity and diets,
and yet until now our farm policies were not structured to encourage
the kind of diet that the food pyramid suggests we should adopt.
I have said it many times--if people would eat more of what
California grows we would be healthier for it. Specialty Crops are now
taking its rightful place at the center of the debate on how to solve
the problem.
The Agriculture Committee's version provides funding for important
conservation programs, nutrition programs, and a strong farm safety net
to protect America's farm economy.
H.R. 2419 includes additional funding for conservation programs, $350
million to expand the fruit and vegetable snack program to schools
throughout the country, $365 million to fund the specialty crop block
grant program, funding for pest exclusion activities, $215 million for
specialty crop research, and $30 million for organic research.
I want to make special note of the $25 million in mandatory spending
for the produce food safety grants included in this bill. As ground
zero for the spinach E. Coli outbreak last year I understand all too
well what happens when the food system breaks down.
I am thankful for the $25 million investment in mandatory research
grants so we can gain the needed knowledge and understanding so we
never have to go through this kind of outbreak again.
All of these provisions provide significant benefits to California's
specialty crop growers, who make up the majority of California
agriculture.
Ms. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Farm
Bill Extension Act of 2007 not because it is a perfect bill but because
of the many good things that it does for poor people and minorities in
our country.
I want to begin by commending Chairman Peterson and Subcommittee
Chairman Cardoza for their willingness to work with me and other
members to address concerns we had with the bill.
I am especially pleased that the bill includes language to correct an
apparent oversight in the 2004 Specialty Crops Competitiveness Act that
defined a State to exclude the Virgin Islands or any of the other
smaller territories; which meant that my district, the Virgin Islands
has been denied any specialty crop block grant funding by the USDA.
Mr. Speaker, the Virgin Islands once had a significant history of
agricultural production. A substantial portion of our current
agricultural production now consists of vegetables (e.g., cucumbers,
lettuce, and tomatoes), fruits (e.g., bananas, mangoes and papayas) and
horticultural specialties, including ornamental plants. The Government
of the Virgin Islands and in particular our Department of Agriculture,
believes that there are considerable opportunities to expand production
of these specialty crops.
As an island economy, we must import a large portion of its fruits
and vegetables for its own residents and for the 2 million tourists who
visit the Islands each year. We see great opportunity to increase local
production of fresh specialty crops to serve both its residents and
visitors. The eligibility for us to receive specialty crop block grant
funding would greatly assist us in our efforts to expand and enhance
specialty crop production in the Virgin Islands.
The bill before us provides $365 million in mandatory funding to
expand the specialty crop block grant program, meaning that our farmers
will not have to rely upon annual renewal of the program through the
appropriations process.
I am also very pleased the Farm Bill Extension offers significant
improvements to the Food Stamp Program, 1890 land-grant institutions,
and improved access to programs for Socially Disadvantaged Farmers and
Ranchers, including language and funds to address outstanding claims
from Pigford v. Veneman.
Mr. Chairman, as I noted at the outset, this bill is not a perfect
bill. But as the old saying goes, we should not let the perfect be the
enemy of the good. This is a good bill for the American people and I
urge my colleagues to support its adoption.
Mr. HALL of New York. Mr. Chairman, I thank the Chairman and rise to
offer an amendment to help farmers in regions across the country
simultaneously meet the goals of continued production and environmental
protection.
My amendment would establish a Conservation on Muck Soils program
that would provide conservation assistance tailored to the specific
needs of farmers who grow crops on what is known as muck soil.
In politics I know we hear a lot about wallowing in the partisan muck
or muckraking, but I'm sure that some of my colleagues are scratching
their heads and asking, ``What exactly is muck soil?'' Well, muck is a
special type of dirt that develops a thick organic layer of topsoil
that is highly vulnerable to erosion when the lands are exposed to air.
It's extremely fertile, loose soil in which farmers grow crops like
onions, potatoes, lettuce, celery, and other specialty crops.
Mr. Chairman, I am very supportive of the conservation programs
administered by the USDA. They make an important contribution by making
it economically feasible for farmers to manage their land while being
environmentally responsible. In States like my home of New York, they
are critical to making sure that farmers aren't penalized for doing the
right thing. I'm extremely pleased by the increases in conservation
program levels under this bill, and I'm sure that they'll make these
programs more accessible and effective.
However, they are broad programs built to accommodate a wide array of
conditions. Because of muck's special characteristics, existing
conservation programs don't necessarily provide support to growers on
these lands in the most efficient, effective way possible. My amendment
would attempt to acknowledge the nature of this soil with a tailored
approach that improves on the current application of the Conservation
Reserve Enhancement Program.
The CREP program is a good program. It attempts to further the
important goals of preventing soil erosion and protecting water quality
through a voluntary retirement program. In order to obtain conservation
payments, the CREP program requires farmers to enter into 10-15 year
agreements to remove qualifying land from agricultural production.
[[Page H8784]]
As I said, this is a good program but it does not always present an
adequate conservation solution, particularly for farmers who want to
prevent soil erosion or runoff pollution without foregoing production.
At times, this aspect of the program has created unintended
consequences, including the retirement of specialized, productive soil
from farming and a lack of land maintenance leading to weed and pest
threats on neighboring lands.
My amendment would address these concerns and help muck soil farmers
remain viable by providing support for conservation activities on
working lands.
In addition to being actively involved in farming on muck soil, in
order to qualify farmers would have to have a spring cover crop planted
with the primary crop to prevent soil erosion, maintain a winter cover
crop to prevent off season soil loss, have surrounding ditch banks
seeded with grass on a year round basis to stave off runoff and
erosion.
These are practices specifically designed to prevent erosion, runoff,
and water pollution. By doing so, it would not force farmers to make
the choice between conservation and cultivation.
Mr. Chairman, the COMS program would provide a unique opportunity to
support active farmers and protect the environment. That's why it has
been endorsed by the New York Farm Bureau and the National Farmers
Union. I urge support for the amendment.
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the Farm Bill, with great
appreciation for the many challenges it presented to Chairman Collin
Peterson, and respect for the Chairman's skill in meeting a multitude
of complicated and often competing demands. I want to say a word about
a small change in the bill that nevertheless rises to historic
dimensions. I thank Chairman Peterson and his staff for providing equal
treatment in the bill for the University of the District of Columbia,
UDC, the only all urban 1862 Land Grant Institution in the United
States. The University performs valuable urban agricultural research
and extension services. The fact that the provisions the Chairman has
included were in the Congressional Black Caucus farm bill package
underscores the UDC changes as necessary to afford the University
equality under the law. The changes end the disparate treatment of UDC
by removing obligations not required of other land grant institutions,
particularly mandatory local matching funds.
By statute, UDC has been left out of funding opportunities granted to
other land grant institutions. For example, the University is required
to provide 100 percent matching funds for its Expanded Food and
Nutrition Education Programs, EFNEP, the only 1862 Land Grant
Institution required to do so. Under the bill, this inequitable
requirement will be removed, putting UDC on par with all other 1862
institutions, and like other small land grant institutions, UDC will
qualify to have matching requirements for Hatch Act programs and
extension programs reduced or waived. We particularly appreciate access
to grants to significantly enhance the University's teaching and
research capacity building and its ability to upgrade its research,
teaching and extension facilities.
We still require clarification on one issue related to Smith-Lever
Act funds. We will seek to clarify this issue during conference.
However, the substance of the changes we requested is in this bill. We
are grateful for the historic breakthroughs in the equal treatment for
the country's only all urban land grant institution.
Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, I submit the following
information for the Record.
U.S. House of Representatives,
Committee on Agriculture,
Washington, DC, July 26, 2007.
Hon. Charles B. Rangel,
Chairman, Committee on Ways and Means, Longworth House Office
Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Rangel: Thank you for your letter regarding
the Committee on Ways and Means' jurisdictional interest in
H.R. 2419, the Farm, Nutrition, and Bioenergy Act 2007.
I appreciate your willingness to expedite this legislation
for floor consideration, with the understanding that it does
not prejudice your Committee's jurisdictional prerogatives on
this or similar legislation.
I will submit a copy of your letter and this response as
part of the Congressional Record during consideration of the
legislation on the House floor. Thank you for your support of
H.R. 2419 and your cooperation as we work towards enactment
of this important legislation.
Sincerely,
Collin C. Peterson,
Chairman.
____
House of Representatives,
Committee on Ways and Means,
Washington, DC, July 23, 2007.
Hon. Collin Peterson,
Chairman, Committee on Agriculture,
Longworth House Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing regarding H.R. 2419--the
Farm Bill Extension Act of 2007--which was ordered to be
reported by the House Agriculture Committee on July 19, 2007,
and is expected to be on the House Floor this week.
As you know, the Committee on Ways and Means has
jurisdiction over import matters, such as the administration
of tariff-rate quota programs like sugar. Accordingly, some
provisions of H.R. 2419 fall under the Committee's
jurisdiction.
There have been some very productive conversations between
the staffs of our committees. Our understanding is that your
staff has conceded the Ways and Means jurisdiction over the
issues listed above. In order to expedite this legislation
for Floor consideration, the Committee will forgo action on
this bill and will not oppose its consideration on the House
Floor. This is being done with the understanding that it does
not in any way prejudice the Committee or its jurisdictional
prerogatives on this, or similar legislation in the future.
I would appreciate your response to this letter, confirming
our understanding with respect to H.R. 2419, and would ask
that a copy of our exchange of letters on this matter be
included in the record.
Sincerely,
Charles B. Rangel,
Chairman.
____
House of Representatives,
Committee on Agriculture,
Washington, DC, July 26, 2007.
Hon. James L. Oberstar,
Chairman, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Oberstar: Thank you for your letter regarding
the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure's
jurisdictional interest in HR 2419, the Farm, Nutrition, and
Bioenergy Act 2007.
I appreciate your willingness to expedite this legislation
for floor consideration, with the understanding that it does
not prejudice your Committee's jurisdictional prerogatives on
this or similar legislation.
I will submit a copy of your letter and this response as
part of the Congressional Record during consideration of the
legislation on the House floor. Thank you for your support of
H.R. 2419 and your cooperation as we work towards enactment
of this important legislation.
Sincerely,
Collin C. Peterson,
Chairman.
____
House of Representatives, Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure,
Washington, DC, July 26, 2007.
Dear Chairman Peterson: I write to you regarding H.R. 2419,
the ``Farm, Nutrition and Bioenergy Act of 2007''.
H.R. 2419 contains provisions that fall within the
jurisdiction of the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure. I recognize and appreciate your desire to
bring this legislation before the House in an expeditious
manner and, accordingly, I will not seek a sequential
referral of the bill. However, agreeing to waive
consideration of this bill should not be construed as the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure waiving its
jurisdiction over H.R. 2419.
Further, the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
reserves the right to seek the appointment of conferees
during any House-Senate conference convened on this
legislation on provisions of the bill that are within the
Committee's jurisdiction.
I look forward to working with you as we prepare to pass
this important legislation.
Sincerely,
James L. Oberstar, M.C.,
Chairman.
____
House of Representatives,
Committee on Agriculture,
Washington, DC, July 25, 2007.
Hon. John Dingell,
Chairman, House Committee on Energy and Commerce, Rayburn
House Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Dingell: Thank you for your letter regarding
the Committee on Energy and Commerce's jurisdictional
interest in H.R. 2419, the ``Farm, Nutrition, and Bioenergy
Act of 2007''.
I appreciate your willingness to expedite this legislation
for floor consideration, with the understanding that it does
not prejudice your Committee's jurisdictional prerogatives on
this or similar legislation. I would support your request for
conferees should a House-Senate conference be convened on
this or similar legislation.
I will submit a copy of your letter and this response as
part of the Congressional Record during consideration of the
legislation on the House floor. Thank you for your support of
H.R. 2419 and your cooperation as we work towards enactment
of this important legislation.
Sincerely,
Collin C. Peterson,
Chairman.
[[Page H8785]]
____
House of Representatives,
Committee on Energy and Commerce,
Washington, DC, July 25, 2007.
Hon. Collin C. Peterson,
Chairman, Committee on Agriculture,
Longworth House Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Peterson: I am writing with regard to H.R.
2419, the Farm, Nutrition, and Bioenergy Act of 2007. The
Bill contains provisions that fall within the jurisdiction of
the Committee on Energy and Commerce. I support passage of
the bill, and I recognize and appreciate your desire to bring
it up on the House floor in an expeditious manner. The
Committee did not send a letter to the Speaker seeking a
sequential referral of the bill. This decision was based on
my understanding that you have agreed that the inaction of
the Committee with respect to the bill does not in any way
serve as a jurisdictional precedent as to our two committees.
Further, as to any House-Senate conference on the bill, the
Committee on Energy and Commerce reserves the right to seek
the appointment of conferees for consideration of portions of
the bill that are within the Committee's jurisdiction. It is
my understanding that you have agreed to support a request by
the Committee with respect to serving as conferees on the
bill (or similar legislation).
I request that you send a letter to me confirming our
agreements as to jurisdiction, including with respect to
conferees, and that our exchange of letters be inserted in
the Congressional Record as part of the consideration of the
bill.
The portions of the reported bill that are of
jurisdictional interest to the Committee on Energy and
Commerce include sections 2105, 6002, 6006, 6007, 6012, 6022,
6023, 6024, 6028, 6029, 6030, 6031, 7203, 7403, and 7410, and
portions of title IX.
I look forward to working with you on this important
legislation. If you wish to discuss this matter further,
please contact me.
Sincerely,
John D. Dingell,
Chairman.
____
House of Representatives,
Committee on Agriculture,
Washington, DC, July 25, 2007.
Hon. George Miller,
Chairman, House Committee on Education and Labor, Rayburn
House Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Miller: I am writing to confirm our mutual
understanding regarding the consideration of H.R. 2419, the
``Farm, Nutrition, and Bioenergy Act of 2007,'' which was
reported on June 23. I am aware that the Committee on
Education and Labor has a jurisdictional interest in several
provisions contained within H.R. 2419, as reported.
Due to the importance of expediting this legislation, I
respectfully request that the Committee on Education and
Labor forgo requesting a sequential referral of H.R. 2419. My
request should not be construed as my asking the Committee to
relinquish its jurisdictional interests and prerogatives in
this bill or other similar legislation, and should not be
construed as setting a precedent for consideration of matters
of jurisdictional interest to the Committee on Education and
Labor in the future.
Please send me, at your earliest convenience, a letter of
exchange, and I will ensure that both letters are included in
the Congressional Record during the consideration of this
bill. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please
do not hesitate to call me. I thank you for your
consideration.
Sincerely,
Collin C. Peterson,
Chairman.
____
House of Representatives,
Committee on Education and Labor,
Washington, DC, July 25, 2007.
Hon. Collin Peterson,
Chairman, House Committee on Agriculture,
Longworth House Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Peterson. I am writing to confirm our mutual
understanding regarding consideration of H.R. 2419, the
``Farm, Nutrition, and Bioenergy Act of 2007,'' which was
referred to the Committee on Agriculture and reported to the
House on June 23. As you know, the Committee on Education and
Labor has a jurisdictional interest in several provisions in
the bill.
Given the importance of moving this bill forward promptly,
I will not request the sequential referral of H.R. 2419 to
the Committee on Education and Labor. However, I do so only
with the understanding that this procedural route should not
be construed to prejudice this Committee's jurisdictional
interests and prerogatives on this bill or any other similar
legislation and will not be considered as precedent for
consideration of matters of jurisdictional interest to the
Committee on Education and Labor in the future.
I appreciate your cooperation working with us in advance of
your Committee's markup of this bill and your commitment to
include a copy of our exchange of letters in the
Congressional Record during its consideration on the House
Floor. In addition, the Committee on Education and Labor
reserves the right to seek appointment to any House-Senate
conference on this legislation and looks forward to your
support if such a request is made.
If you have any questions regarding this matter, please do
not hesitate to call me. I thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
George Miller,
Chairman.
____
House of Representatives,
Committee on Agriculture,
Washington, DC, July 25, 2007.
Hon. Bennie G. Thompson,
Chairman, Committee on Homeland Security,
Ford HOB, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Thompson: Thank you for your recent letter
regarding the Committee on Homeland Security's jurisdictional
interest in H.R. 2419, The Farm, Nutrition, and Bioenergy Act
of 2007. Section 10401 repeals section 421 of the Homeland
Security Act of 2002 (P.L. 107-296) and restores import and
entry agricultural inspection functions to the Department of
Agriculture.
Although this provision was removed from H.R. 2419 in the
Manager's Amendment, I would support your request for
conferees from the Committee on Homeland Security should a
House-Senate conference to be convened on this or similar
legislation which contains such a provision.
I will submit a copy of your letter and this response as
part of the Congressional Record during consideration of the
legislation on the House floor. Thank you for your support of
H.R. 2419 and your cooperation as we work towards enactment
of this important legislation.
Sincerely,
Collin C. Peterson,
Chairman.
____
House of Representatives,
Committee on Homeland Security,
Washington, DC, July 24, 2007.
Hon. Collin C. Peterson,
Chairman, House Committee on Agriculture,
Longworth House Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Peterson: I am writing regarding the
Committee on Homeland Security's jurisdictional interest in
H.R. 2419, the Farm Bill Extension Act of 2007. I appreciate
your willingness to work with me to address a concern in H.R.
2419, in advance of its consideration by the Full House of
Representatives.
As I expressed to you, section 10401 in the Horticulture
Title would have a significant impact on the organization and
administration of the Department of Homeland Security. Under
Rule X of the Rules of the House of Representatives,
legislation impacting the organization and administration of
the Department of Homeland Security fall within the committee
on Homeland Security's jurisdiction. Like both H.R. 1706 and
H.R. 2629, this provision would repeal section 421 of the
Homeland Security Act of 2002 (P.L. 107-296) and would
nullify the March 2003 transfer of the Animal and Plant
Health Inspection Service (APHIS) inspectors from the
Department of Agriculture to the Department of Homeland
Security. I am pleased that though we may disagree about this
policy question, you agreed to strike the provision. I am
also pleased to work with you in order to ensure
consideration of this important legislation on the House
floor later this week.
Should the provision at issue or any matter related to the
operations of the Department of Homeland Security find its
way into H.R. 2419 or companion legislation, I request your
support for any effort I undertake to secure an appropriate
number of conferees in a House-Senate conference on this or
similar legislation.
As a former member of the Agriculture Committee, I have
watched my fair share of farm bills work their way through
the legislative process. I believe you should be commended
for shepherding this wide-ranging bill, as Chairman, in a
very effective manner.
Finally, I request that a copy of this letter, together
with your response, be inserted in the Congressional Record
when the legislation is considered by the House later this
week.
Thank you, again, for your prompt attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
Bennie G. Thompson,
Chairman.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. There being no further amendments, under the
rule the Committee rises.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Hastings of Florida) having assumed the chair, Mr. Schiff, Acting
Chairman of the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union,
reported that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill
(H.R. 2419) to provide for the continuation of agricultural programs
through fiscal year 2012, and for other purposes, pursuant to House
Resolution 574, he reported the bill, as amended by that resolution,
back to the House with sundry further amendments adopted by the
Committee of the Whole.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is
ordered.
[[Page H8786]]
Is a separate vote demanded on any further amendment reported from
the Committee of the Whole? If not, the Chair will put them en gros.
The amendments were agreed to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. 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. Goodlatte
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
Mr. GOODLATTE. Yes, in its current form.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Goodlatte of Virginia moves to recommit the bill H.R.
2419 to the Committee on Agriculture with instructions to
report the same back to the House promptly with the following
amendments:
Strike the two titles designated as title XII in the
amendments contained in part A of House Report 110-261 and
adopt such amendments as may be necessary to comply with the
Committee on Agriculture allocation under H. Con. Res. 99 of
the 110th Congress.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized
for 5 minutes.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the chairman of the
Agriculture Committee, the members of the Agriculture Committee on both
sides of the aisle, and the staff of the Agriculture Committee for
working in a bipartisan fashion to write a good farm bill.
This farm bill has a lot of things in it I don't like, a lot of
things I do. I think the chairman would say the same thing about the
bill. But, Mr. Speaker, I cannot support this legislation because of
what happened after this bill left the Agriculture Committee and came
to this floor with a tax increase added in the middle of the night with
no hearings in the Ways and Means Committee and no markup in the Ways
and Means Committee.
This is the wrong way to maintain bipartisan comity in this House,
and to force the American people and the Members of this House to
choose between tax increases and the farm bill that America's farmers
and ranchers need.
I yield to the ranking member of the Ways and Means Committee, Mr.
McCrery.
Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, the tax proposal in the farm bill is
directly aimed at international companies that invest in the United
States, where they support more than 5 million jobs. These are well-
known and well-respected companies: Honda, Bridgestone, Toyota, BASF,
Panasonic. They're not tax dodgers. The jobs they create here are good,
high-paying jobs. By raising taxes on these businesses by more than $7
billion over the next decade, we will make America a less attractive
place for them to invest.
The majority keeps asserting that the Treasury Department supported
this provision back in 2002. I want to set the record straight on that.
It is true that Treasury wrote a report then that income-stripping and
earning-stripping is a potential problem, but since that 2000 report,
the Treasury has worked to update our tax treaties, inserting strong
``limitation of benefits'' language that prevents abuse by denying
treaty benefits to companies headquartered elsewhere but who establish
a shell company in the treaty country.
The Treasury has never, never embraced the sort of ham-handed policy
that the majority is proposing in this bill. And Secretary Paulson made
that clear to me yesterday in a letter me sent to me.
Another contention is that, ``Oh, the President's own budget
contained this proposal.'' Wrong. The President's budget contained a
targeted proposal that would raise over 10 years $2.6 billion.
Mr. Doggett's proposal, which is in the farm bill, raises $7 billion
over 10 years. Is that the same proposal? Of course not. It's more than
double. It's huge. It's broad. It's ham-handed. It will discourage
investment in the United States, and we ought to reject it in this
bill. It's bad policy; never should have been added to the farm bill;
should have come through the Ways and Means Committee, where it's
supposed to come, so we could have a good hearing and Mr. Doggett and I
could debate it. But that didn't happen. We should vote against this
bill.
I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Reclaiming my time, this motion to recommit is very
straightforward. It takes out the tax increases in this bill, sends it
back to the Agriculture Committee. And we would be delighted to work
with the leadership that did not work with us before to find a pay-for
that works for this.
We went to the Budget Committee at the start of this process in a
bipartisan fashion and pointed out that the reforms in this bill cost
money, and asked for that money to be forthcoming. It was not.
Now, based upon previous experience, I would not be at all surprised
to see a cameo appearance in a moment from the majority leader saying
that, because this bill is sent back to committee to report back
promptly, that we're killing the bill. We are doing no such time thing.
We are doing what is necessary to make sure that this bill is treated
in a bipartisan fashion and that the bill is paid for in a way that
adjusts our budget fairly to make sure that agriculture and America's
farmers and rangers got treated the way they should have been treated
at the outset of this process when $60 billion was lost because of the
baseline in agriculture.
And then we're asked to make reforms, many of which I support, but
this, mark my words, is a tax increase that is not fair to the American
people. It puts pressure on companies investing in this country. It
will increase taxes on those workers. It will also call into question
the credibility of the United States for future investment in this
country if we violate treaties, 58 treaties that we have negotiated.
And finally, it will cause retaliation against American investment
overseas as well.
So I urge my colleagues to vote for this motion to recommit. Send it
back. Do the right thing. Do not put America's workers against
America's farmers and ranchers. Support this motion to recommit.
Mr. Speaker, in my time remaining, I would point out that this is a
tax increase because the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, when
he came to the floor last night, said it was a tax increase. The tax
experts I've spoken to say it's a tax increase. Not withstanding what
anybody says, it's a tax increase. Don't support it.
Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the
motion.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I recognize the distinguished
chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Rangel, for such time as
he may consume.
Mr. RANGEL. So, ``the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee said
that this was a tax increase.'' What is this, Taxes 101? When you and
other people come to me and say that we need to get this great
bipartisan agriculture bill out, you didn't go to the chairman of the
Transportation Committee. You didn't go to the chairman of the
Appropriations Committee. You went to the tax-writing committee.
Now, when you say you want revenue enhances, when you say you want to
raise the money to pay for food stamps, it means you have to get it
from somewhere. If you're lucky enough, if you work hard enough, you
will find that certain people are not paying their fair share of taxes.
And you would find that they go out of their way to go to foreign
countries in order to avoid paying the United States obligation.
I would be less than honest if I didn't tell you that as far as those
people who don't pay any or little taxes, oh, yes, they will consider
this a tax increase. Give me some language that I can call it something
else. But I'm saying that equity and fair play means if you're not
paying what you should pay and we catch up with you, you can run to
your accountant and say, ``We gotcha.''
Now, I can understand how philosophically you don't like to talk
about taxes. But just, Mr. Ranking Member, when your time expired
yesterday, you said on the floor that none of us ever came to you and
asked for the money. Now, I don't know where you thought,
[[Page H8787]]
when you asked me where do you go to get the money, when I say ``you,''
I mean you by name.
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will suspend. Members are
reminded to address their remarks to the Chair.
Mr. RANGEL. I agree with you. But anyway, let me thank all of you
that thanked me for making it possible for you to get a bill out. And
if something happened on the way to the floor, believe me, politically,
I understand it. But for all of you who thanked me, we did the best we
could. We catch the devil for it. But if you take a look at foreigners
that are avoiding taxes and hardworking farmers that deserve a better
break, you explain it; we don't have to.
{time} 1330
Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from
New York for that statement. I want to alert the Members of the body
that this motion to recommit has the word ``promptly'' in it. What that
means is if this goes back to the committee, this kills this bill. It
kills the reform that we have done in this bill. It kills the
additional nutrition that has been put into this bill, the energy, all
the other hard work of this committee.
Now, I am a CPA, and I used to do taxes for a living. I agree with
the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee: this is not a tax
increase. This is doing what is right for this country.
What we ought to be looking into is why we are having the taxpayers
of this country fund people in the Treasury Department and fund people
in the State Department to go out and make treaties with other
countries so we can have foreign corporations come to this country and
avoid taxes.
That is what this is about. If you have a straight-up deal between
the United States and Germany, this does not affect you. It only
affects you if you set up a corporation in another country that doesn't
have a tax rate and go through that process.
Mr. Speaker, you can call this whatever you want. But the truth of
the matter is that if you send the bill back to the Agriculture
Committee, we do not have the offsets in the Agriculture Committee to
do what is in this bill. So you are, in effect, killing this bill. I
just want everybody to understand that.
Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Doggett).
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, it is noteworthy that throughout this
debate not one company anywhere in America has come forward and said
``if you pass this bill, you raise my taxes,'' because the vast
majority of foreign companies and no American companies are impacted
whatsoever.
Today, we must choose who to stand with. We choose to stand with the
farm and ranch families that need this assistance and the small
American businesses that are paying their fair share of taxes. We
reject the notion that the only way you can lure a foreign company to
come to America is to tell the foreign company that they should pay
less taxes than Americans. It is a clear choice.
Parliamentary Inquiries
Mr. WESTMORELAND. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry, a
point of clarification.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his parliamentary
inquiry.
Mr. WESTMORELAND. Mr. Speaker, is it not true that if indeed this
motion passed, that this bill could be reported back to the respective
committee from which it was assigned and passed out, and that the bill
could be reported back to the House tomorrow?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair cannot say what the Committee on
Agriculture might do or speculate about possible proceedings anew in
the committee. The pending motion proposes to take the pending bill
from the floor without reaching the question of passage today.
Mr. WESTMORELAND. Mr. Speaker, further parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his parliamentary
inquiry.
Mr. WESTMORELAND. Mr. Speaker, I am trying to get a point of
clarification from you. The parliamentary inquiry is, is it true that
this bill could be reported back to the committee and reported back to
this House on the next legislative day?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair cannot speculate.
Mr. WESTMORELAND. Mr. Speaker, further parliamentary inquiry. Is
there any rule that would preclude a bill going back to committee and
the committee reporting it back the next legislative day?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair does not respond to hypothetical
questions.
Mr. WESTMORELAND. Further parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker. I am
not talking about any bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his parliamentary
inquiry.
Mr. WESTMORELAND. Mr. Speaker, is it true that this bill, this bill,
if this motion passes to this bill and this bill is promptly reported
back to the committee, is it possible under the rules of this House
that this bill could be reported back to this House the next
legislative day?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Once again, that would require an
interpretation of the committee's rules. The Chair is not in a position
to speculate.
Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I have a
parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his parliamentary
inquiry.
Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, are there any
parliamentary impediments to this bill being reported back on the next
legislative day after being promptly reported to the committee of
jurisdiction?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman may need to review the rules
of the Committee on Agriculture.
Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. No, Mr. Speaker. I am asking,
under the rules of the House, are there any parliamentary impediments?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is not stating a parliamentary
inquiry. The Chair has responded to the gentleman's parliamentary
inquiry.
Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I believe you
misunderstood my parliamentary inquiry. My parliamentary inquiry was,
under the rules of the House, are there any parliamentary impediments
to having this bill considered on the next legislative day if it is
promptly reported to the committee of jurisdiction?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Repeatedly the Chair has said, and says
again, that the Chair cannot speculate.
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.
Recorded Vote
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on
the question of passage.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 198,
noes 223, not voting 11, as follows:
[Roll No. 755]
AYES--198
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Bachmann
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Broun (GA)
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
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Emerson
English (PA)
Everett
Fallin
Feeney
Ferguson
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Hall (TX)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hulshof
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Jindal
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
[[Page H8788]]
Jordan
Keller
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kuhl (NY)
Lamborn
Lampson
Latham
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
Mica
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mitchell
Moran (KS)
Murphy, Patrick
Murphy, Tim
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Royce
Saxton
Schmidt
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shays
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Tancredo
Terry
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOES--223
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson
Castor
Chandler
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Conyers
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
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Flake
Giffords
Gillibrand
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hensarling
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Klein (FL)
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Space
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Sutton
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Wexler
Wilson (OH)
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--11
Clarke
Cubin
Davis, Jo Ann
Emanuel
Frank (MA)
Hastert
Issa
Kucinich
LaHood
Sali
Waters
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Members are advised 2
minutes remain in the vote.
{time} 1354
So the motion to recommit was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Mr. SALI. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 755. I was inadvertently
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 231,
noes 191, not voting 10, as follows:
[Roll No. 756]
AYES--231
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baldwin
Barrow
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown, Corrine
Buchanan
Butterfield
Capps
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson
Castor
Chandler
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Conyers
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
Emerson
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Forbes
Fortenberry
Giffords
Gilchrest
Gillibrand
Gonzalez
Gordon
Graves
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hayes
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Hulshof
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
Klein (FL)
Kuhl (NY)
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum (MN)
McGovern
McHugh
McIntyre
McNerney
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Rehberg
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
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NE)
Snyder
Solis
Souder
Space
Spratt
Stupak
Sutton
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Wexler
Whitfield
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (OH)
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Yarmuth
NOES--191
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachmann
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bean
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Capuano
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Cooper
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
English (PA)
Everett
Fallin
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Hall (TX)
Hastings (WA)
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Inslee
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Keller
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Lamborn
Latham
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McDermott
McHenry
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Mitchell
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy, Tim
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Reichert
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Sali
Saxton
Schmidt
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shays
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
[[Page H8789]]
Stark
Stearns
Sullivan
Terry
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tierney
Turner
Upton
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Wamp
Waxman
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Westmoreland
Wicker
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--10
Clarke
Cubin
Davis, Jo Ann
Emanuel
Frank (MA)
Hastert
Issa
Kucinich
LaHood
Tancredo
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Members are advised 2
minutes remain in the vote.
{time} 1402
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________