[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 9]
[House]
[Pages 11933-11956]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




   AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND 
               RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2006

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 303 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. 2744.

                              {time}  1600


                     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. 2744) making appropriations for Agriculture, Rural 
Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies, for 
the fiscal year ending September 30, 2006, and for other purposes, with 
Mr. Ryan of Wisconsin in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole rose earlier today, a 
request for a recorded vote on the amendment by the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Sweeney) had been postponed.
  Pursuant to the order of the House of today, no further amendment to 
the bill may be offered except pro forma amendments offered at any 
point in the reading by the chairman or ranking minority member of the 
Committee on Appropriations or their designees for the purpose of 
debate;
  Amendments printed in the Congressional Record and numbered 3 and 6;
  An amendment printed in the Congressional Record and numbered 5, 
which shall be debatable for 30 minutes;
  an amendment by the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley) regarding an 
across-the-board cut;
  an amendment by the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt) regarding 
regulations;
  an amendment by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) regarding school 
food programs;
  an amendment by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) regarding 
genetically engineered fish;
  an amendment by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) regarding BSE 
testing;
  an amendment by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner) regarding 
minimum guarantees for agriculture funding for States;
  an amendment by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak) regarding 
FDA whistleblowers;
  an amendment by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak) regarding 
FDA clinical trials;
  an amendment by the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) regarding 
Emerald Ash borer; and
  an amendment by the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett) regarding 
213A of the Immigration and Nationality Act.
  Each such amendment may be offered only by the Member named in the 
request or a designee, or the Member who caused it to be printed in the 
Record or a designee, shall be considered read, shall not be subject to 
amendment except that the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
Committee on Appropriations and the Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural 
Development, Food and Drug Administration and Related Agencies each may 
offer one pro forma amendment for the purpose of debate; and shall not 
be subject to a demand for division of the question.
  Except as otherwise specified, each amendment shall be debatable for 
10 minutes, equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an 
opponent.


               Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Blumenauer

  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 5 offered by Mr. Blumenauer:
         At the end of the bill (before the short title), add the 
     following new section:
         Sec. 7__. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise 
     made available by this Act may be used to to pay the salaries 
     and expenses of personnel who make loans available under 
     section 156 of the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform 
     Act of 1996 (7 U.S.C. 7272) to processors of domestically 
     grown sugarcane at a rate in excess of 17 cents per pound for 
     raw cane sugar or to processors of domestically grown sugar 
     beets at a rate in excess of 21.6 cents per pound for refined 
     beet sugar.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) and the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Bonilla) each will control 15 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.
  The United States sugar program is an archaic remnant of a 
Depression-era policy to artificially raise prices of sugar. Today, it 
harms American companies and consumers, while preventing developing 
nations from competing in the global market place. Everybody pays. U.S. 
consumers alone paid an additional 1 to $2 billion directly, and much 
more indirectly.
  This is not a program that benefits our average family farmer. Under 
the 2002 farm bill, the sugar program has 42 percent of the sugar 
benefits going to the most profitable 1 percent of large corporate 
sugar farmers. This policy weakens our credibility for trade 
liberalization as it continues protection of sugar policies that 
restrict trade. These continuing subsidies are harming progress in the 
current Doha Round, a key component of which is to reduce unnecessary 
agricultural subsidies worldwide.
  We saw an example in the discussion of the Australian Free Trade 
Agreement where, to keep our outrageous sugar subsidies in place, the 
United States acceded to Australia's position on maintaining monopolies 
for the export of wheat, barley and rice, therefore closing off export 
opportunities to United States farmers producing these crops.
  It is, I think, outrageous in current American free trade CAFTA, 
where we are watching the door barely open over the next 15 years. If 
it were to pass, these countries would be able to export only 1.7 
percent of the U.S. consumption.
  This policy of supporting high-cost producers and limiting imports 
through quotas deprives more low, cost-efficient producers in 
developing nations. These protectionist policies in developed countries 
have deprived

[[Page 11934]]

poor, desperately poor countries like Ethiopia, Mozambique and Malawi 
of $238 million in sales since 2001.
  The current U.S. sugar program emphasis on overproduction has caused 
environmental degradation in environmentally sensitive areas, 
particularly the Florida Everglades and the Mississippi Delta wetlands. 
The down payment on cleaning up the Everglades that are significantly 
damaged by sugar production is nearly $8 billion.
  Mr. Chairman, the impact on jobs in the United States is also 
unfortunate. The number of employees in sugar-using industries, an 
estimated 724,000 jobs, is 12 times the 61,000 sugar production jobs in 
the United States. It produces a loss of jobs as sugar-intensive 
industries like confectionery move to Canada and other low-cost areas. 
This is an opportunity today to correct that.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Berry).
  Mr. BERRY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Bonilla) for the great job the gentleman has done on the appropriations 
bill, along with the ranking member, the gentlewoman from Connecticut 
(Ms. DeLauro). It is kind of surprising that we have this many 
controversial amendments on the floor today after we worked things out 
in subcommittee pretty well.
  I think it is an amazing thing that we are one of the few countries 
in the whole world that is still able to feed itself, and we arrived at 
this point because we had a government that supported programs that 
guaranteed and made sure that we always had an adequate supply and 
processing capacity of food and fiber so we never had to worry about 
whether or not we were going to have enough.
  These programs do not enrich farmers. They may keep them in business 
in hard times, but they do not enrich them, but they do provide for 
adequate production of food and fiber.
  Now we bring an amendment to attack the sugar industry. The last time 
we did away with the sugar program, the price of sugar went wild, 
absolutely wild.
  We hear those that are opposed to the sugar program come to the floor 
and talk about how cheap sugar is in the world market. The fact is, all 
of the sugar production in the world is supported by the countries 
where it is produced. What is in the world market is what is excess to 
their own needs. It is a matter of fact that it is essential to our own 
well-being to have the ability to produce enough sugar in this country 
to take care of our own needs. Any country that cannot supply adequate 
food and fiber production and processing capacity is at risk in a far 
greater way than we have ever faced in the United States of America. 
Over and over again these very modest programs that keep this 
production at a safe level are attacked over and over by those that 
just simply do not understand what it is all about.
  Now I hear them talk about how farm programs enrich people. I happen 
to have been involved with farm programs my entire life. If anybody 
thinks it is a way to get rich, let me encourage them to go buy one. 
They are for sale every day because people go broke trying to make a 
living on them. Go buy one and get just rich with them. I do not know 
anybody who would tell Members that is the best way to make a dollar in 
this country. These people do it because they love it and because they 
are good at it, and they do not ask the government to take care of 
them.
  It is for the well-being of the American people that we provide these 
programs that guarantee an adequate production of not only sugar but a 
lot of other food and fiber products that are necessary for our own 
national security. It is not a give-away program or an enrichment 
program for a few, as it has been described. Let me encourage this body 
to follow the recommendations of the subcommittee and to vote against 
this amendment.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, I have great respect for the gentleman from Arkansas 
(Mr. Berry), but the fact is that the people who are involved with 
sugar are not going broke. The point I made is that the top 1 percent 
get 42 percent of the benefits.
  We do not have a problem of sugar production in this country. First 
of all, we produce so much sugar and if it falls below the target level 
they just turn the sugar over to the government and walk away from the 
loans. In 2002, we were paying more than a million dollars a month just 
to store the surplus sugar, just to store the surplus sugar.
  We have 41 other countries around the world that are ready, willing 
and able to go into the United States market, but are not able to do 
so. Some of us say we believe in free trade, but we will not allow free 
trade when it comes to sugar because it is so intensely protected.
  I have here and include for the Record an open letter to the United 
States Congress and the President signed by 50 prominent academicians, 
consumer experts, trade advocates, taxpayer advocates, and people who 
care about the environment that talk about what an outrage it is to 
continue this pattern.
  Mr. Chairman, we just heard ``people are not asking the government to 
take care of this.'' Wait a minute, the government absolutely is taking 
care of the sugar industry in this country.
  I am not talking about the problems that genuinely affect family 
farms. If we were doing the right thing instead of lavishing subsidy on 
people who do not need it and funding the promise of the agriculture 
bill for things like environmental cleanup, we could help those family 
farmers. I think it is about time to get this in perspective and not 
confuse lavish sugar benefits with helping ordinary family farmers.

                                                   March 15, 2005.

           Open Letter to The President and the U.S. Congress


 Sour Subsidies--U.S. sugar policy is unfair to American consumers and 
                to poor countries; harms the environment

       Summary: The current sugar policy in the United States--a 
     system of price supports and import restrictions--cannot be 
     justified on economic or humanitarian grounds. It imposes 
     high costs on U.S. consumers and taxpayers and causes job 
     losses in the U.S. In addition, the sugar program causes 
     enironmental damage and blights economic opportunities for 
     many small farmers in poor countries, primarily for the 
     benefit of a small group of well-off producers.
       The U.S. sugar policy started 70 years ago during the Great 
     Depression as a temporary support program for U.S. growers. 
     The system of price supports and import restrictions allows 
     growers in the U.S. to charge consumers and other users 
     artificially high prices for sugar and other sweeteners, 
     currently more than two to three times the world market 
     price. During those 70 years, 18 presidential elections have 
     taken place, and still consumers and taxpayers are paying to 
     support sugar beet and sugar cane growers.
       The sugar program is a transfer of wealth from those who 
     often can least afford it to a smalll group of sugar 
     producers. The American public transfers about $1.3 billion 
     each year to support the sugar beet and cane growers in the 
     U.S. The primary beneficiaries of the program are a few large 
     corporations rather than small family farm operations, as was 
     originally intended.
       The disadvantaged lose the most when food prices are 
     manipulated to support sugar producers. American consumers 
     are forced to pay two to three times the world market price 
     for sugar. Because sugar is a key ingredient in many foods, 
     including whole grain breads, high-fiber cereals, and fruit 
     preserves, the higher prices have a disproportionate impact 
     on those families, who pay a larger percentage of their 
     income on food. As a result, families with children and 
     people on low and fixed incomes are hit the hardest by the 
     U.S. sugar program. Sugar reform would give American families 
     a real break for their food budget.
       The miguided support policy destroys precious natural 
     habitats. The current sugar policy's incentives for 
     overproduction have caused environmental degradation in 
     ecologically sensitive areas, including the Florida 
     Everglades and the Mississippi Delta wetlands. The impact is 
     particularly acute in the Everglades, as the U.S. grows much 
     of its cane sugar in Florida, resulting in the diversion of 
     sorely-needed water from the country's most famous and 
     endangered wetland. Sugar producers are seriously polluting 
     these valuable wetlands to produce sugar that could be 
     produced with less cost and pollution in a number of other 
     countries. In addition, the U.S. is growing sugar beets with 
     high costs and poor sugar yields per acre on land that could 
     readily be shifted to crops with higher comparative 
     advantage, such as feedstuffs.

[[Page 11935]]

       Domestic sugar policy has contributed to the loss of jobs 
     in the sugar-using industry. The number of employees in the 
     sugar-using industry--an estimated 724,000--vastly outnumbers 
     the 61,000 sugar production jobs in the United States. The 
     artificially inflated domestic sugar price increases the 
     costs of production for sugar-using industries, which has led 
     to some companies moving their facilities to other countries 
     and has added to U.S. job losses in these industries.
       Sugar producers in developing countries bear the brunt of 
     rich countries' support programs. Domestic subsidies and 
     protectionism distort the price of sugar on the world market. 
     Poor farmers in developing countries--no matter how 
     efficient--cannot compete with sugar unloaded on the world 
     market by rich countries' subsidized producers, and a 
     valuable opportunity for achieving higher living standards is 
     lost.
       The United States undermines its global leadership role in 
     promoting open trade by insisting on indefensible sugar 
     protectionism. While the U.S. promotes open trade in many 
     venues, it is one of the worst offenders in distorting world 
     sugar markets. The United States' exemption of sugar from 
     recent trade negotiations has undermined the country's 
     ability to negotiate and achieve more open trade with other 
     nations. This special protection of sugar has cost other U.S. 
     producers broader export opportunities and U.S. consumers the 
     chance to benefit from more open trade with these countries.
       The U.S. sugar policy affects other economic and policy 
     objectives besides trade. Reforming one of the most 
     protectionist agricultural programs could contribute to 
     economic growth and stability in other parts of the world and 
     demonstrate U.S. willingness to embrace broader international 
     cooperation.
       As a group of non-profit organizations representing 
     consumers, citizens, and taxpayers, we support a fundamental 
     reform of the United States' sugar policy.
       Removing protectionist barriers to sugar around the world 
     could lower the price for U.S. consumers by 25 percent from 
     current, artificially high levels.
       Reducing support in the U.S. could save consumers and 
     taxpayers up to $1.3 billion per year.
       The net loss to the U.S. economy due to the sugar support 
     program in 1998, the most recent year for which analysis is 
     available, is about $900 million, according to the U.S. 
     General Accounting Office.
       Reducing sugar cane production in Florida could improve 
     environmental quality as water-retention capacity in the 
     Florida Everglades watershed could be increased.
       Lowering sugar overproduction can help reduce the impact of 
     pesticide and fertilizer usage on the environment.
       Reducing costs for sugar-using industries could help retain 
     workers.
       The benefits for developing countries would also be 
     substantial:
       If rich countries' sugar subsidies and trade barriers were 
     eliminated, it is estimated that the world market price of 
     sugar could rise by almost 40 percent, providing valuable 
     economic opportunities. At the same time, consumers in 
     heavily protected markets such as the U.S. would still enjoy 
     an overall benefit of a reduction in prices of about 25 
     percent.
       If the U.S. is serious about helping poorer countries, it 
     has to open up its markets for those countries' products, 
     which would help U.S. consumers and create employment not 
     only in poor countries but also in the large sugar-using 
     sectors in the U.S.
       The undersigned urge our public and political 
     representatives to debate the need for reforming this 
     destructive policy that hurts consumers and taxpayers in the 
     United States, harms the environment, and holds back further 
     ecommic development in many poor countries around the world.
         Frances B. Smith--Consumer Alert; Barbara Rippel--
           Consumer Alert; Rhoda Karpatkin--Consumers Union; Mark 
           Silbergeld--Consumer Federation of America; Pam 
           Slater--Consumers for World Trade; John Frydenlund--
           Citizens Against Government Waste; Dennis Avery--Hudson 
           Institute--Center for Global Food Issues; Alex Avery--
           Hudson Institute--Center for Global Food Issues; Greg 
           Conko--Competitive Enterprise Institute; Fred Smith--
           Competitive Enterprise Institute; Fred Oladeinde--The 
           Foundation for Democracy in Aftica; Tad DeHaven--
           National Taxpayers Union; Chad Dobson--Oxfam America; 
           Philip D. Harvey--DKT Liberty Project; Phil Kerpen--
           Free Enterprise Fund;
         Clayton Yeutter--Former U.S. Trade Representative and 
           former U.S. Secretary of Agriculture; Nathaniel P. 
           Reed--Chairman Emeritus, 1000 Friends of Florida and 
           former Assistant Secretary of the Interior; Professor 
           William L. Anderson--Dept. of Economics, Frostburg 
           State University; Professor James T. Bennett--Dept. of 
           Economics, George Mason University; Sam Bostaph, 
           Ph.D.--Associate Professor and Chairman, Dept. of 
           Economics, University of Dallas; Donald J. Boudreaux--
           Chairman, Dept. of Economics, George Mason University; 
           John Bratland, Ph.D.--Economist, U.S. Department of the 
           Interior;
         Peter T. Calcagno, Ph.D.--Assistant Professor of 
           Economics, Department of Economics and Finance, College 
           of Charleston; Professor Lloyd Cohen--School of Law, 
           George Mason University; Professor John P. Cochran--
           Metropolitan State College of Denver; James Rolph 
           Edwards, Ph.D.--Professor of Economics, Montana State 
           University-Northern; Professor Kenneth G. Elzinga--
           Robert C. Taylor Professor of Economics, Dept. of 
           Economics, University of Virginia; Professor William P. 
           Field--Dept. of Economics (emeritus), Nicholls State 
           University; Professor Gary Galles--Professor of 
           Economics, Pepperdine University; S. D. Garthoff--
           Adjunct Faculty, Dept. of Economics, Summit College--
           The University of Akron;
         Professor Robin Hanson--George Mason University; David R. 
           Henderson--Research Fellow, Hoover Institution; Robert 
           Higgs, Ph.D.--The Independent Institute; Professor 
           Steven Horwitz--Professor of Economics, Associate Dean 
           of the First Year, St. Lawrence University, Canton, NY; 
           Professor Daniel Klein--Dept. of Economics, Santa Clara 
           University; Professor Laurence Iannaccone--Dept. of 
           Economics, George Mason University; Dr. Arnold Kling--
           www.econlog.org; Professor Dwight R. Lee--Ramsey 
           Professor of Economics, University of Georgia; 
           Professor Leonard P. Liggio--Atlas Economic Research 
           Foundation; Professor Roger Meiners--University of 
           Texas at Arlington;
         Professor Andrew Morriss--School of Law and Dept. of 
           Economics, Case Western Reserve University; Professor 
           Svetozar Pejovich--Dept. of Economics (emeritus), Texas 
           A&M University; Dr. William H. Peterson--Independent 
           economist, Washington, DC; Professor Adam Pritchard--
           University of Michigan; Professor Gary Quinlivan--Dean 
           of the Alex G. McKenna School, St. Vincent College; 
           Professor Charles K. Rowley--General Director, The 
           Locke Institute; Karen Vaughn, Ph.D--Professor of 
           Economics (ret.), George Mason University; Professor 
           John T. Wenders--Dept. of Economics, University of 
           Idaho; Bart Wilson--Associate Professor, Dept. of 
           Economics, George Mason University; Professor William 
           Woolsey--Dept. of Economics, The Citadel.

  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), the chairman of the authorizing 
committee.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Blumenauer-
Flake amendment which calls for reductions of the loan rates 
established in the 2002 farm bill for both sugar beets and sugarcane.
  Farmers have crafted their business plans based on the assurances of 
the 2002 farm bill. Much of the crop of sugar that will be placed under 
loan in fiscal year 2006 is already in the ground. Farmers have 
invested time and money in that crop, often with capital borrowed from 
the bank. It is unfair now to reduce the returns that farmers counted 
on when planning, financing and planting that crop.
  This debate concerning the sugar program is an important one. 
However, it is a debate we should conduct at the appropriate time: 
during authorization of a new farm bill.

                              {time}  1615

  As chairman of the House Agriculture Committee, I have announced my 
intention to hold hearings, and the committee will begin work on a new 
farm bill this fall. During that process and not when we are on the 
House floor debating an appropriations bill is the correct time for 
discussing and possibly making important changes to U.S. sugar policy.
  Mr. Chairman, in my capacity as chairman, it is my responsibility to 
look at all of agriculture and consider what is best for the United 
States and our farmers and ranchers. However, I must note that the U.S. 
sugar industry does not take the same view when it comes to CAFTA. That 
free trade agreement is good for U.S. agriculture, but U.S. sugar is 
the only major agriculture group opposing it. I am disappointed that we 
do not have total agricultural support for that FTA. I hope that sugar 
interests will look to help us with that legislation and find a way to 
close the gap and see that it is passed.
  But regardless, the policy that was put in place by the 2002 farm 
bill must remain intact. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this 
amendment.

[[Page 11936]]


  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Flake), the coauthor of this amendment.
  Mr. FLAKE. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I 
thank the gentleman for bringing this amendment forward.
  Mr. Chairman, this represents a bipartisan step in the right 
direction. There are much needed reforms in this area. These 
agriculture subsidy programs are out of control, not just in the area 
of sugar but sugar is right on top. It is amazing that you could have 
something as sweet as sugar that leaves such a bitter, sour taste in 
consumers' mouths when you realize that we pay more than $1 billion a 
year extra just from the inflated cost of sugar to support this 
program.
  Supporters of the sugar program like to say this does not cost 
taxpayers any money, but they ignore the fact that it costs to store 
the sugar. It costs to implement the program. And when you levy a tax 
on consumers by inflating the cost, it is just like a tax. It is just 
like a tax. So we are paying. Every time you bite into a candy bar, 
that is a couple of cents that you are paying extra. It is the 
principle of diffuse costs/concentrated benefits. No one is going to 
come to Washington to lobby to get 4 cents off their candy bar price, 
but the top 1 percent of those who are getting this subsidy are sure 
going to come here to lobby and they do and they are. That is why it is 
so difficult to get rid of these subsidies.
  Let me just remind my colleagues some of the organizations that are 
for this amendment. The National Taxpayers Union, a statement from them 
says, Sugar interests like to make the claim that the sugar program is 
at no cost to taxpayers. As I said, they conveniently ignore that this 
monstrous program costs staffing and operating the bureaucracy 
necessary to support it.
  Another statement from Citizens Against Government Waste: It is bad 
enough that the archaic sugar program forces American consumers to pay 
two or three times the world price for sugar and sugar-containing 
products. Even worse is the fact that more than any other farm program, 
this is an obstacle to advancing freer international trade for all 
agricultural products. We saw in our free trade agreement with 
Australia, for example, this was a stumbling block. It is a stumbling 
block right now to CAFTA. So it comes up again and again and again.
  We have got to stand for free trade. I do not know how in the world 
you can support this program and truly stand for the principles of free 
trade. The Free Enterprise Fund said, In 2004 government price controls 
through quotas and loan guarantees priced U.S. sugar at more than 20 
cents a pound, more than double the world price of 8.6 cents. So it is 
inflating the cost all over.
  Also, for those conservatives out here, the Club For Growth has come 
out against this subsidy program and for the Blumenauer/Flake 
amendment. The Club For Growth will be scoring this amendment. For 
those who feel that fiscal responsibility is important, vote for the 
Blumenauer/Flake amendment.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Boyd), a distinguished member of our subcommittee.
  Mr. BOYD. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Texas for 
yielding me the time.
  Mr. Chairman, I am troubled by the attack on sugar cane and sugar 
beet growers that this amendment represents, and I strongly would like 
to urge all my colleagues to reject this proposal. Mr. Chairman, all 
U.S. commodities covered by the 2002 farm bill are eligible for loans 
from the Federal Government. So sugar cane and sugar beet farmers are 
not receiving special treatment. The only difference between the sugar 
loan program and other commodity loan programs is there is no cost to 
the taxpayer. Sugar farmers have had the same loan level for 20 years. 
Inflation continues to increase production prices.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment reopens the farm bill and singles out 
one commodity. This is an issue that we should discuss when the 5-year 
farm bill expires and is reenacted in 2007. I would urge my colleagues 
to reject this proposal and not yank the rug out from our American 
farmers who are trying to produce food and fiber for our country and 
others around the world.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute. I have great 
respect for my friend from Florida, but I have three brief 
observations. First of all, the notion that there is no cost to the 
taxpayer is just simply not the case. Consumers in this country by all 
independent estimates are paying between $1 billion and $2 billion a 
year extra in the price that they pay for sugar and sugar-related 
products. Second, there is never a good time to consider this. This 
amendment is not pulling the rug out from underneath sugar producers. 
It would be a 6 percent reduction in the lavish Federal subsidy. This 
will be a good signal for people to get serious about making a change.
  I heard my friend from Virginia talk about the problem under CAFTA. 
That is an example of how hard-nosed and extreme the sugar interests 
are. Getting 1.7 percent of the market over 15 years is such that they 
consider it being tantamount to World War III. I think that is an 
example of the mind-set of this industry, how intransigent they are and 
why we need to address it today.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Nebraska (Mr. Osborne).
  Mr. OSBORNE. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. I know a great 
many sugar producers who have had to buy the sugar beet factory in 
order to have a viable business. In doing so, they have taken out 
extensive loans and the whole financial structure is based on the 
current sugar program. And so to change the program in the middle of 
the stream when these people are oftentimes selling at marginal rates, 
sometimes below the forfeiture level, and then to say, well, we are 
just going to change it 5 or 6 percent, the margin of profit sometimes 
is no more than 2 or 3 percent.
  So to say to these people, it makes no difference and we are going to 
just willy-nilly change the farm bill makes absolutely no sense. You 
can do it for wheat, you can do it for corn, you can do it for any 
crop; and that is why we have a farm bill, to make sure that people 
have some continuity, have something to hang their hat on.
  I certainly rise in opposition and I urge a ``no'' vote.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Idaho (Mr. Simpson), who is a member of the Committee on 
Appropriations.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman yielding me 
this time.
  First, let me talk about some of the comments that were just made and 
tell you that the world cost of production of sugar is about 16 cents, 
(not the 8.5 cents) is the world price. The world price is a dumped 
price. That means when a country overproduces sugar and cannot get 
enough money for it, it just dumps it on the market for whatever it can 
get. That is the dumped price. What happens, as the gentleman from 
Oregon said, this does not cost jobs in the United States.
  The reality is that if you look at Mexico and Canada, right now the 
price of sugar in the United States is around 22 cents. The price of 
sugar in Mexico is 23 cents. The price of sugar in Canada is about 21 
cents. These companies are not moving to these foreign countries 
because of the price of sugar.
  The reason they are moving there is the same reason they are moving 
to Mexico, where Mexico will allow a company to move there, build their 
facility, employ their people, buy world-dumped-price sugar, and then 
sell it back into the United States but not allow it to be sold into 
Mexico to compete with their domestic sugar supply. That is what we are 
dealing with. We would allow free and fairer trade across the country, 
free trade and fairer trade in sugar, but this is not it.
  I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment.

[[Page 11937]]


  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute. No one has 
more respect for the gentleman from Idaho than I have, but the dynamic 
that is going on here is that we provide the most lavish support for 
sugar production in the world. These other countries cannot compete 
with us. I have mentioned and I have entered into the Record areas 
where countries like Mozambique and Malawi, where they are losing 
business, they cannot compete in terms of what the United States does 
with our dramatically subsidized sugar.
  Were we to stop this program, and bear in mind I am not suggesting 
stopping it, everybody is exercised because we are talking about a 6 
percent reduction, but if we were to go to a world market price we 
would find that the world price would increase but we would find that 
prices in the United States would decrease, and we would save damage to 
the environment and to United States production. I think it is a win-
win situation.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Foley).
  Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I am not here to protect the industries in 
Mozambique. I am here to protect the people in Belle Glade, Florida. If 
the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) were with us today, he would 
tell you the same thing. It is about jobs in this country. I appreciate 
all this ruckus being made on the floor about subsidies. There are no 
subsidies. Sugar is at the lowest price it has been in decades. When 
was the last time a candy bar reduced its price? When was the last time 
a Coca-Cola was sold cheaper in the machine? Has it happened? No. It 
has not happened. We are talking about trying to reintroduce an 
amendment that has been introduced for now 10 years, since I have been 
in this process.
  They talk about wealthy growers, wealthy farmers. You come out to 
Belle Glade and see people that are farming sugar in my district, 
people that need jobs, people of all races and ethnicities, people that 
are working hard for a living supplying America's sugar needs. They are 
not on the dole. They are not on the take. They have not forfeited 
their sugar. They have not turned in their goods. They have not asked 
the government for special favors or money. They have worked hard and 
paid their taxes. But all of a sudden on the floor I am told I have got 
to help the people in Mozambique. Well, God bless America. I will help 
my people. You help Mozambique.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg).
  Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague from Oregon for 
yielding me this time. I rise in strong support of this amendment by 
both my colleague from Oregon and my colleague from Arizona. It is very 
important to note that if we talk about free trade and we talk about 
free markets, we ought to follow that talk with action. The reality is 
you simply cannot defend current policy. I listened to one of my 
colleagues on the floor just a few moments ago who talked about the 
dire consequences of this amendment.
  Let me tell you how precisely how dire they are. It would reduce the 
effect of the sugar loan program by 6 percent. Quite frankly, we have 
to begin at some point. If we believe in free markets, if we believe 
there ought to be open trade on these issues, then we need to begin 
somewhere.
  I just listened to my other colleague from Florida, a gentleman I 
admire greatly. He said visit these poor sugar farmers and see that 
they are barely making their living. I understand that. Except that on 
that theory, the government owes it to everyone in America to subsidize 
their income. That simply is not the kind of America that I believe in. 
It is not the kind of America that the Founding Fathers envisioned. 
U.S. sugar policy today, the subsidies we provide, the loan programs we 
provide cost American consumers as much as $2 billion each year. How do 
we defend that policy back home? Is it not appropriate now that we 
begin to send the message that we should wean ourselves from 
unproductive subsidies and policies that discourage productive capacity 
and production by people of goods and services we need?
  No one wants to put today's sugar farmers out of work, but we do need 
to make sure that there is free trade in America and that no product is 
given beneficial treatment. This is a reasonable start. I urge my 
colleagues to support the amendment.

                              {time}  1630

  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Hinojosa).
  Mr. HINOJOSA. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to the 
Blumenauer-Flake amendment to H.R. 2744. I have lots of respect for the 
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer), but I must speak up for our 
sugar producers and for jobs in South Texas.
  Nearly every year an anti-sugar-farmer amendment is offered to the 
agriculture appropriations bill, and almost every year the same 
misinformation is recklessly spread about sugar farmers. Before voting 
on the Blumenauer-Flake amendment to H.R. 2744, consider these facts:
  I repeat what the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Boyd) said earlier. All 
U.S. commodities covered under the 2002 farm bill receive loans from 
the Federal Government. Sugar is not receiving a special treatment. I 
represent lots of ag producers, and it is a fact that loan levels for 
sugar farmers have remained unchanged for 20 years.
  Therefore, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the Blumenauer-
Flake amendment to H.R. 2744.
  Sugar prices in the United States are low by world standards. Grocery 
shoppers in other developed countries pay 30 percent more for sugar 
than U.S. consumers.
  America already has one of the most open sugar markets in the world, 
importing sugar from 41 countries whether we need the sugar or not. As 
the world's fourth largest net sugar importer, we're the only major 
sugar-producing country that is a net importer.
  146,000 Americans are employed by the U.S. sugar industry. A vote for 
the Blumenauer-Flake Amendment to H.R. 2744 is a vote against 146,000 
hard-working farmers and workers in 19 States.
  Therefore, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the Blumenauer-
Flake Amendment to H.R. 2744 and save over 100,000 American jobs.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy).
  Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  It seems curious to me that at a time when our trade deficit is the 
deepest in the history of our country and that we face the prospect 
that this year the United States may actually import more agriculture 
goods than it exports, that we would hear in the urging of the passage 
of this amendment that bringing in foreign product is the thing we need 
to do.
  I represent sugar beet growers in the Red River Valley. This is an 
industry that they have built from scratch with sweat and toil at an 
enormous financial risk. Presently, it makes a $2 billion contribution 
to our economy and employs directly 2,500; indirectly, 30,000. This is 
a vital industry to the region I represent and needs to be protected.
  It is simply not responsible to take on a component of the economy as 
important as, for example, this industry is in the region I represent 
by amendments offered in the course of appropriations debate.
  I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Peterson), the distinguished ranking member of the 
authorizing committee.
  Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for 
yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Blumenauer-Flake amendment; 
and I just want to correct some misinformation that is put out here, 
some of it by the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
  We are not the highest-priced support system in the world. In fact, 
CAFTA was brought up. I was in Guatemala, and the internal price in 
Guatemala is actually higher than the internal support price in the 
United States. We are

[[Page 11938]]

importing 1\1/2\ million tons of sugar that we do not need that the 
gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy) and I could grow in the Red 
River Valley with our farmers, and here we are in CAFTA letting sugar 
come in from a country that has an internal price support that is 
higher than the United States. The Europeans are 50 percent higher than 
we are in this country, and this program does not cost any money 
directly for the government.
  But the irony of this amendment, if we pass it, we probably will have 
forfeitures for the first time in 20 years, and we will cost the 
government money.
  So oppose the Blumenauer amendment.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Louisiana (Mr. Melancon).
  Mr. MELANCON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Texas for 
yielding me this time.
  I stand here today, and if sugar is such a great and wonderful and 
high-priced subsidized commodity, someone needs to call Hugh Andre or 
Nooni Duplantis or call the management at the two sugar mills that shut 
down in Louisiana. They did not shut down because they were making 
money. These boys are not having problems getting their production 
loans because they are making money. They are having problems because 
they are having a tough time making the bottom line, and it is just not 
working.
  When we start talking about free trade, we are getting things 
confused here. Sugar in the GATT gave up 15 percent of the imports 
allowed in this country under the agreement with the United States 
Government that that would be it, no further depletions in the future 
agreements. Yet every time there is an agreement, sugar is in it. Do 
the Members know that there is not another agreement in a third world 
developing country that grows sugar, that sugar has been included? 
Canada got out of the agreement. They produce sugar.
  I ask that the Members vote against this amendment.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Engel), who will wrap up this debate for our side, again 
strongly opposing this amendment.
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in very strong opposition to this 
amendment.
  I want to come clean and say that I have an extremely large sugar 
refinery in my district, so I have followed the sugar industry 
throughout the course of my career in the House of Representatives.
  It is very easy to hoist up a straw man and say that they are the 
root of all evil. But remember the old series ``Dragnet'' where they 
said, ``Just the facts, ma'am, just the facts''?
  The facts are that this is an agriculture bill, not a farm bill. 
Congress made promises to farmers in the 2002 farm bill, and sugar 
farmers made decisions based on these promises. Sugar is not receiving 
special treatment. All U.S. commodities covered under this farm bill 
receive loans from the Federal Government, and loan levels for farmers 
have remained unchanged for 20 years. Sugar policy, unlike other farm 
policies, operates at no cost to the taxpayers, that is, no cost to the 
taxpayers. In fact, sugar prices in the United States are low by world 
standards.
  So America's sugar farmers cost taxpayers nothing, provide U.S. 
consumers with prices that are lower than the rest of the world, and 
open their market to imports more than other countries.
  This northeasterner from New York absolutely opposes this amendment.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  It is a fascinating debate that we are having. I appreciate the 
spirited nature, and I hope that it leads to a broader discussion, 
because I hope each and every Member does his or her own individual 
research and considers some of the fantastic claims that have been made 
here.
  I had one of my colleagues say, ``We have the most open market in the 
world for sugar in the United States.'' Let us take a step back and 
have people examine that, because no expert that I have heard suggests 
that that is remotely the case.
  ``Sugar does not receive any special benefits or treatment''? Not 
true. Sugar alone has this system of keeping out production from 41 
other countries except under tightly controlled circumstances and 
providing lavish guarantees to many large sugar producers.
  The point I made earlier, was not that somebody couldn't cite a poor 
sugar farmer that he or she may know someplace. The point I made is 
that if the Members care about poor farmers and other areas of 
agriculture, take a look at this program. Forty-two percent of the 
benefit goes to the top 1 percent of the producers. It is outrageous. 
It is how they are able to become the top agricultural contributors to 
political campaigns in the United States Congress, even though sugar 
farmers are only 1 percent of our farm production.
  I heard the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Foley) say he did not care 
about people in Mozambique. It was about jobs in Belle Glade, FL. That 
is an interesting quotation to come from him as a champion of open 
trade and a member of our Committee on Ways and Means. I will look 
forward to hearing his saying something like that when it comes to 
CAFTA or the next trade legislation. That is completely contrary to 
what I have understood his position to be in the past.
  The fact of the matter is that when it comes to lavish support for 
the sugar industry, we turn a blind eye, either for politics or for 
sentimentality, but the fact is that we are consistently, consistently, 
paying raw sugar prices two to three times the world price. Do not take 
my word for it. Go to the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service 
that we rely upon or, as I mentioned, the experts that I am putting in 
the Record.
  We consistently, consistently in this country pay more. That is why 
we are taking $1 to $2 billion out of the pockets of the consumer and 
into the hands of the sugar industry, and that is the tip of the 
iceberg in terms of the costs.
  I mentioned Florida. We would not be putting 450,000 acres in 
sugarcane production in Florida draining into the Everglades if it were 
not for this lavish program. But we are as a Congress because of the 
legacy of the explosive growth.
  I will wrap up by saying there is a lot to say. I urge colleagues to 
examine it and to approve the Blumenauer-Flake amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time for debate has expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Oregon 
(Mr. Blumenauer).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) 
will be postponed.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Peterson).
  Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, energy prices, 
specifically natural gas prices, in the United States have reached 
drastically high levels and are devastating our agricultural sector. 
Maintaining abundant supplies of natural gas and other various forms of 
energy are essential to keeping American agriculture competitive within 
the world marketplace.
  According to the Fertilizer Institute on May 26 of this year, 
``Natural gas is the feedstock for producing nitrogen fertilizer and 
accounts for up to 90 percent of the cost of its production. As a 
result of the ongoing natural gas crisis in the United States, 21 
nitrogen fertilizer production facilities have closed since 1998. 
Sixteen of those plants have closed permanently, while five plants 
remain idle.''
  If present policy of denial of access to decades of natural gas 
reserves continues in this country, the future offers no hope for 
relief. The U.S. Department

[[Page 11939]]

of Energy projects that by 2010 the Nation's demand for natural gas 
will increase by another 30 percent. We cannot continue to have the 
highest natural gas prices in world. We are at $7, Canada is at $6, 
Europe is at $5, China is at $4, and the rest of the world is below $2, 
and two countries are below $1.
  Mr. Chairman, as we move toward a conference with the Senate, may I 
have the gentleman from Texas's (Chairman Bonilla) commitment to work 
with me in securing report language calling for the Economic Research 
Service to examine the impact of rising natural gas prices on our 
domestic agricultural economy and the effects that has on American 
agriculture in the world marketplace?
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I would be happy to 
work with the gentleman and anyone associated with this issue to ensure 
that the Economic Research Service examine the high energy costs of 
natural gas prices and their impact on the rural agricultural economy.
  Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will 
continue to yield, I thank him for his answer.


                 Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Chabot

  Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 6 offered by Mr. Chabot:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title) insert the 
     following new section:
       Sec. __. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by this Act may be used to carry out section 203 of 
     the Agriculture Trade Act of 1978 (7 U.S.C. 5623) or to pay 
     the salaries and expenses of personnel who carry out a market 
     program under such section.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot) and a Member opposed each will control 
5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot).

                              {time}  1645

  Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, the rationale behind this amendment is simple: hard-
working taxpayers should not have to subsidize the advertising costs of 
food industry associations or cooperatives, or State and regional trade 
groups. Yet this is exactly what the Market Access Program does.
  Since 1997, MAP has cost the American taxpayers nearly $1 billion. 
Let me put that another way. Despite a massive budget deficit and 
unsustainable spending on entitlement programs like Social Security and 
Medicaid, the Federal Government continues to spend more than $100 
million annually to underwrite the overseas advertising costs of groups 
like the Popcorn Institute and the Catfish Institute and the Ginseng 
Board, just to name a few.
  Let me be clear. I strongly support American businesses of all kinds 
marketing their products around the world. I just do not think that the 
American taxpayer should have to pay for their advertising costs. It 
seems reasonable to believe that if trade associations felt that 
advertising their products in other countries would be beneficial, they 
would do it, and they would pay for it.
  Mr. Chairman, the General Accounting Office, the GAO, has reviewed 
the MAP program and has concluded that MAP has no discernible effect on 
U.S. agricultural exports. Let me repeat that: no discernible effect. 
But at an estimated cost of $140 million last year, MAP does have a 
discernible impact on the American people in the form of lighter 
wallets and in the red ink of our budget deficit.
  Let us be honest. Most American businesses do not benefit and do not 
try to take advantage of government handouts like MAP. Most businesses 
want to keep more of what they earn. They want fewer burdensome 
regulations that limit growth and stifle productivity, and they would 
like the opportunity to compete on a level playing field in markets 
around the world. That would be a true Market Access Program.
  However, the U.S. Department of Agriculture plans to spend $125 
million on MAP in the 2006 fiscal year. If recent history is any 
indication, those groups that market pistachios and prunes and papaya 
and pears and pet food and popcorn will do pretty well, getting nearly 
$6 million in 2004. The National Watermelon Promotion Board benefited 
from MAP in the past too.
  We should ask ourselves, if these groups truly thought it would 
benefit their bottom line to advertise in foreign markets, would they 
not do it on their own dime? Would they not do it themselves? If it was 
their own money, would they not be more likely to work harder to make 
sure the money was well spent? Would that not make for more effective 
market access?
  MAP is the poster child for corporate welfare. It is wasteful 
spending in the name of job creation and market access that fails to 
provide either.
  I urge my fellow Members of Congress to join me and the gentleman 
from Ohio (Mr. Brown) and join the National Taxpayers Union, Citizens 
Against Government Waste, Taxpayers For Common Sense, and U.S. PIRG in 
casting a vote for the overburdened American taxpayer. Please vote 
``yes'' on this amendment.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, it is interesting to hear the term ``corporate 
welfare'' that was brought before the public to a large degree in the 
previous administration to try to attack a lot of private sector 
investment opportunities that helped create jobs. This does not fall 
into that category.
  This is a situation where individual companies that receive 
assistance from the MAP program have to match 50 percent of any funds 
received. In addition, participants are required to certify that 
Federal funds used under the program are to supplement and not replace 
private sector funds.
  Farmers, ranchers, and rural business owners from all regions of the 
country benefit from the program's employment and economic effects from 
expanded agricultural export markets. More than 1 million Americans 
have jobs that depend on exports. This program helps to ensure that 
American agricultural products have export markets.
  MAP is an effective program and deserves everyone's support. I urge a 
``no'' vote on this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Virginia (Chairman Goodlatte), also in opposition to this 
amendment.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I also rise in opposition to the 
amendment. This is not the time for unilateral disarmament when you are 
talking about the trade competition that we face in the world.
  The gentleman mentions it is a $140 million program. The European 
Union alone spends $2 billion each year on export subsidies. So the 
opportunity for us to promote exports by giving companies an incentive 
to buy American agricultural products when they then provide sales and 
services overseas is well worth it, if indeed you are facing that kind 
of competition.
  The European Union has a trade surplus in agriculture with the United 
States. One of the reasons they do is because they provide far more of 
this type of support than we do. So to take away what little we have 
while we are in the midst of intense negotiations with the World Trade 
Organization is, to me, unilateral disarmament.
  What this program does is promote the export of American agricultural 
products. It is estimated that for every $1 billion of U.S. 
agricultural exports, we create 15,000 jobs in this country. Last year 
we exported over $60 billion worth of agricultural products, creating 
nearly 1 million jobs. Taking away this program is going to take away 
some of those jobs. It is not a good idea. I urge my colleagues to 
reject the amendment.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown).

[[Page 11940]]


  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend from Ohio for his 
commonsense amendment. If this Congress were not a captive of special 
interests, the Chabot/Brown amendment would pass unanimously.
  We in this body, we preach balanced budgets; yet we spent, as the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot) said, $1 billion on this program, on 
this welfare program. We preach in this body prudent spending, yet we 
are suggesting spending $125 million for fiscal year 2006 on this 
program. We preach free enterprise in this body day after day after 
day, yet we are using government dollars to advertise on behalf of 
private interests.
  The Market Access Program, as the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot) 
said, gives away $100 million annually to groups like the Catfish 
Institute, the Popcorn Institute, the Ginseng Board to market their 
products overseas. We encourage these organizations, these private for-
profit or not-for-profit, it does not matter, we encourage them to 
advertise overseas if that helps their bottom line. But they should do 
it on their dime, not on the taxpayer's dime. It simply does not make 
sense.
  I know what budget cuts mean to my district in Cleveland when we have 
seen the cuts that happened to NASA and the kinds of job loss in my 
community. We have seen what Medicaid cuts cost in terms of quality 
health care. Yet we are going to spend $125 million on a program that 
clearly shows no real benefit to those organizations. If they did show 
benefit, they would be spending their own money.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the Chabot amendment, 
to join National Taxpayers Union, Citizens Against Government Waste, 
Taxpayers For Common Sense, U.S. PIRG, and a whole host of other groups 
in passing this amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time having expired, the question is on the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot) will 
be postponed.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BONILLA. I yield to the gentleman from Iowa.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman yielding 
on this important subject matter. It is an issue that I know the 
gentleman has done due diligence on and paid attention to.
  I rise today to address the issue of an amendment that I had prepared 
to offer that I will not be offering that would require the Secretary 
of Agriculture to report to Congress on the National Animal 
Identification System, including the effectiveness of the pilot 
programs funded in the FY 2005 budget year. Analysis of the economic 
impact of the proposed system on the livestock industry and the 
expected costs of the implementation of the system need to be part of a 
report.
  USDA has been working diligently to establish a National Animal 
Identification System since December of 2003. That is when they 
discovered bovine spongiform encephalopathy, BSE, in a Canadian cow in 
Washington State. On May 5, 2005, USDA announced their Draft Strategic 
Plan and Draft Program Standards. The Department plans on making this a 
mandatory system by 2009, which would identify animals for disease 
surveillance.
  It is not a new concept, Mr. Chairman. In fact, in the 90s we had 
implemented a plan to address and identify cattle vaccinated for 
brucellosis, which is a bacterial disease that affects cattle, hogs, 
and other livestock. This program has been successful and is scheduled 
to be phased out. This is not a new thing for the USDA.
  I have been saying since before the discovery of BSE that we need an 
animal identification system that is up and running. It would be an 
insurance policy for livestock owners in the case of a disease 
outbreak. It would also be a system that is beneficial for foreign 
trade. It would be creative, and it would be invaluable for our 
marketing opportunities and for our breeding information.
  Overall, the need for this system is immediate. The Canadians and the 
Australians, whose system I have visited and observed, and others 
already have electronic systems in place that they continue to refine.
  For the sake of disease surveillance in trade, for the future of the 
livestock industry, I would like to see a system up and running as soon 
as possible. In fact, I am in the process of finishing my own bill on 
animal identification that I plan to introduce in the coming weeks.
  One of the most important and immediate needs is to know what the 
USDA has been doing. They have invested approximately $18 million in a 
pilot program working in cooperative agreements between the States and 
the tribes, and the accountability of the USDA yet has not been 
apparent to us. We need to know how these projects are progressing and 
how they justify their worth to the taxpayer.
  Also the USDA has spent another $15 million on development, 
infrastructure, promotion and staff overhead of the animal 
identification system that they are seeking to implement. It may only 
be the tip of the iceberg, but when the USDA issued its Draft Strategic 
Plan and Draft Program Standards in May, many hoped to see a cost 
estimate for the system.
  Farmers are concerned about the costs that they might have to invest 
into them out of their profit margins. So I have those similar 
concerns. I am asking the USDA to produce that report. In fact, last 
year in the report language of the same appropriations bill, there was 
a request for a report on BSE itself, and that was to be before this 
Congress on July 15 of 2004. We have not seen that report yet, and I 
hope we are able to get one. The CBO score for this proposal, by the 
way, I did have it scored, scored it at zero; so there is not a cost to 
our budget.
  Again, I hope we would be able to get some report language that could 
address this important topic of animal identification.
  I thank the chairman for his diligence on this issue and for yielding 
to me.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman 
for bringing this issue to the forefront. It is something that I have 
been working on and many other Members as well, and we are committed to 
working through conference to address the gentleman's needs.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I simply want to express my pleasure with the gentleman 
raising the issue of animal identification. I would simply like to say 
that I, for one, believe that we are not moving ahead on this matter 
nearly fast enough. We need a national program. We need to get to 48-
hour track-back as soon as possible, and we should be doing everything 
possible to move USDA forward.
  We have a pilot project on this issue going on in Wisconsin which 
appears to be very successful, but I am afraid that there is much more 
foot-dragging than we can afford on this issue. I would simply say that 
I would hope that both the USDA and the Congress would become much more 
aggressive than it has been so far in establishing a truly effective 
national animal ID program, so that we can assure the consuming public 
that every bit of meat that is produced is in fact safe to eat. The 
sooner we do, the sooner we set up this kind of a system, the sooner 
every farmer, every rancher, and every consumer will be better off.


          Sequential Votes Postponed in Committee of the Whole

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings will 
now resume on those amendments on which further proceedings were 
postponed in the following order: amendment offered by Mr. Weiner of 
New York; amendment No. 8 offered by Mr. Rehberg of Montana; amendment 
offered by Mr.

[[Page 11941]]

Hinchey of New York; amendment offered by Mr. Sweeney of New York; 
amendment No. 5 offered by Mr. Blumenauer of Oregon; and amendment No. 
6 offered by Mr. Chabot of Ohio.
  The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote 
after the first vote in this series.

                              {time}  1700


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Weiner

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner) on 
which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes 
prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 226, 
noes 201, not voting 6, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 230]

                               AYES--226

     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bass
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Biggert
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Camp
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Case
     Chandler
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Cuellar
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Foley
     Ford
     Fossella
     Frank (MA)
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gingrey
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (WI)
     Green, Al
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hayworth
     Herger
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jefferson
     Jindal
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCaul (TX)
     McCollum (MN)
     McCotter
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Norwood
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Poe
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Rogers (MI)
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Sabo
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz (PA)
     Schwarz (MI)
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Shays
     Sherman
     Simmons
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stark
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sweeney
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (PA)
     Wexler
     Wilson (NM)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                               NOES--201

     Abercrombie
     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Beauprez
     Berry
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boustany
     Boyd
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davis (KY)
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeLay
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Farr
     Feeney
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gillmor
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Green, Gene
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Hobson
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McMorris
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Otter
     Oxley
     Pastor
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (TX)
     Sodrel
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Akin
     Cox
     Hastings (FL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Menendez
     Rush

                              {time}  1726

  Messrs. PEARCE, ORTIZ, ALEXANDER, GALLEGLY, GARY G. MILLER of 
California, LINDER, BARTLETT of Maryland, and Mrs. BONO changed their 
vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. CUELLAR, MARSHALL, TANNER, BRADLEY of New Hampshire, EDWARDS, 
HOEKSTRA, GORDON, SCHWARZ of Michigan, Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida, 
Mrs. KELLY, Mrs. JONES of Ohio, and Mrs. CUBIN changed their vote from 
``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                 Amendment No. 8 Offered by Mr. Rehberg

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Montana (Mr. Rehberg) on 
which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes 
prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 187, 
noes 240, not voting 6, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 231]

                               AYES--187

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Conyers
     Costa
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Ehlers
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Everett
     Fattah
     Filner
     Fortenberry
     Frank (MA)
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Inslee
     Israel
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McKinney
     McMorris
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald

[[Page 11942]]


     Miller (FL)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore (WI)
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Osborne
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Paul
     Payne
     Pearce
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickering
     Pomeroy
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Rogers (AL)
     Rohrabacher
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Sabo
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz (PA)
     Scott (VA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Simmons
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Solis
     Stark
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Walden (OR)
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (PA)
     Wilson (NM)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--240

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Andrews
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boucher
     Boustany
     Boyd
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Butterfield
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carter
     Case
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chandler
     Chocola
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Cooper
     Costello
     Crenshaw
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (KY)
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeLay
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Edwards
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Flake
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hyde
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     Jindal
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Kanjorski
     Keller
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Larsen (WA)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marshall
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Meeks (NY)
     Mica
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary
     Moore (KS)
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy
     Musgrave
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Otter
     Oxley
     Pastor
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Pombo
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Schwarz (MI)
     Scott (GA)
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (TX)
     Snyder
     Sodrel
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Wasserman Schultz
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Cox
     Ford
     Hastings (FL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Menendez
     Rush

                              {time}  1735

  Mr. FORBES changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no''.
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Hinchey

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey) 
on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes 
prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The Clerk designated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 218, 
noes 210, not voting 6, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 232]

                               AYES--218

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bass
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burton (IN)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Case
     Chandler
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Conyers
     Costello
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Duncan
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Foley
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Harman
     Hefley
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jenkins
     Jindal
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kind
     Kirk
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Northup
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (PA)
     Platts
     Pomeroy
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rogers (KY)
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Sabo
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz (PA)
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Shays
     Sherman
     Skelton
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wamp
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                               NOES--210

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Beauprez
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Burgess
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Cooper
     Costa
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeLay
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     English (PA)
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Hall
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Istook
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Keller
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Matheson
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McMorris
     Meeks (NY)
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary
     Murphy
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Otter
     Oxley
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Poe
     Pombo
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher

[[Page 11943]]


     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Schwarz (MI)
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Sodrel
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Towns
     Turner
     Upton
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Cox
     Hastings (FL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Menendez
     Rush
     Slaughter

                              {time}  1745

  Messrs. SHAYS, THOMPSON of Mississippi, BOREN, WYNN and MORAN of 
Kansas changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Sweeney

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Sweeney) 
on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes 
prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The Clerk designated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 269, 
noes 158, not voting 6, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 233]

                               AYES--269

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     Bass
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Bono
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Butterfield
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carnahan
     Case
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chandler
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Ehlers
     Emanuel
     Engel
     English (PA)
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Farr
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Gordon
     Green (WI)
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harman
     Harris
     Hayworth
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Hostettler
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inglis (SC)
     Inslee
     Israel
     Issa
     Jackson (IL)
     Jefferson
     Jindal
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Kirk
     Kline
     Kucinich
     Kuhl (NY)
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     LaTourette
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCaul (TX)
     McCollum (MN)
     McCotter
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Mica
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Ney
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Pence
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Porter
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Sabo
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz (PA)
     Schwarz (MI)
     Scott (VA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Simmons
     Smith (NJ)
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tiahrt
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wamp
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--158

     Akin
     Alexander
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Barton (TX)
     Beauprez
     Berry
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boustany
     Boyd
     Brady (TX)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Cardoza
     Carson
     Carter
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Cooper
     Costa
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Davis (TN)
     Deal (GA)
     Delahunt
     DeLay
     Dingell
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Duncan
     Edwards
     Emerson
     Feeney
     Flake
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Honda
     Hulshof
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson, Sam
     King (IA)
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Latham
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lucas
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marshall
     Matheson
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McMorris
     Melancon
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Musgrave
     Neugebauer
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Osborne
     Otter
     Oxley
     Pastor
     Pearce
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Price (GA)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rohrabacher
     Ross
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Salazar
     Scott (GA)
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Sodrel
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Watt
     Weldon (FL)
     Westmoreland
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Young (AK)

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Cox
     Hastings (FL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Menendez
     Rush
     Slaughter

                              {time}  1755

  Mr. ROGERS of Michigan, Ms. WATERS and Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida 
changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                          personal explanation

  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 232, 233, had I been 
present, I would have voted ``aye'' on both.


               Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Blumenauer

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) 
on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes 
prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 146, 
noes 280, not voting 7, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 234]

                               AYES--146

     Akin
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baldwin
     Bartlett (MD)
     Bass
     Bean
     Berkley
     Berman
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (NY)
     Blackburn
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Boucher
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (SC)
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carson
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     Dent
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emanuel
     English (PA)
     Eshoo
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gingrey
     Gordon
     Green (WI)
     Hart
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Holt
     Hostettler
     Inglis (SC)
     Inslee
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam

[[Page 11944]]


     Kanjorski
     Keller
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kind
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kolbe
     Kuhl (NY)
     Langevin
     Lee
     Lewis (GA)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lowey
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Matheson
     McDermott
     McHenry
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meeks (NY)
     Miller, George
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy
     Myrick
     Ney
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Paul
     Payne
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Ramstad
     Rohrabacher
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Schiff
     Schwartz (PA)
     Scott (VA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Solis
     Souder
     Stark
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Wamp
     Watson
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wilson (SC)
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--280

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Barrow
     Barton (TX)
     Beauprez
     Becerra
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boustany
     Boyd
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Butterfield
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carter
     Case
     Chandler
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Costa
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (KY)
     Davis (TN)
     Deal (GA)
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Edwards
     Emerson
     Engel
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Farr
     Feeney
     Filner
     Foley
     Ford
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Gallegly
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harman
     Harris
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Israel
     Issa
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     Jindal
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kucinich
     LaHood
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Lynch
     Mack
     Maloney
     Marchant
     Marshall
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCaul (TX)
     McCollum (MN)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McMorris
     Meek (FL)
     Melancon
     Mica
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Murtha
     Musgrave
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Neugebauer
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Otter
     Oxley
     Pastor
     Pearce
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickering
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schwarz (MI)
     Scott (GA)
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (TX)
     Snyder
     Sodrel
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Visclosky
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Cox
     Hastings (FL)
     Hinojosa
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Larson (CT)
     Menendez
     Rush

                              {time}  1803

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated against:
  Mr. HINOJOSA. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 234, had I been present, 
I would have voted ``no.''


                          personal explanation

  Mrs. NORTHUP. Mr. Chairman, I inadvertently voted ``no'' on an 
amendment to the fiscal year 2006 Agriculture, Rural Development, Food 
and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, H.R. 
2744. I intended to vote ``aye'' on the Blumenauer-Flake Amendment 
regarding payments to the Sugar Loan Program, rollcall vote number 234.


                 Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Chabot

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot) on 
which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes 
prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 66, 
noes 356, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 235]

                                AYES--66

     Akin
     Andrews
     Bachus
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Bass
     Berkley
     Bradley (NH)
     Brown (OH)
     Burgess
     Capuano
     Carson
     Castle
     Chabot
     Davis, Jo Ann
     DeGette
     Dent
     Doggett
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     English (PA)
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Flake
     Fossella
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gibbons
     Hayworth
     Hensarling
     Hostettler
     Hyde
     Inglis (SC)
     Istook
     Kucinich
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Matheson
     McDermott
     McHenry
     McKinney
     Miller, Gary
     Moore (WI)
     Myrick
     Paul
     Pence
     Price (GA)
     Ramstad
     Rohrabacher
     Royce
     Schakowsky
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Smith (NJ)
     Tancredo
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Van Hollen
     Waxman
     Wilson (SC)

                               NOES--356

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Allen
     Baca
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Barton (TX)
     Bean
     Beauprez
     Becerra
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boustany
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burton (IN)
     Butterfield
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carter
     Case
     Chandler
     Chocola
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (KY)
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeFazio
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Edwards
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Frank (MA)
     Gallegly
     Gerlach
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harman
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hefley
     Herger
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Inslee
     Israel
     Issa
     Jackson (IL)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     Jindal
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Lynch
     Mack
     Maloney
     Marchant
     Marshall
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCaul (TX)
     McCollum (MN)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McMorris
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Mica
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Musgrave
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Neugebauer
     Ney

[[Page 11945]]


     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Otter
     Owens
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pearce
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Saxton
     Schiff
     Schwartz (PA)
     Schwarz (MI)
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shaw
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Sodrel
     Solis
     Souder
     Stark
     Stearns
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sweeney
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Camp
     Cox
     Crenshaw
     Hastings (FL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Menendez
     Moore (KS)
     Rush
     Slaughter
     Spratt
     Sullivan

                              {time}  1811

  Mr. RYAN of Ohio changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. BARRETT of South Carolina changed his vote from ``no'' to 
``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Stupak

  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Terry). The Clerk will designate the 
amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Stupak:
       Page 83, after line 19, insert the following sections:
       Sec. 7__. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used by the Secretary of Health and Human Services to keep 
     in effect an exemption under section 505(i) of the Federal 
     Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act for a clinical trial that 
     concerns a serious or life-threatening disease or condition 
     and is not included in the registry of such trials under 
     section 402(j) of the Public Health Service Act.
       Sec. 7__. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used by the Secretary of Health and Human Services to 
     approve an application under section 505(b)(1) of the Federal 
     Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act that--
       (1) is for a drug for a serious or life-threatening disease 
     or condition; and
       (2) is under subparagraph (A) of such section supported by 
     a clinical trial that--
       (A) has received an exemption under section 505(i) of such 
     Act; and
       (B) is not included in the registry of clinical trials 
     under section 402(j) of the Public Health Service Act.

  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the 
gentleman's amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla) reserves 
a point of order on the amendment.
  Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Stupak) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla) each 
will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak).
  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment to give patients and 
doctors the information they deserve about the safety and effectiveness 
of prescription drugs.
  My amendment is simple. It requires the Secretary of Health and Human 
Services to make sure clinical trials that are required to be listed in 
a public database by law are in fact listed, and it requires those 
clinical trials to be listed before a drug is approved to be marketed.
  My amendment requires nothing of HHS but to enforce the current law. 
As part of the Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act of 1997, 
Congress mandated that a central drug trial database be created to 
house all clinical trials for all serious and life-threatening diseases 
and conditions. Three years later, in 2000, clinicaltrials.gov became 
the online site of the clinical trials data bank. FDA issued guidance 
on registering their trials in the clinical trials data bank in March 
of 2002. Two years after the guidance for the industry has been issued, 
compliance with the law has been dismal at best.
  While 80 percent of drug trials are privately conducted, only 13 
percent of them are listed on clinicaltrials.gov. FDA analysis from 
2002 showed that less than half of all cancer trials are on the FDA Web 
site. An FDA official last year told The Washington Post that they have 
seen no ``big increase in the monthly submission of privately sponsored 
protocols'' since 2002. Drug company compliance has been so lax that 
last year even the editor in chief of the Journal of the American 
Medical Association, JAMA, assumed the registry was only for federally 
funded clinical trials.

                              {time}  1815

  The reality is that this law is not a lack of understanding, but the 
law has been ignored by the drug companies. This amendment is simple. 
Before the FDA can approve a new drug application, the clinical trials 
must be registered at clinicaltrials.gov first. FDA cannot allow these 
drug companies to continue to ignore the law. We said in 1997 that the 
drug companies must share their drug trial information with patients 
and doctors, especially those with serious injuries and illnesses or 
life-threatening disease.
  This issue is not controversial. Last June, the American Medical 
Association adopted a resolution calling for a Federal database of 
clinical trials. The AMA and others are concerned that drug companies 
emphasize the results of positive tests while playing down the negative 
or inconclusive results as they did with Vioxx, Accutane, and the 
adolescent antidepressant drugs. The New England Journal of Medicine 
and others require studies to be listed on the Web site before the 
journals will publish articles about the studies.
  This amendment does not create any new duties. This amendment does 
not expand the database to other drugs. No drugs are going to be denied 
approval, as long as the trials get listed. It just requires the 
enforcement of this widely supported, lifesaving law. I urge my 
colleagues to support my amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the 
amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes 
legislation in an appropriations bill and, therefore, violates clause 2 
of rule XXI. The rule states in pertinent part: ``An amendment to a 
general appropriations bill shall not be in order if changing existing 
law.'' The amendment imposes additional duties.
  I ask for a ruling from the Chair.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Terry). Does any Member wish to be heard on 
the point of order?
  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, this does not require any new duties, none 
whatsoever. If the chairman would point that out to me, maybe we could 
have a discussion about it; but there are no new duties being required 
here. It does not require the drug companies to do anything different 
than they were required to do in 1997. They do not have to report the 
results of the studies. They just have to report it. In addition, it 
does not mandate posting trials for anything else, because we have 
limited it more to the serious and life-threatening, exactly what the 
law said in 1997. We did not expand the scope of it. The FDA simply has 
to enforce what they are supposed to enforce by law. The FDA has 
already published several guidelines to drug companies about which drug 
trials have to be listed, when they have to be listed, and what has to 
be listed. If they can get them listed, it can be approved. The 
amendment simply instructs the Secretary of HHS, not FDA but HHS, to 
ensure compliance. It makes sure one hand of the HHS talks to the 
other.

[[Page 11946]]

  When we drafted this amendment, it should be made germane because it 
concerns the use of funds for carrying out the Federal Food, Drug and 
Cosmetic Act and funds for that purpose provided in the bill. As to 
whether there are those duties, I referred to the Secretary here. I did 
not refer to anyone else, the same as the 1997 law. We have said 
``Secretary'' because it is used in both the Food, Drug and Cosmetic 
Act and also the Public Health Service Act, that is, HHS administers 
both of these acts. Therefore, there is nothing new.
  The argument is not that there is a new duty for HHS to check whether 
clinical trials are registered because the Public Health Service Act 
section, 402(j), states that the database, and I am using the exact 
language now, 402(j) of the Public Health Act says, shall include a 
registry of clinical trials, end of quote, for which investigative and 
new drugs have been provided.
  There is nothing here new. All we are saying is the concepts used in 
my amendment are used in current law. We use the word ``exemption.'' 
That is in current law. We use ``registry of clinical trials.'' Current 
law. We refer to only serious or life-threatening disease or condition. 
That is current law. There are no new duties here.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas makes a point of order 
that the amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan proposes to 
change existing law in violation of clause 2 of rule XXI.
  As recorded in Deschler's Precedents, volume 8, chapter 26, section 
52, even though a limitation or exception therefrom might refrain from 
explicitly assigning new duties to officers of the government, if it 
implicitly requires them to make investigations, compile evidence, or 
make judgments and determinations not otherwise required of them by 
law, then it assumes the character of legislation and is subject to a 
point of order under clause 2(c) of rule XXI.
  The proponent of a limitation assumes the burden of establishing that 
any duties imposed by the provision either are merely ministerial or 
are already required by law.
  In the statutory context chosen by the amendment, a Federal official 
at the Food and Drug Administration would be required to examine a 
registry of clinical trials maintained by a different entity, the 
National Institutes of Health, before exempting a drug for a clinical 
trial or approving an application for a drug under existing law. Under 
the terms of section 402(j) of the Public Health Service Act, the 
registry of clinical trials is fluid, with each clinical trial sponsor 
being allowed 21 days after the approval of a drug to submit required 
information. In the opinion of the Chair, an examination of the 
contents of that fluid registry of data maintained by the NIH would 
constitute a new duty on the Federal officials at the FDA. The Chair 
finds that the gentleman from Michigan has not met his burden to show 
that the new duty imposed is ministerial.
  Accordingly, the point of order is sustained and the amendment is not 
in order.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman may state his inquiry.
  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, does the Federal Food and Drug 
Administration and NIH not fall underneath the Health and Human 
Services, HHS, Department?
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. As the Chair has ruled, although the two 
entities are within the same Department, the amendment would require 
that one entity examine the other entity's registry.
  The Chair has ruled on the point of order.
  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, in all due respect, I do not require any of 
that. I require the Secretary of Health and Human Services to do it; 
not the FDA, not the NIH, the Secretary of Health and Human Services. 
These agencies, Food and Drug Administration, NIH, are underneath their 
jurisdiction. That is why we drafted it this way, to get around the 
germaneness issue. We are not requiring FDA or NIH. It is only the 
Secretary of HHS.
  As to the second part of your ruling, Mr. Chairman, you said we are 
creating new law. We were very careful, as I pointed out, that every 
word used in the proposed amendment is the same words used in the 
Public Health Service Act and the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act. 
That is exemption, that is in both acts; registry of clinical trials, 
exact same words; and limits to, quote, serious or life-threatening 
disease or condition, again words all found in the 1997 act which we 
require the Secretary to do, so we do not get into this thing about 
putting a new requirement on FDA or NIH.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Chair has ruled. The gentleman's comments 
are post-facto argument and not a proper parliamentary inquiry.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Hefley

  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Hefley:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. 7__. Appropriations made in this Act are hereby 
     reduced in the amount of $168,320,000.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Bonilla) each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley).
  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I will not take a lot of time with this. I rise again today to offer 
an amendment to cut the level of funding in this appropriations bill by 
1 percent. This amount equals $168.32 million, which represents only 
one penny off every dollar.
  As most Members are aware, I have offered a series of amendments on 
appropriations bills like this. It is no criticism of the committee or 
the job that they have done. It is just the idea that we need somewhere 
to begin to draw the line, and the budget we have next year is simply 
too large, and we can do something about the deficit right now.
  By voting for this amendment, you are stating that American taxpayers 
should not have to pay higher taxes in the future because we could not 
control our spending today. This fiscal year 2006 agriculture 
appropriations bill provides nearly $17 billion in total discretionary 
resources and represents an increase of $93 million over the 
President's request.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask for support of this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Again in a bipartisan way, this subcommittee works very hard to put a 
bill together each year with the majority-passed budget constraints 
that we have to live under. The gentleman from Colorado is a good 
Member who comes to the table year in and year out, and sometimes week 
in and week out, with an effort to cut the bill even further. However, 
again, with all due respect to his efforts, the bills that we put 
together on appropriations are done as a part of a team effort. We feel 
like we are at the rock bottom number that we could possibly be at at 
this point and strongly oppose the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the 
noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. HEFLEY. 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 
(Mr. Hefley) will be postponed.


                   Amendment Offered by Mr. Kucinich

  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

[[Page 11947]]

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Kucinich:
       Page 83, after line 19, insert the following section:
       Sec. 7__. None of the funds made available in this Act for 
     the Food and Drug Administration may be used for the approval 
     or process of approval, under section 512 of the Federal 
     Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, of an application for an animal 
     drug for creating transgenic salmon or any other transgenic 
     fish.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the 
gentleman's amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman reserves a point of order.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I am offering this amendment today to begin a 
discussion in this House which is aimed at ensuring the livelihood of 
commercial fishermen and protecting our oceans, lakes, and streams. 
This amendment is a reasonable and moderate safeguard. It will delay 
FDA approval of genetically engineered fish for a year. This amendment 
is necessary because commercial fishermen and environmentalists have 
raised concerns that GE fish may pose ecological risks. Scientists from 
Purdue University and the University of Minnesota have raised a number 
of serious questions about the ecological impacts of GE fish. These 
risks include GE fish escape from ocean pens into the environment, 
which could impact wild populations of fish.
  In this first chart, Mr. Chairman, GE fish are being engineered to 
grow faster and bigger. However, several fish ecologists from the 
University of Minnesota and Purdue University have expressed concerns 
with these salmon, as their accidental release may create 
environmentally disastrous extinctions of natural wild salmon species.
  In the second chart, the bottom fish is the same age as the two 
smaller fish on top.

                              {time}  1830

  But, of course, what we have here is a genetically engineered fish on 
the bottom.
  The third chart, scientists have determined that a larger fish has an 
advantage in mating. Thus, larger GE fish, which are more aggressive 
and consume more food, attract more mates than wild fish. In essence, 
one could call this one the ``handsomely big GE fish'' is more 
successful than the ``lonely natural fish.''
  Scientists have also determined that these GE fish may survive for 
only a limited number of generations in the wild. Their offspring will 
be less fit and less likely to survive. So we are talking about the 
survival of species here.
  On the fourth chart, mutant fish are created as GE fish escape into 
the wild and mate with natural fish. The mutant's fish larger size 
gives an advantage in mating, forcing new genetic traits to be 
integrated into the wild. But these mutant fish may only survive for a 
limited number of generations in the wild. The implications are 
serious. After several generations, natural fish may go extinct because 
larger GE fish are more successful than natural fish in mating. Mutant 
fish also go extinct because their mutant genes decrease the 
survivability of the species.
  As a result of GE fish producing unfit offspring that are more 
successful in mating, the Purdue scientists predict that if 60 
genetically engineered fish were introduced into a population of 60,000 
wild fish, the species would become extinct within only 40 fish 
generations.
  Scientists call this outcome the Trojan Gene Effect. The end result 
is a possible extinction of important commercial fish species like 
salmon. The National Academy of Sciences has examined this issue in 
their report ``Animal Biotechnology: Science Based Concerns, 2002,'' 
and found ``considerable risk'' and a need for more research.
  ``Transgenic Atlantic salmon pose a near-term regulatory issue. A 
brief review of the hazards they pose provides a useful illustration of 
the environmental hazards posed by GE aquatic species more generally.
  ``The committee's review,'' continuing on of the quote, ``of ecologic 
principles and empirical data suggests a considerable risk of ecologic 
hazards being realized should transgenic fish or shellfish enter the 
natural ecosystems. In particular, greater empirical knowledge is 
needed to predict the outcome should transgenes become introgressed 
into natural populations of aquatic organisms.''
  The American Society of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists, the 
science society of experts on fish, amphibians, and reptiles, has 
joined the call for a 1-year moratorium. This amendment is strongly 
supported by commercial fishermen because their struggling industry 
cannot afford a negative ecological impact on the wild fish species 
that they depend on for their livelihood.
  Several States have passed legislation regulating GE fish, including 
prohibitions, labeling requirements, and permit requirements. The 
States include Alaska, California, Maryland, Oregon, Michigan, 
Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Washington.
  Mr. Chairman, I brought this discussion to this House for the 
purposes of alerting the Members of Congress that we need to have a 
deep debate about this, that we need to do more research, we need to 
get into this; and for that reason I would have the debate continue.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Terry). Is there objection to the request of 
the gentleman from Ohio?
  There was no objection.


             Amendment Offered by Mr. Garrett of New Jersey

  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Garrett of New Jersey:
       Page 83, after line 19, insert the following (and make such 
     technical and conforming changes as may be appropriate):
       
       Sec. 768. None of the funds made available under the 
     heading ``FOOD AND NUTRITION SERVICE--Food Stamp Program'' in 
     title IV may be expended in contravention of section 213a of 
     the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1183a).

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House today, the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett) and the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Bonilla) each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett).
  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as 
I may consume.
  Today I rise to support an amendment that hopefully will be seen as a 
common sense amendment. It deals with H.R. 2744, more specifically with 
the Food Stamp Program aspect of it, and simply says that we should be 
complying with the Immigration and Nationality Act when we pass this 
legislation. The amendment is common sense because it simply says that 
we should always abide by current Federal law.
  As it stands right now with regard to current Federal law, 8 USC 
1183(a), it states that an affidavit must be filed by a sponsor of an 
alien who is in this country legally today. This affidavit of support 
is a legally binding guarantee on the part of a sponsor that the 
immigrant that is in this country that they are sponsoring will not 
become a public charge of this country. That is, that they will not 
become dependent on welfare. And it is limited for a period of 10 years 
or until that person becomes a citizen, whichever comes first. This 
``public charge'' requirement is nothing new. It goes all the way back 
to our immigration policy way back in 1880.
  Secondly, with regard to current law, current Federal law states that 
this affidavit is enforceable against the sponsor of the immigrant by 
any Federal Government or State, or political subdivision thereof, or 
any other entity that provides any means-tested public benefit. This 
means that the sponsor and not the U.S. taxpayer is to be the

[[Page 11948]]

individual that is responsible for the alien. It also requires 
providers of these benefits to seek reimbursement from the sponsors and 
even allows the government to sue for noncompliance.
  Just a side note here of interest, there is another law currently on 
the books in this country, 8 USC 1227, and it makes it clear that 
aliens who are in country who do become public charges within 5 years 
of their entry into this country that they are actually subject to 
deportation in some cases.
  The amendment that is before us simply says this: It simply states 
that no funds appropriated in this Act under the Food Stamp Program 
will be spent in noncompliance of current Federal law. This amendment 
is simply about enforcing current law. If one does not like the current 
law that goes all the way back to 1880, they certainly have a right to 
try to change that, but that should be done in another piece of 
legislation and not through this vehicle. So by not supporting my 
amendment, they are publicly admitting on the floor in the United 
States that our laws elsewhere on the books are not to be complied 
with.
  I will just end with this: Yesterday, a group of constituents was in 
my office from a group called Bread for the World, and they came to 
emphasize the fact that people in this country are going hungry and 
that there is not quite enough money in the Food Stamp Program today, 
in their opinion, that it is not adequate to provide all that is 
needed. So, under such circumstances, we should not be adding to the 
incentive for other people to become part of this program and become 
public charges to the taxpayer.
  I, therefore, conclude by saying I urge of all my colleagues to 
support this common sense amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. This is somewhat 
unusual, and I appreciate the gentleman from New Jersey's (Mr. Garrett) 
concern in this area. However, this is almost like going into a 
neighborhood and seeing a family that is playing by the rules and 
respecting the law and we are going to pass a law that says you have to 
do that all over again. So, in our view, it is unnecessary and 
duplicative and there is no indication that USDA is doing anything to 
contradict statutory provisions right now related to collection from 
sponsors of food stamp benefits paid to sponsored aliens.
  So, because of the redundancy and the statement of the obvious, 
frankly, I would oppose the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as 
I may consume.
  I appreciate the comments, and if we can be provided with some 
evidence that the Department is, in fact, complying with the law, that 
would be greatly appreciated. It is our understanding that currently 
aliens who are in this country under this program who have a sponsor 
are, in fact, receiving food stamps under the current law and that 
there has been no effort whatsoever, ever, in any cases to go after and 
reclaim those funds from the sponsor in the case. So I would be 
appreciative of that information at a later date or now if the 
gentleman has it.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I would just note that the responsibility 
for enforcing the laws that the gentleman is referring to actually fall 
under the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, USCIS, and the 
State welfare departments. States are responsible for making demand for 
and collecting from sponsors any benefits paid to sponsored aliens. So 
there is no indication that the USDA is violating any of these 
regulations and rules, again emphasizing that the responsibility for 
compliance here lies with other agencies and some at the State level.
  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of 
my time.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the 
noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. 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 New Jersey 
(Mr. Garrett) will be postponed.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Stupak

  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Stupak:
       Page 83, after line 19, insert the following section:
       Sec. 7__. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used by the Food and Drug Administration to conduct any 
     investigation of, or take any employment action against, an 
     officer or employee of the Food and Drug Administration 
     pursuant to the officer or employee providing to the Congress 
     or the public information or opinions that concern such 
     Administration and are not prohibited from disclosure under 
     section 301(j) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.

  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against the 
gentleman's amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House today, the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak).
  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I rise to offer an amendment that will ensure that the FDA continues 
to carry out its mission to promote drug safety and effectiveness and 
assist the public in obtaining accurate science-based information.
  The FDA's mission is not to conduct secret investigation of its own 
employees. Unfortunately, some of the FDA's recent actions seem like 
they are more about protecting themselves than protecting the American 
public.
  My amendment is very simple. It forbids the use of funds by the FDA 
to conduct any investigation of or take any action against an FDA 
employee who provides information or an opinion to the public or 
Congress that concerns the FDA and is not prohibited from being 
released under the law.
  Congress has expressed serious concerns regarding recent reports that 
FDA has asked Dr. David Graham to leave his current position within the 
Office of Drug Safety after more than 20 years of service. Dr. Graham 
has been a dedicated public servant, working to ensure the safety of 
America's drug supply. Dr. Graham was asked to testify before Congress 
at the request of a committee Chair and was under an obligation to 
answer a question posed by the committee based on his expertise. And 
Dr. Graham, to his credit, answered, in his opinion, there are five 
more drugs that we should look at, including the drug called Accutane, 
which has over 250 suicides associated with it. The public's interest 
and society's safety is certainly not served when the FDA goes around 
and asks their safety officers to leave their job because they have 
done their job and honestly answered a question put forth by committee 
members in a congressional setting.
  In the words of Dr. Janet Woodcock, the former director of the Center 
of Drug Evaluation and Research, `` . . . FDA thrives on differences of 
scientific opinion. That reality is our culture. Our scientists have 
the right to speak up and disagree and have a vigorous scientific 
debate. That's how we arrive at the best decisions.''
  However, the FDA actions are contrary to this statement. The 
treatment of Dr. Graham and other employees undoubtedly has had a 
chilling effect on the willingness of FDA's employees to speak up and 
disagree when they believe the public's health is at risk.
  Other reports have said that the Director of the Center of Drug 
Safety

[[Page 11949]]

himself, Dr. Steve Galson, contacted the editor of the Lancet to 
suggest that Dr. Graham manipulated a study to be published in the 
Lancet. At the same time, according to the Government Accountability 
Project, FDA managers posed as whistleblowers, attacking Dr. Graham's 
credibility in an effort to discourage the Government Accountability 
Project from taking from Dr. Graham as a client.
  The FDA also launched an investigation into Dr. Andrew Mosholder when 
a newspaper reported he was not able to testify before an advisory 
committee about his concerns about antidepressant use in children. This 
shameful behavior by management of the FDA cannot continue, and we 
demand that we put a stop to it.
  I ask for support of my amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the gentleman from 
Michigan's (Mr. Stupak) amendment to provide whistleblower protection 
to FDA employees.
  We have talked a lot today about scientific and management problems 
at the FDA, about whether their scientific advisory committees have 
been corrupted by pharmaceutical company influence, about how we can be 
sure that FDA has the tools that it needs to do its job to protect the 
health of the American people.

                              {time}  1845

  Yet I might just quote to you the White House Chief of Staff, Andrew 
Card, who said, ``The agency is doing a spectacular job,'' and should 
``continue to do the job they do.''
  Unfortunately, we know that the FDA has not always lived up to its 
responsibilities; and rather than encouraging employees to speak out 
and engage in scientific debate, the FDA has worked hard to silence 
employees who believe that a drug on the market is harmful to the 
health of the American people.
  Dr. David Graham, as my colleague pointed out, is just one example of 
how things have gone wrong at the FDA. After 20 years of service, when 
Dr. Graham testified before the Senate Finance Committee at the request 
of the committee chairman in November of 2004, in response to a 
question, he listed, as has been stated, five drugs he believed to pose 
serious health risks.
  His concerns turned out to be warranted. One of the drugs he 
mentioned, Vioxx, has since been removed from the market, following 
reports that it causes heart attack and stroke, and others on the list 
have been shown to have equally serious and sometimes deadly side 
effects.
  FDA employees did all they could to stop Dr. Graham from testifying. 
A statement by the head of the agency, Dr. Crawford, was e-mailed to 
the reporters quoting something that Graham said in an internal e-mail. 
After the hearing, Dr. Graham himself said, ``Senior management at the 
FDA did everything in their power to intimidate me prior to my 
testimony.''
  FDA employees went out of their way to slander Dr. Graham. The 
director of the Center of Drug Safety, Dr. Steven Galson, contacted the 
editor of the Lancet to suggest that Dr. Graham manipulated a study 
which was about to be published.
  The Government Accountability Project has reported that FDA managers 
posed as whistleblowers to attack his credibility. Fortunately, they 
were foolish enough to call from government phones so that the source 
of the calls was easy to trace and the trail ended at the FDA.
  FDA has since said that they are working to improve the handling of 
differences of opinion and that it acknowledged the right of employees 
to raise concerns to oversight groups. In that case, they should 
welcome the passage of this amendment to give its employees 
whistleblower attention.
  Mr. Chairman, the Food and Drug Administration is charged with such 
an important responsibility. It ensures that medications that Americans 
take every day are safe. It should be simple; it should be done without 
influence, by industry or anyone else.
  Unfortunately, that is not always the case; and when things go wrong, 
we depend on scientists at the agency to alert the American public that 
they may be putting their health in serious jeopardy with a certain 
medication. This amendment simply says that we will ensure that they 
can do that without fear of reprisal.
  I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Terry). The gentleman will state his point 
of order.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the 
amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes 
legislation in an appropriations bill and therefore violates clause 2 
of rule XXI. The rule states in pertinent part: ``An amendment to a 
general appropriations bill shall not be in order if changing existing 
law.'' The amendment imposes additional duties.
  I ask for a ruling from the Chair.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Does any Member wish to be heard on the point of 
order?
  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, if I may, I ask for the learned chairman to 
tell me where we are imposing a new duty on the FDA. What we are asking 
here is simply that the FDA follow the law; that they not use funds, as 
my colleague put it, for reprisals against employees who are encouraged 
to speak their mind, and when they speak their mind, they are 
investigated and harassed and intimidated and asked to leave their 
jobs.
  My amendment specifically says we do not disclose, and make sure we 
do not disclose, anything that is confidential, proprietary, 
proprietary interests of the drug companies. As long as those are not 
disclosed and not confidential in that manner and no one does it, then 
there is no reason to be harassing, intimidating, and investigating 
people who testify before advisory committees.
  There is no new change in the law. All we are saying is FDA, you are 
also subject to law. You have to follow the law. And those things that 
are confidential and proprietary in interest, we do not expect you will 
disclose them; therefore we do not do it.
  So if someone can tell me what is the new duty, I will be happy to 
draft my amendment before we are done tonight, and we will make it in 
order then. I really do not see any new duty being imposed here, with 
all honesty. I am not trying to be flippant; I am just trying to get an 
answer to my question. Just like the last one, there is no new duty.
  So if someone can tell me that, I will be happy to change the 
amendment to make it germane.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas makes a point of order 
that the amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan proposes to 
change existing law, in violation of clause 2(c) of rule XXI.
  As recorded in Deschler's Precedents, volume 8, chapter 26, section 
52, even though a limitation or exception therefrom might refrain from 
explicitly assigning new duties to officers of the government, if it 
implicitly requires them to make investigations, compile evidence or 
make judgments and determinations not otherwise required of them by 
law, then it assumes the character of legislation and is subject to a 
point of order under clause 2(c) of rule XXI.
  The proponent of a limitation assumes the burden of establishing that 
any duties imposed by the provision either are merely ministerial or 
are already required by law.
  The Chair finds that the limitation proposed in the amendment offered 
by the gentleman from Michigan does more than merely decline to fund 
employment investigations. Instead, it requires the officials concerned 
to make determinations regarding a specific type of employee behavior 
prior to initiating an employment investigation. This is a matter which 
they are not charged with under existing law.
  On these premises, the Chair concludes that the amendment offered by

[[Page 11950]]

the gentleman from Michigan proposes to change existing law.
  Accordingly, the point of order is sustained.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, we drafted these amendments carefully with 
legislative counsel and others to make sure they were germane. If you 
want to rule that they are not germane, I guess you have the right to 
do that; and I will not appeal the ruling of the Chair because I can 
count the votes.
  But the thing I would ask, when a Member has a parliamentary inquiry, 
if someone would at least tell us where the amendment is wrong so it 
can be corrected. With all due respect to the chairman, you read what 
was put forth, but you never say what is wrong with our amendment.
  What is wrong with these last two amendments that made them not 
germane, so we can correct it to be within the parliamentary setting of 
this body? We have part of the House institution telling us our 
amendments are in order. We get to the floor, and we find them not in 
order.
  I guess it is just a little frustrating when we talk about the health 
and safety of the American people, and we have examples where the FDA 
has not done their job, so we try to correct it in the only body we 
can, through legislative amendments, and we come here and we get this 
``speak-legalese,'' and I do not have anything against legals since I 
am an attorney myself. But just a simple question like where are we 
legislating in this appropriations bill, when we have such tightly 
crafted amendments that are even taken from existing law so we do not 
legislate on an appropriations bill and we are still ruled out of order 
or not germane.
  If you can answer that parliamentary inquiry, I would appreciate it.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. With regard to the inquiry, the Chair states 
again that the amendment, by limiting funds for some, but not all, 
employment investigations, requires the officials concerned to make 
determinations regarding a specific type of employee behavior prior to 
initiating an employment investigation in order to discern whether it 
is an employment investigation of the type for which funds have been 
limited. Those are determinations which they are not charged with under 
existing law.
  Mr. STUPAK. But, Mr. Chairman, with all due respect, the FDA does 
make investigations under current law under their own administration. 
So how can you say they are not charged with the duty of doing 
investigations of their employees? They make that determination every 
day, whether a member can speak at an advisory committee, whether a 
member can answer a question, an FDA doctor, at a congressional 
hearing, as we saw with Dr. Graham.
  I am bemused, to say the least.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Chair has ruled.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Tiahrt

  Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Tiahrt:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title) insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used to promulgate regulations without consideration of 
     the effect of such regulations on the competitiveness of 
     American businesses.

  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the 
gentleman's amendment, but I do understand that the gentleman is going 
to withdraw his amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The point of order is reserved.
  Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the gentleman from 
Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt).
  Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, we have the number one economy in the world. It is the 
envy of the world. But we are looking at some signs that I think 
indicate a long-term problem. Where will this economy and this country 
be 10 years, 15 years, 20 years from now? We have a lot going on around 
the world as far as other countries trying to develop a stronger 
economy, looking forward, eliminating the barriers that were created by 
their own governments, so that they can keep and create jobs in their 
own country and outside the United States.
  Last year our trade deficit was $670 billion. This year it looks like 
our Federal deficit is going to be down from the projected $375 billion 
to down around $300 billion. But still that is a lot of money. Even 
though we have seen some good things happen because of the tax relief 
that President Bush pushed and was passed by the House and Senate, we 
still need to look forward and see how we are going to create a strong 
economy, not only in the agricultural area, but in all facets of the 
United States.
  Right now we know that in the agricultural community regulatory costs 
are creating problems down on the farm. We already know that less 
government regulation not only means granting freedom to allow 
Americans to pursue their dreams; it also means providing the space for 
businesses to thrive in agricultural areas and creating more jobs in 
those same areas communities. Instead, our Federal Government has 
become a creeping ivy of regulations that strangle enterprise and that 
makes it more difficult to keep and create jobs in rural America.
  Unrealistic and unnecessary prohibitions, along with burdensome 
mandates, are creating difficulties for our farmers, ranchers, and 
those involved in the agricultural industry. How can we expect our 
agriculture economy to develop and grow when bureaucracy prevents farm 
businesses from starting or expanding? With the decreasing numbers of 
farms and the growing average age of farmers, we need to be doing 
everything we can to eliminate the barricades farmers and ranchers face 
so that, as they provide the food to feed our Nation and the world, 
they can do so in an easier fashion.
  One area where the United States Department of Agriculture has an 
opportunity to reduce burdens for the private industry is in the area 
of national animal identification. I know there is concern among 
private industry that implementing a national system to track cattle 
and other animals will end up creating huge costs that will get passed 
on back to the producer. There is even greater concern among the 
private industry that there will be no value added to the end product, 
despite the increased costs associated with implementing an animal 
identification program.
  As the Department of Agriculture looks at implementing national 
animal ID, I think they should work closely with industry to find a 
private solution to help pay for the costs associated with creating 
such a vast and complex system.
  While working with State governments and universities is an important 
process, I hope that USDA will be forward-thinking in forging public-
private partnerships to pursue market solutions that will help 
producers recover costs associated with implementing technology needed 
for animal identification.
  I believe that anytime that we can provide support through private 
initiatives that will deliver objectives sought by the Federal 
Government, I think we should jump at the opportunity to forge these 
partnerships and create a win-win-win situation, for the government, 
for the taxpayer and for industry.
  Each and every Federal agency should take into consideration the 
effect proposed policies will have on competitiveness of U.S. 
businesses, including farms and ranches.
  I plan to withdraw this amendment today because I am very encouraged 
by the forward thinking of our subcommittee chairman on agriculture in 
appropriations, the gentleman from Texas (Chairman Bonilla). I believe 
we

[[Page 11951]]

can work together and strengthen farmers and ranchers and agriculture 
businesses financially through less regulation.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Kansas?
  There was no objection.


                 Amendment Offered by Mr. Brown of Ohio

  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Brown of Ohio:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title) insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act to 
     the Secretary of Agriculture may be used, after December 31, 
     2005, to purchase chickens, including chicken products, under 
     the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act or the Child 
     Nutrition Act of 1966, unless the Secretary shall take into 
     account whether such purchases are in compliance with 
     standards relating to the wholesomeness of food for human 
     consumption, pursuant to section 14(d) of the Richard B. 
     Russell National School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1762a(d)).

  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I know the gentleman is going to speak on 
his amendment, but I just want to let the gentlemen know that we are 
happy to accept the amendment and move forward with the vote as soon as 
he would like.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) and a Member opposed will each control 
5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown).

                              {time}  1900

  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume. My remarks will be brief. I thank the gentleman from Texas 
(Chairman Bonilla) for his support.
  We all know the importance of antibiotics to our public health, 
beginning some 60 years ago with penicillin and other antibiotics. We 
also know the increasing problem of antibiotic resistance in people who 
have not been cured because of their resistance to antibiotics that 
have been administered to them.
  This amendment says the USDA can only buy chicken products for school 
nutrition programs if it complies with the requirement of existing law 
that foods purchased for these programs be ``wholesome,'' meaning 
protected from antibiotic resistance. This amendment tells the USDA 
that we are serious, this Congress is serious about protecting the 
American people from the dangers of antibiotic resistance. I ask my 
colleagues to support the amendment.
  On March 14, 1942, the world changed.
  A woman named Anne Miller had been hospitalized in New Haven, 
Connecticut, for more than a month with a strep infection. Every 
conventional treatment had failed, and doctors feared she would not 
last the day.
  But then, Anne Miller got an experimental injection of a new medicine 
called Penicillin. And in just over 12 hours, her temperature had 
returned to normal.
  A half-century ago, America's hospitals were jammed with patients 
suffering from strep, pneumonia, meningitis, typhoid fever, rheumatic 
fever, and other killers.
  Penicillin and other antibiotics allowed us to bring these lethal 
infections under control and save millions of lives. These new miracle 
drugs changed the world.
  But a new danger--antibiotic resistance--is threatening to turn back 
the clock, by making the antibiotics we rely on ineffective.
  When an antibiotic is used on a person or animal, it may kill some of 
the bacteria, but it will not kill all of them. The survivors 
reproduce, propagating these hardier ``antibiotic resistant'' bacteria.
  Antibiotic resistance is a serious and growing public health problem: 
38 Americans die every day from antibiotic resistant infections, 
according to the World Health Organization--some estimates suggest the 
number is more than twice that large; Antibiotic resistance costs 
America's health care system an estimated $4 billion every year; The 
Centers for Disease Control has called antibiotic resistance one of its 
``top concerns''
  Human medicine is partly to blame. Doctors are often pressured to 
overprescribe antibiotics, leading to the spread of resistance. And 
both the medical profession and the CDC have taken this seriously, with 
outreach campaigns to educate both doctors and patients about the 
dangers of antibiotic overuse.
  But animal agriculture is also to blame. About 70 percent of 
antibiotic use in America is not for people but for the cows, pigs, 
chickens, and other animals people eat. And about 70 percent of those 
antibiotics are not even used to treat sick animals, but to prevent 
illness or just to make healthy animals grow faster.
  And the overuse of antibiotics in animal agriculture has serious 
consequences. Fluoroquinolones--the class of antibiotics that includes 
Cipro--are an important example.
  Cipro, as we know all too well, is used to threat Anthrax. But Cipro 
is also used to treat infections by a foodborne bacterium called 
Campylobacter.
  The FDA approved fluoroquinolones for use in human medicine in 1986. 
And FDA approved fluoroquinolones for use in chickens in 1995.
  During the 9 years between 1986 and 1995, no more than 3 percent of 
Campylobacter cases in the U.S. involved resistant bacteria. But just 2 
years after FDA approved fluoroquinolones for use in chickens, 
resistance in humans had jumped to 13 percent. By 2001, 19 percent of 
the Campylobacter infections in humans were antibiotic-resistant.
  The FDA has begun a response to this problem--by proposing to ban 
fluorquinolone use in poultry. But the company that makes them has 
sued, and litigation could take several years to resolve.
  Private industry also has recognized the problem. Leading fast food 
chains like McDonald's and Wendy's have told their suppliers they will 
not buy products made from chickens raised with fluoroquinolones. And 
leading chicken producers like Tyson, Gold Kist, and Purdue have also 
committed to stop using fluoruoquinolones.
  But the National School Lunch Program lags behind, and the USDA still 
buys our children chicken raised with fluoroquinolones.
  Congress acted in 2004--adding report language of the FY2004 
Agriculture Appropriations bill that asked USDA to initiate ``a policy 
to not purchase chickens for these programs from companies that do not 
have a stated policy that they do not use fluoroquinolones in their 
chickens.''
  That language was approved by a bipartisan majority in this House. It 
was approved by a bipartisan majority in the Senate. And the bill 
accompanying it was signed by President Bush.
  Unfortunately--but not surprisingly--USDA did nothing to implement 
that provision.
  It is time for Congress to order USDA to step up to the plate. And 
that is exactly what my amendment does.
  Existing law requires that USDA take steps to ensure the 
wholesomeness of food delivered through school nutrition programs. If 
USDA actually applies that requirement when purchasing chicken 
products, I believe the agency will be unable to conclude that a 
substance FDA wants to take off the market because of public health 
concerns is wholesome.
  Last year, we asked the USDA to do the right thing. The USDA ignored 
our request.
  This year: tell the USDA that we are serious about protecting the 
American people from the dangers of antibiotic resistance; Let us pass 
this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Terry). The question is on the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                   Amendment Offered by Mr. Kucinich

  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Kucinich:
       Add at the end (before the short title), the following new 
     section:
       Sec. 7__. The Department of Agriculture, at the request of 
     a producer or processor, shall test ruminants, ruminant 
     products, and ruminant by-products for the presence of bovine 
     spongiform encephalopathy, subject to reimbursement by the 
     producer or processor of the costs incurred by the Department 
     to conduct the test, and none of the funds made available in 
     this Act may be used to pay the salaries and expenses of 
     personnel of the Department to enforce any regulatory 
     prohibition on such testing by the Department of Agriculture 
     of ruminants, ruminant products, or ruminant by-products for 
     the presence of bovine spongiform encephalopathy.

  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the 
gentleman's amendment.

[[Page 11952]]

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman reserves a point of order.
  Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Kucinich) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  My amendment would permit anyone to test for Mad Cow if they so 
desired. It would require the USDA to perform the test and require the 
requestor to pay for it.
  This amendment may strike my colleagues as unnecessary. After all, 
any food manufacturer should be able to test their own product for 
safety. Let me explain.
  Mad Cow disease has been detected in 187,000 cows all over the world. 
Its early symptoms include weight loss, loss of balance, and acting 
skittish. The cow later descends into drooling, arching its back, 
waving its head, and exhibiting unusually aggressive behavior. It is 
inevitably fatal.
  Variant CJD, as it is called, which is the disease humans can get 
from eating infected cattle, has resulted in over 150 deaths in Europe. 
Most of those occurred in the U.K., the epicenter of the human and 
bovine outbreaks. The U.S. was spared until 2003 when the first case of 
Mad Cow was detected in Washington State.
  Immediately, countries that had invested heavily in their own testing 
and processing infrastructure in order to assure a safe beef supply 
closed their borders to American beef exports. Countries like Japan, 
which now tests every cattle slaughtered, demanded similar testing 
rates and practices of their own of any importer, including the United 
States. In the case of Japan, the U.S. refused to meet their demands. 
As a result, an industry trade group claimed losses of $4.7 billion for 
cattle producers.
  Small businesses like Gateway Beef Cooperative, which processes 200 
cattle per week, were losing $50,000 per week. Creekstone Farms Premium 
Beef was losing about $40,000 per day. Some businesses responded with a 
logical plan. They wanted to test all of their cattle, just like Japan. 
Not only would it restore access to a crucial overseas market, but it 
would give them a competitive advantage in parts of the world where 
consumers demanded the highest safety standards. It was a solution that 
let the free market work its purported magic by allowing consumers to 
choose how safe they wanted their beef.
  But, Mr. Chairman, the USDA stopped them. They invoked a 1913 law, 
originally intended to ``protect the farmer and stock raiser from 
improperly made and prepared serums, toxins, and viruses.'' The law 
gives them control over ``veterinary biologics'' like diagnostic tests. 
In this case, the USDA took control over who could test their cattle 
and when by using this law to license use of the diagnostic test only 
to themselves. An American company was forbidden from testing their own 
product for safety.
  Their reasoning? Allowing companies to test all of their cattle, FDA 
says, ``would have implied a consumer safety aspect that is not 
scientifically warranted.'' In other words, the FDA worried that 
consumers will see a label indicating that their meat has been tested 
for Mad Cow disease and assume it is safer than meat that has not been 
tested.
  Why would they worry about that? Is this not the way it is supposed 
to be? If your food has been tested, you can be assured it is safer. It 
is not a reason to prevent testing. In fact, it is a strong argument in 
favor of allowing testing.
  The real reason the USDA will not let a business owner test their own 
product is that the beef industry is afraid that a new standard of 
safety will be set and the marginal cost of adequate testing will cut 
into their shareholder profits. They also stand to lose if a sufficient 
number of tests are conducted and another Mad Cow case surfaces. In the 
meantime, Japan and South Korea are under enormous pressure to lower 
their beef testing standards and reopen their borders to American beef. 
They look at all their options.
  Option number one is to require the U.S. to bring their testing rates 
up to speed with other industrialized nations. France and Germany test 
over half their cattle. The U.K. tests all cattle over 24 months old. 
Japan tests every single one. Meanwhile, the United States boasts about 
their ramped-up testing rate. In 2004, the year after we found our 
first case of Mad Cow, the USDA tested 176,468 out of roughly 35 
million cattle. That is about a rate of one-half of 1 percent. In other 
words, about one out of every 200 cattle was tested.
  On top of that, the administration proposed to reduce funding for 
surveillance by two-thirds this year, from $69 million to $29 million.
  The second option for Japan and South Korea is to give in to U.S. 
demands, drastically lower their safety standards, and allow beef that 
is held to a safety benchmark that is orders of magnitude lower than 
their own. In so doing, they would risk undermining fragile public 
confidence in meat safety. It is not right that the administration 
would play politics with global food supply.
  Now, my amendment would allow voluntary testing to occur by requiring 
the USDA to perform the test on demand. That way the integrity of the 
testing procedures is maintained under close supervision, and there is 
accountability and transparency.
  In the future, there must be a provision to ensure that Congress does 
not reduce the amount of USDA funding with funds paid by industry for 
the testing program.
  In trying to rescue their business by giving consumers what they 
want, some American beef producers could help fill the leadership 
vacuum left by the USDA. They should be allowed to.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the 
amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes 
legislation in an appropriation bill and, therefore, violates clause 2 
of Rule XXI.
  The rule states in pertinent part:
  ``An amendment to a general appropriation bill shall not be in order 
if changing existing law.''
  The amendment imposes additional duties.
  I ask for a ruling from the Chair.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Does any Member wish to be heard on the point of 
order?
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I want to say that the gentleman is 
right. There is a point of order, because we need to legislate to fix 
this problem. I hope that when the authorizing and appropriating 
committees meet next year that they will consider this approach, giving 
it the consideration it deserves. It is for both American cattlemen and 
consumers.
  The gentleman is correct. I will concede the point of order, and I 
thank the Chair.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The point of order is conceded and sustained.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Weiner

  Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Weiner:
       Add at the end (before the short title) the following new 
     section:
       Sec. 7__. Using funds that would otherwise be paid during 
     fiscal year 2006 with regard to cotton, tobacco, and rice 
     production, the Secretary of Agriculture shall make grants to 
     the several States in an amount, for each State, equal to at 
     least 0.75 percent of such funds, to be distributed to active 
     agricultural producers in the State in a manner approved by 
     the Secretary.

  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the 
gentleman's amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman reserves a point of order.
  Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Weiner) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner).

[[Page 11953]]


  Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  First of all, I think this represents the final amendment on the bill 
and gives me another chance to offer my thanks to the chairman and 
ranking member for doing well with a bill that provides far too little 
funding for the important agriculture programs of this country.
  What does this amendment do? My amendment would require that every 
State in the Union, all of the States, get at least .75 percent of the 
funding provided for cotton, tobacco, and rice in this bill. Every 
single State should get .75 percent. Even though 24 States in the Union 
have no cotton, have no rice, have no tobacco, this amendment would 
require that .75 percent of the funding be reserved for those States.
  Before the chairman has a chance to say it, I will say it for him: It 
is a preposterous concept. It is a mind-boggling concept, in fact. Why 
would we allocate funds in an agriculture bill for places like I 
represent in New York City that have no agriculture programs?
  But I say to my colleagues, that is exactly what we recently did in 
the homeland security bill. We said that we are going to allocate a 
fixed amount of money in the homeland security bill, notwithstanding 
the fact that there might be little or no homeland security needs. Did 
this create a wise funding formula? Well, only if one thinks that 
Wyoming should have the highest per capita funding in the country for 
homeland security grants, and California and New York will be one and 
two for the least per capita.
  Now, of course, one would not want to leave Wyoming unprotected, but 
I believe that having a minimum guarantee in that bill was simply 
foolish. After all, New York City had been the target of actual 
terrorism six times between 1993 and 2001. Twice the World Trade Center 
was attacked. Efforts were foiled to destroy the Holland and Lincoln 
Tunnels and the GW Bridge. We were a target in the Anthrax attacks, a 
subway bomb plot and, of course, a mission that was disrupted to blow 
up the Brooklyn Bridge by al Qaeda in 2003.
  I am not saying that we should not find a way to make every city and 
locality safe. But are we really better off because of this formula 
that has .75 percent going to every State? Have we not perhaps reached 
a point that now cities and States are trying to figure out, how the 
heck do we spend this money? Well, the answer is, yes, we have reached 
that point.
  Madisonville, Texas, population 4,200, I understand one of the nicer 
places in Texas, used a $30,000 homeland security grant to buy a custom 
trailer, and I am not making this up, a custom trailer that will be 
used during the annual October Mushroom Festival for people who are 
overheated or injured; and it will double, forgive me, no disrespect to 
the people of Madisonville, Texas intended, it will double as a command 
center during supposed emergencies should al Qaeda attack Madisonville, 
Texas.
  Now, Mr. Chairman, it would be absurd for my amendment to become law. 
It would be a mockery of this House to say that every State should get 
the same amount of tobacco funding even if there are no tobacco farms, 
the same amount of cotton funding even if there are no cotton farms, 
and the same amount of funding even if there are no rice farms. It 
would be absurd. Why, then, do we have other elements of the bill, 
other elements of our law, other appropriation bills that are allocated 
that way? It does not make any sense. Is it really the way it should 
be?
  I have to tell my colleagues something. I am going to be magnanimous. 
I am a representative from Brooklyn and Queens and the beautiful City 
of New York. We do not have tobacco farms. I will tell my colleagues 
what I am going to do: Keep your cotton and tobacco subsidy. Keep your 
agriculture subsidy. We are not farmers, and we are very grateful to 
the men and women of this country who are. They make it possible for 
all of us to eat at prices that are extraordinary. We are the envy of 
the world when it comes to agriculture.
  But can we not also agree that when it comes to things that are not 
so enviable, like the challenge that cities like New York face when 
dealing with homeland security, maybe, just maybe, my colleagues can be 
equally magnanimous? Maybe, just maybe, they can say, you know what? 
Where we have need, where we have threat, we are going to ask for 
money. Where there is no threat, where there is no need, we are not.
  So I would urge my colleagues to vote no on the Weiner amendment, but 
I would urge my colleagues to keep it in mind the next time we consider 
homeland security grants.
  Mr. Chairman, I, to the relief of everyone, I am sure, yield back the 
balance of my time.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the 
amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes 
legislation in an appropriation bill and, therefore, violates clause 2 
of Rule XXI.
  The rule states in pertinent part:
  ``An amendment to a general appropriation bill shall not be in order 
if changing existing law.''
  The amendment gives affirmative direction in effect.
  I ask for a ruling from the Chair.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Does anyone wish to be heard on the point of 
order?
  Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, to paraphrase a line from a movie, I am out 
of order; this whole House is out of order in the way it allocates 
homeland security funds. I do not dispute the point of order, and I 
will yield to the ruling of the Chair.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Chair finds that this amendment includes 
language imparting direction. The amendment, therefore, constitutes 
legislation in violation of clause 2, Rule XXI.
  The point of order is sustained, and the amendment is not in order.

                              {time}  1915


          Sequential Votes Postponed in Committee Of The Whole

  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Terry). Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, 
proceedings will now resume on those amendments on which further 
proceedings were postponed, in the following order: Mr. Hefley of 
Colorado and Mr. Garrett of New Jersey.
  The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote 
after the first vote in this series.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Hefley

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado 
(Mr. Hefley) 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 vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 80, 
noes 335, not voting 18, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 236]

                                AYES--80

     Akin
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Bass
     Bean
     Beauprez
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (TX)
     Burgess
     Buyer
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cox
     Cubin
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Duncan
     Everett
     Feeney
     Flake
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gibbons
     Graves
     Gutknecht
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hostettler
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Linder
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Matheson
     McCotter
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Myrick
     Norwood
     Paul
     Pence
     Petri
     Pitts
     Price (GA)
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Taylor (MS)
     Terry
     Wamp
     Westmoreland
     Wilson (SC)

[[Page 11954]]



                               NOES--335

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Barton (TX)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boustany
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burton (IN)
     Butterfield
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Carter
     Case
     Castle
     Chandler
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (KY)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     Engel
     English (PA)
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fortenberry
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gerlach
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Green (WI)
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall
     Harman
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jefferson
     Jindal
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Marchant
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCaul (TX)
     McCollum (MN)
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McMorris
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Mica
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Musgrave
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Otter
     Owens
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Pearce
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Platts
     Poe
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz (PA)
     Schwarz (MI)
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Shaw
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Sodrel
     Solis
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stark
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sweeney
     Tauscher
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--18

     Cannon
     Culberson
     Gohmert
     Gordon
     Hastings (FL)
     Istook
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Johnson, Sam
     King (IA)
     Marshall
     McHenry
     Menendez
     Payne
     Pickering
     Reynolds
     Rush
     Wasserman Schultz
     Young (AK)


                  Announcement by the Acting Chairman

  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Terry) (during the vote). Members are 
advised that there are 2 minutes remaining in this vote.

                              {time}  1938

  Messrs. BAIRD, LYNCH, INSLEE, RANGEL, KENNEDY of Rhode Island, Ms. 
VELAZQUEZ, and Ms. HART changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. FOSSELLA changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 236 I was unavoidably 
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''
  Stated against:
  Mr. PICKERING. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 236 I was unavoidably 
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''


             Amendment Offered by Mr. Garrett of New Jersey

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey 
(Mr. Garrett) 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 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 169, 
noes 258, not voting 6, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 237]

                               AYES--169

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Capito
     Carter
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Cox
     Cramer
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Deal (GA)
     DeFazio
     DeLay
     Dent
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Emerson
     Everett
     Feeney
     Flake
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gibbons
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harris
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Jindal
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     Kingston
     Kline
     Kolbe
     Kuhl (NY)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marshall
     Matheson
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Otter
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Price (GA)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Smith (TX)
     Sodrel
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Upton
     Walden (OR)
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (SC)
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--258

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Alexander
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barton (TX)
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boustany
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Butterfield
     Buyer
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Case
     Castle
     Chandler
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Tom
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emanuel
     Engel
     English (PA)
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Ford
     Fortenberry
     Frank (MA)
     Gerlach
     Gilchrest
     Gonzalez
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)

[[Page 11955]]


     Kind
     King (NY)
     Kirk
     Knollenberg
     Kucinich
     LaHood
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McKinney
     McMorris
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Nunes
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Owens
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sabo
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz (PA)
     Schwarz (MI)
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Wilson (NM)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Gordon
     Hastings (FL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Menendez
     Pickering
     Young (AK)


                  Announcement by the Acting Chairman

  The Acting CHAIRMAN (during the vote). Members are advised that there 
are 2 minutes remaining in the vote.

                              {time}  1948

  Mr. COLE of Oklahoma and Mr. BARROW changed their vote from ``no'' to 
``aye.''
  Miss McMORRIS changed her vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Mr. PICKERING. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 237 I was unavoidably 
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''
  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Terry). The Clerk will read the last three 
lines.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       This Act may be cited as the ``Agriculture, Rural 
     Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related 
     Agencies Appropriations Act, 2006''.

  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise and 
report the bill back to the House with sundry amendments, with the 
recommendation that the amendments be agreed to and that the bill, as 
amended, do pass.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Bass) having assumed the chair, Mr. Terry, 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. 2744) 
making appropriations for Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug 
Administration, and Related Agencies for the fiscal year ending 
September 30, 2006, and for other purposes, had directed him to report 
the bill back to the House with sundry amendments, with the 
recommendation that the amendments be agreed to and that the bill, as 
amended, do pass.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 303, the 
previous question is ordered.
  Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment? 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.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  Pursuant to clause 10 of rule XX, the yeas and nays are ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 408, 
nays 18, not voting 7, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 238]

                               YEAS--408

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldwin
     Barrett (SC)
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Beauprez
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boustany
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Butterfield
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Carter
     Case
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chandler
     Chocola
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (KY)
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     Engel
     English (PA)
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Farr
     Fattah
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harman
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hostettler
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inglis (SC)
     Inslee
     Israel
     Issa
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     Jindal
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Lynch
     Mack
     Maloney
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCaul (TX)
     McCollum (MN)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McGovern
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McMorris
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Mica
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Otter
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pearce
     Pelosi
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz (PA)
     Schwarz (MI)
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Sodrel
     Solis
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (FL)

[[Page 11956]]



                                NAYS--18

     Bass
     Bean
     Bradley (NH)
     Flake
     Fossella
     Franks (AZ)
     Hefley
     Kucinich
     McDermott
     Miller, Gary
     Paul
     Rohrabacher
     Royce
     Sensenbrenner
     Shays
     Stark
     Tancredo
     Taylor (MS)

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Gordon
     Hastings (FL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Menendez
     Owens
     Smith (TX)
     Young (AK)

                              {time}  2006

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

                          ____________________