[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 152 (2006), Part 7]
[House]
[Pages 9276-9298]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




   AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND 
               RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2007

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 830 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the bill, 
H.R. 5384.

                              {time}  1739


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of 
the bill (H.R. 5384) making appropriations for Agriculture, Rural 
Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies for the 
fiscal year ending September 30, 2007, with Mr. Ryan of Wisconsin in 
the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole rose earlier today, the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul) had been 
disposed of and the bill had been read through page 82, line 14.
  Under the order of the House just entered, the current series of 
votes will continue as 5-minute votes. Any succeeding series of votes 
may include 2-minute votes after the first in a series.


                 Amendment No. 12 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.

[[Page 9277]]




                             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 79, 
noes 342, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 185]

                                AYES--79

     Akin
     Andrews
     Bachus
     Barrett (SC)
     Bass
     Berkley
     Bradley (NH)
     Brown (OH)
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capuano
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Clay
     Culberson
     Davis, Jo Ann
     DeGette
     Dent
     Doggett
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     English (PA)
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Flake
     Fossella
     Franks (AZ)
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gibbons
     Gillmor
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Hyde
     Inglis (SC)
     Istook
     Johnson, Sam
     Kucinich
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Matheson
     McHenry
     McKinney
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (VA)
     Myrick
     Owens
     Paul
     Pence
     Poe
     Price (GA)
     Ramstad
     Rohrabacher
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Stark
     Stearns
     Tancredo
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tiberi
     Van Hollen
     Visclosky
     Wamp
     Waxman
     Wilson (SC)

                               NOES--342

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Allen
     Baca
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     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-Waite, Ginny
     Butterfield
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Capito
     Capps
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Carter
     Case
     Chandler
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     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
     Everett
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gerlach
     Gilchrest
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Green, Al
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harman
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Herger
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     Jindal
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Maloney
     Marchant
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCaul (TX)
     McCollum (MN)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McDermott
     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
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Musgrave
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Otter
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Pearce
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     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
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schmidt
     Schwartz (PA)
     Schwarz (MI)
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Sodrel
     Solis
     Souder
     Spratt
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     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

     Brown, Corrine
     Davis (FL)
     Evans
     Green, Gene
     Hunter
     Issa
     Kennedy (RI)
     Larson (CT)
     Lynch
     Payne
     Snyder

                              {time}  1747

  Mrs. MALONEY changed her vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                 Amendment No. 8 Offered by Mr. Hefley

  The 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 ayes 
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 99, 
noes 322, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 186]

                                AYES--99

     Akin
     Bachus
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Bean
     Beauprez
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cooper
     Davis (KY)
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Duncan
     Everett
     Feeney
     Flake
     Ford
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gibbons
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Gutknecht
     Harris
     Hart
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Inglis (SC)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jenkins
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     King (IA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Matheson
     McCotter
     McHenry
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Myrick
     Norwood
     Otter
     Paul
     Pence
     Petri
     Pitts
     Price (GA)
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rothman
     Royce
     Rush
     Ryan (WI)
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Taylor (MS)
     Terry
     Tiberi
     Westmoreland
     Wilson (SC)
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--322

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boustany
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Butterfield
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Carter
     Case
     Chandler
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Conyers
     Costa
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     Engel
     English (PA)
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gerlach
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Israel

[[Page 9278]]


     Jackson (IL)
     Jefferson
     Jindal
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Marchant
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCaul (TX)
     McCollum (MN)
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McMorris
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     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
     Owens
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Pearce
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Pickering
     Platts
     Poe
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schmidt
     Schwartz (PA)
     Schwarz (MI)
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Shaw
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Sodrel
     Solis
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stark
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sweeney
     Tauscher
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     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
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Brown, Corrine
     Davis (FL)
     Evans
     Hunter
     Issa
     Istook
     Kennedy (RI)
     Larson (CT)
     McHugh
     Payne
     Snyder

                              {time}  1755

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


               Amendment No. 6 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 135, 
noes 281, not voting 16, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 187]

                               AYES--135

     Allen
     Andrews
     Bean
     Berkley
     Berman
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (NY)
     Blackburn
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Bono
     Boucher
     Bradley (NH)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Campbell (CA)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Cooper
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeGette
     DeLay
     Dent
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Drake
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emanuel
     English (PA)
     Eshoo
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gibbons
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Gordon
     Green (WI)
     Gutierrez
     Hart
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Hoekstra
     Holt
     Hostettler
     Inglis (SC)
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Kanjorski
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kind
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kolbe
     Kuhl (NY)
     Langevin
     Lee
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lowey
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Matheson
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meeks (NY)
     Miller, George
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Neal (MA)
     Northup
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Paul
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Platts
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Ramstad
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Royce
     Rush
     Ryan (WI)
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz (PA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Souder
     Stark
     Stearns
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tauscher
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watson
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Westmoreland
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--281

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldwin
     Barrett (SC)
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Beauprez
     Becerra
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boustany
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown (SC)
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Butterfield
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Carter
     Case
     Chandler
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Conyers
     Costa
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     DeFazio
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Edwards
     Emerson
     Engel
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Farr
     Fattah
     Feeney
     Filner
     Foley
     Ford
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harman
     Harris
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Herger
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Holden
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hulshof
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Istook
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     Jindal
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kucinich
     LaHood
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Lynch
     Mack
     Maloney
     Marchant
     Marshall
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCaul (TX)
     McCollum (MN)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McMorris
     Meek (FL)
     Melancon
     Mica
     Michaud
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Otter
     Oxley
     Pastor
     Pearce
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Poe
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (NC)
     Putnam
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (MI)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanders
     Saxton
     Schmidt
     Schwarz (MI)
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (TX)
     Sodrel
     Solis
     Spratt
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Tanner
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wasserman Schultz
     Watt
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)

                             NOT VOTING--16

     Bass
     Brown, Corrine
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Evans
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Issa
     Kennedy (RI)
     Larson (CT)
     McHenry
     Millender-McDonald
     Payne
     Radanovich
     Simmons
     Snyder

                              {time}  1802

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


               Amendment No. 13 Offered by Mr. Gutknecht

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. 
Gutknecht) 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.

[[Page 9279]]

  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 185, 
noes 235, not voting 12, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 188]

                               AYES--185

     Akin
     Andrews
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baldwin
     Bass
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Biggert
     Bishop (NY)
     Boehner
     Bono
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Butterfield
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Capps
     Cardin
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Case
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chandler
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Costello
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Ehlers
     Emanuel
     English (PA)
     Eshoo
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Ford
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (AZ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (WI)
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Harman
     Harris
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Inglis (SC)
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Kucinich
     Kuhl (NY)
     Langevin
     Leach
     Lee
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lynch
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCollum (MN)
     McCrery
     McGovern
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Paul
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Platts
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Ramstad
     Reyes
     Rohrabacher
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (WI)
     Sabo
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz (PA)
     Schwarz (MI)
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shays
     Sherman
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Solis
     Souder
     Stearns
     Stupak
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tiberi
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wynn

                               NOES--235

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Allen
     Baird
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Beauprez
     Berry
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boustany
     Boyd
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carter
     Chocola
     Cleaver
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Cuellar
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (KY)
     Davis (TN)
     Deal (GA)
     DeFazio
     DeLay
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Edwards
     Emerson
     Engel
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Farr
     Feeney
     Filner
     Flake
     Foley
     Forbes
     Foxx
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Hall
     Hart
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hooley
     Hostettler
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Istook
     Jindal
     Johnson, Sam
     Kaptur
     Kildee
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Maloney
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McDermott
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McMorris
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Mica
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Moore (KS)
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Musgrave
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Otter
     Pastor
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Poe
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryun (KS)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Saxton
     Schmidt
     Serrano
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Smith (TX)
     Sodrel
     Spratt
     Stark
     Strickland
     Sullivan
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Wu
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Brown, Corrine
     Culberson
     Davis (FL)
     Evans
     Hunter
     Issa
     Keller
     Kennedy (RI)
     Larson (CT)
     Oxley
     Payne
     Snyder

                              {time}  1811

  Mr. ALEXANDER changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California, Mr. GUTIERREZ, Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ 
and Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts changed their vote from ``no'' to 
``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                   Amendment Offered by Mr. Reichert

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Reichert:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following new section:
       Sec. 7__. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by this Act shall be used to apply part 1124 of 
     title 7, Code of Federal Regulations, to any producer-handler 
     that produces less than 9,000,000 pounds of milk per month.

  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the 
gentleman's amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. A point of order is reserved.
  Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Reichert) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The chair recognizes the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. REICHERT. Mr. Chairman, in April of 2006, the U.S. Department of 
Agriculture issued a proposal 2 years in the making. The rule requires 
the Pacific Northwest and other producer-handler operations that 
produce more than 3 million pounds of milk per month to participate in 
the milk pool.
  To process milk, they must buy from the pool at a set price. This 
helps ensure dairies small and large are paid the same price for their 
milk.
  But do-it-all operations like Smith Brothers Farms in Kent, 
Washington, called producer-handlers, have been exempt from the 
regulations since the Depression. These producer-handlers are dairies 
that produce milk and process it into final product themselves. The 
thinking at the time was they were too small to influence prices and 
could not survive without the exemption.
  Smith Brothers is one of only three dairies left in the Pacific 
Northwest that raise and milk the cows, as well as pasteurize and 
bottle the milk. The new regulations would devastate their business. 
The rule change was meant to target a much larger producer-handler that 
was producing 28 million pounds of milk per month, and this small, 
family-owned business got caught in the crossfire.
  The big change happened when a producer-handler decided to get big. 
It made big investments and went after the big box stores, and because 
it had freedom to set its own prices, it took away business from the 
pool dairies.
  This large milk distributor that I just indicated is producing 28 
million pounds of milk per month and has 13,000 cows. In comparison, 
Smith Brothers Farms in Kent, Washington, produces only 6.5 million 
pounds of milk per month and has only 3,000 cows.
  This order, if allowed to stand, would have a devastating effect on 
dairies like Smith Brothers and would require them to go out of 
business, sell off parts of their dairy operation, and/or pay $100,000 
a month to a pooled penalty or settlement fund which would subsidize 
their dairy operators. This order would limit competition and 
ultimately drive milk prices up in the Pacific Northwest.
  Mr. Chairman, my amendment states that these USDA regulations should

[[Page 9280]]

only apply to very large producers, those that produce 9 million pounds 
of milk per month or more. A 9 million pound hard cap would mean that 
if a producer-distributor exceeds 9 million pounds of Class 1 route 
distribution, they cease to be eligible for producer-handler status and 
become a regulated plant.
  Mr. Chairman, I realize that this amendment will not be made in 
order. However, I hope that we can continue to work on this issue in 
order to protect small dairy farms that provide a unique and valuable 
product to our customers.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to respectfully withdraw my 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the amendment is withdrawn.
  There was no objection.

                              {time}  1815


             Amendment Offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas

  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __. None of the funds appropriated in this Act may be 
     used to deny compensation to eligible individuals filing 
     claims to be satisfied out of the settlement fund approved by 
     the court April 14, 1999 in Pigford v Glickman, 185 F.R.D. 82 
     (D.D.C. 1999).

  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the 
gentlewoman's amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman reserves a point of order.
  Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Texas.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume, and I want to thank the ranking member, Ms. DeLauro, and 
the chairman, Mr. Bonilla.
  Frankly, under ordinary circumstances, in regular order, Mr. 
Chairman, it would be appropriate to argue this amendment and to seek 
to overrule or to defend, if you will, the point of order. But I am 
offering this amendment to, in essence, give light to an unending 
problem to an aspect of the agricultural industry here in the United 
States.
  Mr. Chairman, this is an issue that has been worked on by many 
Members of Congress. However, unlike as in the words ``silence is 
golden,'' the absence of silence of debate on this question is not 
golden and has really hurt African-American farmers, black farmers. 
They have been working a number of years to secure the enforcement of a 
settlement that was rendered some years ago, in 1999, under the 
Glickman administration, when Mr. Glickman was the Secretary of 
Agriculture when President Clinton was in office.
  This is a civil rights case stemming from years and years of being 
denied farm loans, with documented information regarding the many 
regions where black farmers were. Black farmers were, in essence, sort 
of the legacy of slavery to the extent that many of them gained their 
land through that period. Many of them farmed the land and were great 
contributors to American society in general, but certainly to the farm 
industry of America. When they began to ask for farm loans, as other 
farmers did, interestingly enough, the Department of Agriculture 
systematically and on racial grounds denied them loans, therefore 
causing a lot of foreclosures and the unnecessary losing by African 
Americans of their farmlands.
  I am grateful to past administrations, and even to those in this 
administration, who understand the plight of these farmers. Without the 
loans, many farmers faced foreclosures, as I said, and lost their 
farms. In 1920, African Americans owned one in seven farms. Today, it 
is one in 100, and I might argue it is even less than that. A large 
number of African Americans did not then and many do not today even 
know that the lawsuit exists.
  So the issue before us is the question of extending the statute of 
limitations so that no farmer is denied. And the language of my 
amendment says that no funds shall be utilized to deny any eligible 
farmers for this particular consent decree that comes under the Pigford 
v. Glickman consent order.
  I want you to know, Mr. Chairman, that this was a class action and 
that it was agreed to by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. That is an 
important point. We have been trying to work on legislation that would 
waive or extend the statute of limitations, but it is important in the 
context of the agriculture appropriations bill to let it be known that 
there are farmers who weren't given the monies to survive and, 
therefore, are in need of the serious look of the Appropriations 
Committee to continue to press the Department of Agriculture to make 
good on the consent order that they agreed to.
  The discrimination in the USDA was so common during the period of 
1980 to 1986 that the Glickman case determined that anyone bringing a 
claim with a valid showing should receive compensation. In fact, any 
nonwhite American farmer should receive compensation because the 
discrimination was so pervasive.
  So, in essence, this opportunity is to make a plea to the United 
States Congress not to forget these farmers and to take the language of 
the Glickman Department of Agriculture, which is in essence this 
Department of Agriculture, who found such blatant discrimination, such 
broad-based discrimination that the definition was anyone, anyone who 
could make their case was eligible, and my language speaks to any 
eligible person.
  We have a barrier of the statute of limitations and we have a barrier 
of no one listening. We have a barrier of no one shining light on this 
plight and a barrier, if you will, of not recognizing that America's 
small farmers, which African Americans are, are the backbone of our 
farming industry and really are the backbone of the importance of the 
farming community here in the United States.
  We are trying to help family farmers. We are insisting on family 
farmers surviving. We want to encourage them by the growth of the 
ethanol production and, therefore, we should try to encourage these 
African American farmers who were just randomly denied loans, without 
any criteria for the denial, just on the basis of race, to be able to 
make good on this important legislation and this consent decree.
  In essence, Mr. Chairman, this amendment is to say to my colleagues 
that ``none of the funds appropriated in this act may be used to deny 
compensation to eligible individuals filing claims to be satisfied out 
of the settlement fund approved by the court April 14, 1999.''
  I look forward to yielding to the distinguished gentleman on the 
point of order.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Kuhl of New York). Does the gentleman 
continue to reserve his point of order?
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the point of order and claim 
time in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. BONILLA. The gentlewoman's time has expired, I realize, but just 
this comment that she is correct, that this is an issue that needs to 
be addressed by the Congress, and I would encourage Members to address 
these concerns.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BONILLA. I would be happy to yield briefly.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I thank you. I thank you for acknowledging 
that, Mr. Chairman, and I thank the ranking member for acknowledging 
this important issue, and I look forward to working with you in this 
body.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw this amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the amendment is withdrawn.
  There was no objection.


             Amendment Offered by Mr. Garrett of New Jersey

  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

[[Page 9281]]

  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 82, after line 14, insert the following:
       Sec. 753. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used to send or otherwise pay for the attendance of more 
     than 50 employees from a Federal department or agency at any 
     single conference occurring outside the United States.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentleman from New Jersey and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey.
  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I will not use my entire 5 
minutes.
  This is an amendment on an appropriations bill that we have seen in 
some other ones that have passed previously, and it goes to the issue 
of how we have addressed over the last couple of days spending.
  Regardless of which side of the aisle that you may come from, I think 
Members from both sides of the aisle will agree with one thing, and 
that is that our deficits are too high. When we are spending our 
taxpayers' dollars, we must be ever vigilant to be sure we are spending 
them wisely. Again, this amendment is a commonsense limitation on those 
hard-earned tax dollars.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman presents a good amendment, 
and we will be happy to offer support for him if the gentleman can 
submit his remarks and move the amendment to a vote.
  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Reclaiming my time, I thank the chairman 
for his comments, and I will then conclude my remarks simply by saying 
that this is an issue that has already been addressed in the Senate, 
somewhat extensively, pointing out the egregious examples in the past 
where extraordinary numbers of Federal employees have gone on 
international conferences.
  So what the amendment simply does, at the end of the day, is put a 
finite number on that. In this bill it limits it down to 50 conferees 
to attend any international conference. We believe that is a reasonable 
number. We believe that any agency will be able to live within those 
numbers, and again I appreciate the chairman's acceptance of this 
amendment.
  While those on each side of the aisle may differ on how we got there, 
I think that most Members of this body agree that our deficit is far 
too high.
  That is why the amendment I am offering is a commonsense approach to 
help limit spending and abuse of all of our constituent's hard-earned 
tax dollars.
  My amendment will limit the number of Federal employees that are sent 
to international conferences funded under this bill to 50. The 
amendment also limits that dollar amount that can be spent to $8.2 
million, which is the level spent in FY01. We have seen about a 25 
percent increase between then and FY05, far too great an increase while 
we are operating with such high deficits.
  Recently there has been a trend by our government to send a far 
excessive amount of staff to these international conferences, costing 
taxpayers millions of extra dollars.
  While like all of my colleagues, I understand the importance of 
staff, I am simply seeking to make sure that only essential staff are 
utilized during these expensive foreign conferences.
  While one more staffer here, and one more staffer there doesn't sound 
like much, it could mean one more shift a worker in my district has to 
work instead of being home with his family.
  Due to my limited time I won't bore the floor with all the egregious 
examples. But I will note that unfortunately these conferences are a 
pattern of excess government.
  This amendment has passed in various appropriations bills and is an 
excellent way to show this body's commitment to fiscal responsibility. 
I urge all of my colleagues' support.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New Jersey.
  The amendment was agreed to.


                    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:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), add the 
     following new section:
       Sec. 7__. Using funds that would otherwise be paid during 
     fiscal year 2007 as direct payments and counter-cyclical 
     payments with regard to cotton 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 point of order is reserved.
  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. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  There is some irony in the chairman of the committee raising a point 
of order against this bill, because the purpose of this amendment is to 
point out how badly out of order one part of our budget is.
  What my amendment does is it requires that each and every State in 
the Union get a minimum amount of agriculture programs for cotton and 
rice, whether they have cotton or rice or not. New York, for example, 
has no cotton production and has no rice production. This amendment 
would guarantee that New York gets a minimum amount; .75 percent, of 
the budget for cotton and rice should go to New York. It guarantees 
that all States, and there are about 25 or 30 of them that have no 
cotton or rice subsidies, get a minimum guarantee of cotton and rice 
funding.
  Now, why would I offer such a thing? Why would you propose such an 
absurd notion, that any program designed for a specific constituency, 
those that make cotton and rice, would get a minimum guarantee? Well, 
that is exactly the question those of us in high-threat urban areas ask 
about homeland security funding all the time. Yet, believe it or not, a 
minimum amount, .75 percent, of homeland security funds go to every 
single State in the Union.
  What is the result? The result is the number one per capita recipient 
of homeland security funds isn't New York, it is not Washington, DC, it 
is not California or Orlando, where Disney World is. It is Wyoming. 
Wyoming, in fact, gets $18.33 per capita while New York gets only $2.60 
because there is a minimum guarantee that every State get a certain 
amount of homeland security funds.
  So I have often said to my colleagues, wouldn't it be ridiculous to 
do that if this was any other program? Well, let's see. I am offering 
an amendment here that would do just that, and I hope what it does is 
it serves to get my colleagues thinking a little bit about how 
government programs should be allocated.
  I think all of us would agree that there is an appropriate place for 
agriculture programs. I would hope all of us agree that in a post-9/11 
world there is an appropriate role for the Federal Government in 
distributing aid for homeland security. But certainly we should be able 
to agree that just as it makes sense for cotton farmers to get cotton 
subsidies, those in the greatest threat of a homeland security attack 
should get the greatest portion of those funds.
  Having a minimum guarantee, as there is in the present law, of .75 
percent for every single State for homeland security funds, creates the 
most distorting effect. Vermont gets $15.28 for homeland security for 
each and every man, woman and child in Vermont, while California and 
New York get in the low $2 range. It simply makes no sense.
  So I would encourage my colleagues to think in terms of the farm 
program when we come up and talk about the homeland security program. I 
would encourage you to think about the idea that Mr. Bonilla and Ms. 
DeLauro

[[Page 9282]]

worked so hard to make sure the people that need the aid get the aid, 
and we should do that type of thing when we are considering homeland 
security funds.
  It is out of order to say every State should get a minimum guarantee 
of agriculture programs, but it is equally out of order to make that 
assertion about homeland security funds. So I would say to my good 
friends in agriculture States, I am a person from New York. What I know 
from agriculture, notwithstanding the little I know about pests, is I 
know that the agriculture community produces a breadbasket of food 
second to none, and we need to do what we can to make sure that our 
programs here in Washington support them.
  We formed a coalition throughout time, frankly, between rural areas 
and urban areas around our needs. We used to, in the 1980s and early 
1990s, when it came to transportation funding, you would vote for that 
though it might not benefit you directly, and we would vote for 
agriculture funding. But never, never did we say in these programs 
there should be an absolute minimum guarantee for a program, 
particularly one like the Department of Homeland Security, which goes 
according to risk.
  So I would urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the Weiner 
amendment. Let us have a minimum guarantee, and maybe if we have every 
program by a minimum guarantee, we will realize it is absurd to have 
that formula for any program.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1830


                             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. Kuhl of New York). Does any other Member 
wish to be heard on the point of order?
  Mr. WEINER. Mr. Speaker, I agree that we are legislating on an 
appropriation bill, and I agree it is out of order to oppose or pass 
the notion that every State should have a minimum guarantee. It is 
exactly that ruling and exactly that language from the chairman that I 
would ask you to keep in mind when we consider other legislation.
  Minimum guarantees are not the way we legislate around here. We 
legislate based on need; and, frankly, it is clear that we are not 
allocating homeland security resources. And just the way this will be 
ruled out of order, I hope you keep that in mind when we consider those 
measures as well.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Does any other Member wish to be heard on the 
point of order?
  Hearing none, the Chair finds that this amendment includes language 
imparting direction. The amendment therefore constitutes legislation in 
violation of clause 2 of rule XXI. The point of order is sustained. The 
amendment is not in order.


             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 82, after line 14, insert the following:
       Sec. 853. None of the funds provided under the heading 
     ``TITLE IV--DOMESTIC FOOD PROGRAMS--food stamp program'' 
     shall 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 of today, the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey.
  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as 
I may consume.
  I rise again this afternoon for what I believe is a commonsense and 
important amendment to the legislation before us; commonsense simply 
because at the end of the day all the amendment does is to say we 
should be enforcing the current law.
  As it stands right now, 8 U.S.A., section 1183, states that an 
affidavit must be filed by a sponsor of an incoming alien to the 
country. That affidavit is a legally binding guarantee on the part of 
the sponsor that the immigrant that they are sponsoring will not become 
a ``public charge.'' What I am citing here is nothing new. This public 
charge requirement goes all the way back to immigration policy of the 
1880s.
  So what this amendment does today is simply restate that in strong 
terms saying that no funds appropriated under this act, under the Food 
Stamp Program, will be spent in noncompliance of current Federal law. 
The reason we do this is to reinforce the fact that the laws on the 
books should be enforced.
  And, secondly, it addresses another point as well. Some people might 
argue that there is not enough money in the Food Stamp Program for all 
of the needs that are out there, and we can debate that from one side 
to the other. But if you honestly believe that there isn't enough money 
out there for the entire Food Stamp Program, I think we all agree from 
both sides of the aisle that the money in the program should be going 
to the people that it was intended for in compliance with the statute 
and in compliance with current law.
  So on that, I will conclude by saying we are asking nothing more than 
the Food Stamp Program currently in existence today comply with the 
laws set forth.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I would like claim time in opposition, 
even though I am not opposed.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman from Texas is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding that this amendment 
that the gentleman from New Jersey has worked very hard on tells the 
Department to comply with existing law, and at this point we have no 
objection to the amendment and would move the vote.
  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 
ayes appeared to have it.
  Ms. DeLAURO. 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 
will be postponed.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Baca

  Mr. BACA. 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. Baca:
       Page 82, after line 14, insert the following:
       Sec. 753. None of the funds appropriated by this Act may be 
     expended to reimburse a State agency for expenses under 
     section 16(a) of the Food Stamp Act of 1977 if the State 
     agency has implemented operational changes in the food stamp 
     program designed to increase the total percentage of 
     applications submitted by mail, by telephone, and on-line to 
     more than 20 percent of the total applications submitted in 
     that State unless the State agency can certify, and it is 
     further certified by the Secretary of Agriculture, that 
     persons with disabilities will retain equal access to the 
     food stamp program, that such persons will receive fair 
     service, and that the State agency's plan would comply with 
     applicable civil rights laws, including the American's with 
     Disabilities Act and section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act.

  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I rise to reserve a point of order against 
the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman's point of order is reserved.
  Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the gentleman from 
California

[[Page 9283]]

(Mr. Baca) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
  Mr. BACA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  We must stop throwing away good money after bad policy. Some States 
are taking misguided steps in administering the Food Stamp Program and 
other public benefits. Moving 20 to 50 percent of all cases online or 
to remote calling centers makes little sense, creating problems for 
those most in need.
  The fact is, disabled, undereducated and minority food stamp 
participants are losing their food stamp benefit because of these cost-
cutting privatization initiatives.
  What is happening in Texas is a waste of Federal funds. The Texas 
State comptroller called for an investigation of the new public benefit 
system. The Texas State comptroller said that the Accenture contract 
appears to be a perfect storm of wasting tax dollars, reducing access 
to services, and profiteering at the expense of taxpayers.
  The new eligibility system is a disaster. More than 300,000 children 
have left the CHIP program. This has been blamed on the contractor's 
loss of applications, payments that were not credited to the proper 
accounts, and families who have been improperly denied benefits.
  Mr. Chairman, we cannot allow other States to be misguided down the 
road. If the Baca-Doggett-Green amendment would have been in order, we 
would have forced States to certify that changes to the application 
process are not hurting sensitive communities under existing civil 
rights and disabilities law.
  People on food stamps and other public benefits need our help to 
ensure that new program structures, privatization and other changes do 
not harm them and do not take away food from the table. That is the 
purpose of this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Doggett).
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, a massive experiment on poor people in 
Texas has been a true disaster. Mr. Baca seeks to ensure that all 
Americans are protected from the same thing happening to them.
  Apparently, there were some people, who thought that Accenture could 
do just as good a job in responding to food stamp inquiries as it did 
dodging its fair share of taxes by moving off to Bermuda. They were 
wrong.
  Even our Republican comptroller, as Mr. Baca has noted, says we have 
had a storm, ``a perfect storm of wasted tax dollars.'' Many members of 
our Texas delegation this very week have written to the Governor saying 
that we believe ``assisting families with nutrition and health care is 
not an expense, it is an investment in our community,'' and noting that 
face-to-face assistance by our public employees cannot be substituted 
by a machine, with turning poor people over to the Internet or a phone 
call in a distant city instead of a human being.
  Moreover, our Texas State locations have ``well-trained eligibility 
employees.'' Those are the employees that our Texas Governor proposed 
to dismiss. We need to keep them there, and this amendment would help 
accomplish that.
  Mr. BACA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Al Green).
  Mr. AL GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak on behalf of 
some of our most vulnerable Americans who are being denied access to 
needed food stamps because of States eliminating face-to-face 
interviews.
  Mr. Chairman, I speak on behalf of children, the elderly, disabled, 
and those with limited literacy. I regret that they are not here to 
speak for themselves because if they were here to speak for themselves, 
they would tell you about the 20-minute phone waits. They would tell 
you about the phone calls that have been abandoned because they had to 
wait too long, 44 percent per the USDA.
  They would tell you about the inability to use the phone because they 
cannot speak, the inability to use the phone because they cannot hear. 
They would tell you about the lack of computer access and the lack of 
computer literacy.
  This amendment ensures a user-friendly system for some of our most 
vulnerable Americans. I speak for them. I stand with them. I cast my 
vote for them.
  Mr. BACA. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my 
amendment given that this amendment would be subject to a point of 
order, and hope that Chairman Bonilla and Ranking Member DeLauro will 
work to increase congressional oversight on this issue.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the amendment is withdrawn.
  There was no objection.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, on the immediately preceding amendment that was just 
withdrawn, this is an issue I have followed closely for a long time, 
and I have questioned USDA officials about this. I offered a motion to 
instruct conferees on the 2006 conference report on this issue. There 
is no question that this ill-considered plan must comply with all of 
our civil rights laws.
  I applaud the gentleman for his effort. I would also like to tell 
Members about what a mess the Texas effort to privatize not only the 
Food Stamp Program but other critical social services is in.
  Just last week, Texas announced that the work by the company awarded 
the $899 million privatization contract, Accenture, was so bad it was 
putting the privatization effort on, what was described in the press, 
and I quote, ``indefinite hold.''
  Texas also announced it was going to give 1,000 State employees that 
it had planned to lay off bonuses of $1,800 so they would stay to help 
fix the mess created by Accenture. Accenture's mismanagement of the 
State's CHIP program was so bad that 28,000 children were scheduled to 
lose their coverage in May, on top of an already large drop in 
enrollment since privatization occurred. The State had to intervene to 
keep the children enrolled.
  As part of the 2006 conference report, USDA is required to send the 
committee quarterly reports on the Texas situation. The second and most 
recent report from the USDA, like the first, is very blunt in its 
assessment of the problems they see with what Texas has done with 
respect to the food stamp portion of this.
  The report says: ``The following concerns give pause to expansion 
without substantial improvements in system functionality to support a 
more ambitious implementation agenda.''
  Among the concerns: Long wait times for calls; high abandonment rates 
by callers; vendor performance is questionable as evidenced by the high 
percentage of cases that are returned to the vendor because of missing 
information and errors; case file documentation needs to be 
substantially improved to support program access and integrity; vendor 
performance on handling calls shows problems with the staffing and 
training resulting in information to the extent that it is unclear 
whether applicants will know how to apply.
  The simple truth is that this effort is a disaster and it threatens 
the right of Texans to get the benefits to which they are entitled.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Flake

  Mr. FLAKE. 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. Flake:
       At the end of the bill, before the short title, insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to fund dairy education in Iowa.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, before the gentleman begins, I ask 
unanimous consent that the amendment be read,

[[Page 9284]]

and the reason I am doing this is because we are not sure which 
amendment we are addressing and in what order.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the Clerk will report the 
amendment.
  There was no objection.
  The Clerk read the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Arizona is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Before addressing this particular earmark, let me make a few general 
comments about what we are going to do today.
  Today we will engage in a debate that has been a long time in coming. 
I plan to offer several amendments to this bill to block funding for a 
series of Member earmarks that are contained in the committee report 
that accompanies the bill.
  Let me point out that the House has already voted in the lobby reform 
bill a few weeks ago to require that Members attach their names to 
their earmarks; yet this committee report has come to the floor with 
more than 400 earmarks and not one name. They are not required to do so 
until the bill passes both Chambers, but it would be nice to have the 
names attached.
  Let me state from the outset I am under no illusion that I can block 
funding for any of these earmarks we will discuss. I am well acquainted 
with the process of log rolling where one Member agrees to support 
another Member's earmarks if that Member will agree to do the same. I 
suspect that log rolling will prevail here today.
  But it is about time that we provide a little window into the 
process. Is it the Federal Government's responsibility to recruit dairy 
farmers from other regions to move to northeast Iowa, as one of the 
earmarks we will discuss today purports to do?
  Is the need so great this year to fund the National Grape and Wine 
Initiative that we should add $100,000 in debt owed by future 
generations?
  Since our responsibility as Members of Congress is to prioritize 
limited resources, do we really want to tell taxpayers that we believe 
that spending $180,000 on hydroponic tomato production is more pressing 
than other issues?
  I expect that a few of the amendments I will offer today will be 
successfully blocked because of a point of order. The reason: because 
we have no documentation that a Federal agency that will fund the 
project knows anything about the project that is to be funded.

                              {time}  1845

  To successfully challenge the earmark requires an assumption that the 
agency is familiar with the project. Otherwise, we might be legislating 
on an appropriation bill, a violation of our rules. The incentive, 
therefore, for Members looking to protect their earmarks, is to be 
either vague or silent about the project's goals and its oversight.
  Let us think about that for a minute. How are we supposed to exercise 
oversight for these earmarked projects? Who is to be held accountable? 
Not the government agency. By upholding the point of order, we are 
stipulating that the agency might as well not even know that the 
project exists.
  In the end, since rank-and-file Members can't even challenge those 
earmarks without being subject to a point of order and the agencies 
don't know anything about them and since we don't even know who 
requested the earmark in the first place, the only individuals who have 
any oversight function are selected members of the Appropriations 
Committee or their staff.
  Mr. Chairman, it does not speak well for us as legislators when the 
first and last documentation of these earmarks is found in Members' 
press releases. I would like to think that we can do better than that. 
I think that all of us were elected to this august body with higher 
aspirations than to grovel for crumbs that might fall from 
appropriators' tables.
  We need to reform the process. We need to get back to the process of 
authorization, appropriation and oversight. That is what this branch of 
government is supposed to do. We diminish ourselves at our office when 
we stray from that course.
  This particular earmark or this particular amendment seeks to strike 
funding for an earmark to provide $229,000 to retain and grow the 
business of existing dairies and recruit dairy farmers from other 
regions to northeast Iowa. What business is it of the Federal 
Government to recruit dairy farmers to move from other regions to 
northeast Iowa?
  This work is to be carried out primarily at the Northeast Iowa 
Community College Dairy Center, and it is funded through the 
Cooperative State Research, Education and Extension Services Extension 
Activities. The agricultural appropriation bill for fiscal year 2007 
includes more than $750 million for extension activities, which is more 
than $5 million last year and $26 million over the President's request. 
I should point out, funding for this program was not included in the 
President's request.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  This Congress was the first one in a generation last year to cut 
discretionary spending. The gentleman's amendment also does not do one 
thing to reduce spending in the bill.
  Yes, it would remove language for the particular project that the 
gentleman is referencing, but then that money would be reverted back to 
the Federal agency, to whatever office disseminates this money, and 
then it would be left to some career bureaucrat to make the decision. 
Now, there are a lot of professionals that work at that level, but I 
for the life of me could not understand why we would leave all of those 
decisions up to the Federal agencies.
  Let me also say that this bill, aside from the discretionary spending 
we cut last year as fiscal conservatives, we cut this bill almost $100 
million from last year, and the ``earmarks'' that are being referenced 
in this debate only make up 2 percent of this bill. So for all the 
grandiose statements that are being made here about being a champion of 
fiscal conservatism, big deal.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my distinguished colleague from 
Iowa (Mr. Latham).
  Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I think it is fascinating the way this 
amendment reads. None of the funds made available in this act may be 
used to fund dairy education in Iowa. Now, I don't know whether that 
means, apparently, it is okay to educate people about dairy in 
Wisconsin and Minnesota and Arizona; I think we should. I don't know 
what you have necessarily against dairymen in Iowa.
  Mr. Chairman, the funds contained in the bill for the northeast Iowa 
dairy education project are extremely important to Iowa's dairy 
industry because they help foster and enhance the development of new 
dairy-producing operations and mostly among young dairy farmers.
  Throughout the northeast region in my district, I hear about the 
continuing success of this program and how the program has made 
meaningful differences to the small dairy producers in this part of the 
State. If one is a small dairy producer, of which there are many in the 
State, continuing education is very important. The education project 
aids the retention and growth of existing dairy farms and responds to 
challenges to dairy farmers.
  This project is also important to necessary research, and it is 
coordinated with Iowa State University, also the National Animal 
Disease Center; it coordinates with this project. And it really is 
something that goes to not only diseases but state-of-the-art 
production and environmental management techniques. I should also note 
that the funding for this project leverages $9 million, or has in the 
past, $9 million of non-Federal funding. So it is not like

[[Page 9285]]

the people, the farmers up there, the producers themselves, have not 
put their dollars in with this project.
  It is extremely important, and I would certainly ask people to vote 
against this amendment.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  The only reason we limit it to dairy education in Iowa is to ensure 
that our amendment was made in order. Believe me, if there were dairy 
education for Arizona, I would strike that as well. We simply shouldn't 
have programs like this.
  Let me just say, according to the Iowa State Dairy Association, the 
Iowa State dairy industry contributes more than $1.5 billion to the 
economy and provides more than 26,000 jobs. I would submit that 
spending $229,000 isn't going to do much to change that trend one way 
or another. It is simply something we shouldn't do.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I would only briefly say again that a vote to support this amendment 
does not a single thing to cut spending in this bill and would just 
turn over all the decision-making process to a government agency. The 
Constitution calls for the House of Representatives to decide how funds 
are allocated, and I am a great believer in that. I urge all Members to 
vote ``no.''
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the 
noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. FLAKE. 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 Arizona will 
be postponed.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Flake

  Mr. FLAKE. 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. Flake:
       At the end of the bill, before the short title, insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to fund the Fruit and Vegetable Market Analysis, 
     Arizona and Missouri grant.

  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, again just for clarification, I would ask 
unanimous consent that the amendment be read so we understand which 
amendment is before us.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the Clerk will read the 
amendment.
  There was no objection.
  The Clerk read the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  The committee has provided $350,000 for providing analysis of the 
impacts of trade, environmental, monetary, and other policies on the 
Nation's fruit and vegetable industry to stakeholders. This research is 
to be carried out by Arizona State University and the University of 
Missouri. I should note that Arizona State University has a campus in 
my district.
  The original goal of the research was to respond in a timely manner 
to requests for policy-relevant information from congressional Members 
and their staffs on a wide variety of topics that impact the fruit and 
vegetable industry and consumers. The project also develops 10-year 
baseline projections on production, prices, consumption and trade for 
the fruit and vegetable sector. The funding is through the Cooperative 
State Research, Education and Extension Service's Special Research 
grants, which are congressionally directed and noncompetitive research 
earmarks awarded to universities. Again, these are noncompetitive 
research earmarks awarded to universities.
  The agriculture appropriations for fiscal year 2007 includes more 
than $100 million in these earmarks, many that have persisted for years 
and can only be terminated by Congress.
  The Fruit and Vegetable Market Analysis has been receiving Federal 
funds since 2002 and has received more than $1.3 million in 
appropriations. This earmark, again, was not included in the 
President's request and this project has no formal evaluation. There is 
no expected completion date with this analysis, and it is expected to 
be ongoing.
  Here is another example: There are so few opportunities for oversight 
here. When you contact the Federal agencies, it is difficult to even 
determine if they know that these projects exist. Who is supposed to be 
providing oversight here? In Congress, we are not, certainly. I mean, a 
lot of these programs, some of the earmarks that we will discuss today 
were expected to be 2-year programs. They have gone on for over a 
decade. When do we say, enough is enough? Where is the oversight? If 
the Federal agency is not providing the oversight, if they do not even 
know of the program, and Congress is not providing the oversight, how 
do we know that we are getting our bang for the buck?
  These are pork barrel projects. We should not be funding them.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Once again, the gentleman who is proposing this amendment somehow 
thinks that this is going to save money in the bill.
  Let me point out also, in addition to the remarks I made earlier 
about cutting discretionary spending and cutting this bill back this 
year, there have also been cuts in this bill where funding for the 
Member priorities are down $35 million or 8 percent from last year. So 
the effort to deal with fiscal conservatism is ongoing and continues 
from last year when we started cutting discretionary spending. We also 
terminate eight Federal programs for a savings of more than $4 million.
  So anyone who thinks that we are not concerned about fiscal 
conservatism can look at the facts and figures before them. And we 
understand that the media likes to talk about Member priorities, but I 
would suggest that anyone who is truly serious and is not looking for 
recognition would work on entitlement reform, which is where the vast 
majority of our government funds go to, and that would really make a 
big mark on cutting back on spending, not amendments such as this one 
that do not cut one penny out of this bill. And I hope our colleagues 
and the constituents that are watching this are not somehow fooled into 
thinking that this amendment cuts one penny out of this bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  It strikes me as odd that the Appropriations Committee claims that 
this is money that is going to be spent anyway. We have no control. 
This is money, if we knock it out of here, it will just be spent 
elsewhere.
  What are we here for? Are we potted plants, just here to watch money 
go out the door?
  We are here to prioritize. We are here to say, this ought to be 
funded, that should not be funded.
  Last Friday, we had a great discussion about the Military Quality of 
Life bill, where there was funding in there that was put in emergency 
category. Surely the Appropriations Committee or the House as a whole 
can say this $500 million that we are doing in earmarks here in the 
agriculture bill perhaps could go to Military Quality of Life. Why can 
we not do that?
  This notion that we have no control and we cannot move money from one 
account to another is simply absurd. We can. We are Members of 
Congress. That is what we are here to do, to prioritize. So I 
completely reject the notion that we cannot do this.

[[Page 9286]]

  Also, on the subject of earmarks versus entitlements, I think my 
colleague in the Senate said it well: Earmarks are the gateway drug to 
spending addiction. Once you get earmarks, then it is much easier to 
get other spending as well. A lot of the entitlement programs that we 
have expanded, the prescription drug benefit, for example, was made 
possible because of so many earmarks on other bills.
  Earmarks are a problem. It does add up to real money. I believe the 
transportation bill last year was some $27 billion in earmarks. That is 
not chump change. And I think that Americans all over are concerned 
about this and rightly so.
  Also, when you have a process here where there are no names attached 
to the earmarks, we do not know how to find out about these programs.

                              {time}  1900

  We simply don't know. We contact the Federal agencies. Half the time 
they don't know about the programs. Where are we to provide oversight? 
That is one of our responsibilities, and we are not doing it here.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, Members come to the floor and offer amendments that 
have either substantive increases or decreases to appropriations bills. 
I use as an example a sincere Member from the State of Colorado, comes 
here every year with an amendment to cut spending that has a true 
impact on the bill. Whether he succeeds or not, there are votes held on 
that and honest debate is held.
  But, again, when amendments are presented in this form, there is no 
savings. Anyone who suggests that there is a savings in writing 
amendments like this is a fool, because they are not cutting a single 
penny from the appropriations bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, in this 30 seconds, let me explain that the 
Appropriations Committee, all they have to do is tell the Budget 
Committee we would like a lower 302(b) allocation. The Budget 
Committee, believe me, will be glad to do that.
  I am offering 11 amendments today. The FY 07 agriculture 
appropriations bill has more than 450 amendments; 450. That is nearly 
identical to the 10-year average, according to CRS.
  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 Arizona (Mr. Flake).
  The amendment was rejected.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Flake

  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all 
amendments remaining, with the exception of the last one, be read, just 
so we know which one we are dealing with, because we have a stack of 
papers we are looking at.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. That can be addressed ad hoc.
  Without objection, the Clerk will read the amendment.
  There was no objection.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Flake:
       At the end of the bill, before the short title, insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to fund the Food Marketing Policy Center, Connecticut 
     grant.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment for the Food Marketing Policy Center is 
a Connecticut earmark. The committee has provided $579,000 for a center 
that analyzes strategies and public policies that impact the marketing 
of food as well as food safety marketing.
  I would ask again, what business is it of the Federal Government, 
with far higher priorities, to fund an earmark like this? I would say 
again to those who say, well, if you strike funding for this, the 
funding will simply go to the agencies and they will spend it on their 
own, we can instruct the Budget Committee, again, to say please lower 
the allocations. Let's spend less on earmarks and spend more on body 
armor or something else. We have the power to make those priorities, 
yet we are not.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, to begin the position of those opposed, I 
yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the 
gentleman's amendment and want to say a few words about the work done 
at the University of Connecticut's Food Marketing Policy Center. It is 
hardly frivolous.
  The policy center has an established track record as a research 
resource for policymakers across the world. It conducts research on a 
variety of food and agricultural marketing, safety related policy 
matters, information that contributes to the work that we do to improve 
our food production, marketing, and safety systems.
  Let me give you a couple of examples how it has helped us here in the 
Congress and impacted consumers:
  In 2003, the Food Marketing Policy Center research on fluid milk 
pricing in the Northeast and Pacific Northwest uncovered gouging by 
supermarket chains. After the demise of the Northeast Dairy Compact, 
farm prices had plummeted, but retail prices in New England only had 
declined marginally. The center estimated that milk at $3 per gallon 
retail in New England supermarkets was $1 above its supply cost for 
nearly 2 years, hurting farmers as much as consumers. Their research is 
helping us determine new approaches to fluid milk channel pricing.
  Another example: other research done at the center just last year 
includes work done on food access for low-income consumers, the impact 
of foot and mouth disease and new approaches to animal health and 
biosecurity. On the latter point, the center has worked to outline the 
regulatory inconsistencies between the U.S. and other countries and the 
impact on the export markets for U.S. beef.
  Particularly as we in the subcommittee work to ensure our food supply 
is safe in the face of an increasing number of new threats and market 
realities, we understand the need for the best research possible. That 
is what we get from this center and what we get in return for a very 
small investment from the USDA via the CSREES program, an investment, I 
would remind my colleagues, that leverages additional support from 
academic and industry sources. It is, in fact, a public-private 
partnership.
  I believe we in the Congress have an obligation to hold up our end of 
the bargain and fund the center. Farmers rely on it, consumers rely on 
it, public agencies, State legislatures, and even us, even some here in 
the Congress.
  So let's support the center. Let's support getting the best 
agricultural research that is possible.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume to 
ask the gentlewoman if she would engage in a colloquy on this.
  May I ask how long this program has been in existence?
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, yes, you may 
ask that question, and if you can give me a second, I will get that 
information.
  Mr. FLAKE. Approximately is fine.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Just over the last 3 years.
  Mr. FLAKE. Has there been a marked improvement in the way we have 
studied these issues? Didn't we get along just fine before this program 
existed?

[[Page 9287]]


  Ms. DeLAURO. I just laid out for you the specific incidents. I don't 
make them up. You can go back and you can check them. But I laid out 
for you several areas in which the research and the effort has been 
extremely important and helpful to farmers, to consumers, and to those 
of us here.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, should we not have 
similar programs for other industries, perhaps have other earmarks to 
help us analyze the cost of computers?
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield further, let 
me just say to you, that is not the issue at hand here. We are 
discussing this program. You have concerns about it. I will just say I 
appreciate your asking questions. I tried to answer the questions, and 
I think that I have provided, and given a lot more time, I could 
provide further information about all that this center is doing and how 
in fact it meets its mission in terms of assisting consumers and 
farmers and the general public.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentlewoman. 
It makes the point why we have over the past decade increased the 
number of earmarks by, I believe it is, 872 percent. That is not 
something as a Republican that I am proud of at all. We had just under 
15,000 earmarks in all appropriation bills last year. Who knows where 
it will go, unless we get a handle on this process.
  It simply is wrong for Members of Congress to be able to take an 
amount of money and designate it for one particular group with no real 
oversight. As I mentioned, too few of these earmarks can even be 
challenged like we are challenging these today because you might be 
ruled out of order because the Federal agency has no record or no idea 
what the earmark is actually doing. We have a process that is out of 
control.
  Let me mention, as well, we haven't mentioned the other side of 
earmarks. We have one of our former Members in jail right now for 
basically selling earmarks. Jack Abramoff reportedly referred to the 
Appropriations Committee as an ``earmark favor factory.'' Those are his 
words, not mine.
  We have a process that is out of control, nearly 15,000 earmarks. 
When you have that many, with very little oversight, it is ripe for 
abuse; and we simply have to change the direction we are going. That is 
the larger point.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I come from the State of Joe McCarthy, and he was 
famous for his use of innuendo. I don't appreciate it when I hear 
innuendo on this floor from any source.
  Let me start this way: my opinion of earmarks is pretty clear. When I 
was chairman of the Appropriations Committee, for instance, we had no 
earmarks in the Labor-Health-Education bill. I think the number of 
earmarks has gotten grotesquely out of hand. I think it is beyond the 
ability of our staff to police. On that, I agree with the gentleman. 
But I don't think that we need to drag in a reference to an obscene 
player in the game like Mr. Abramoff in discussing a specific earmark 
such as we were discussing 5 minutes ago.
  If one is serious about providing oversight on earmarks, then they 
would not have voted for the budget resolution to begin with, if they 
were serious about fiscal responsibility, I should say.
  If they were serious about fiscal responsibility, they would not pick 
and choose a few random earmarks to go after on the floor. They would 
have insisted that this House have systematic reform of earmarks so 
that, for instance, we go after the big targets, the authorizing 
committee. The committee that provides highway authorization, for 
instance.
  The mother of all earmarks was the ``bridge to nowhere.'' That wasn't 
in an appropriation bill. That was in the authorization bill, and that 
authorization bill last year, the highway bill, had seven times as many 
earmarks as the relevant appropriation bill, seven times the amount.
  If people were serious about going after earmarks, they would go 
after authorization earmarks. If they were serious about earmarks, they 
would go after tax bills. The 1981 tax bill was replete with special 
transition rules for corporations, and every time I would talk to a big 
businessman who would complain to me about the deficits that Ronald 
Reagan was building up, I would say, ``Well, why don't you raise hell 
about what they are doing in the tax bill?''
  ``Oh, we can't, because we have got a special transition rule in 
there and we don't want the committee to take it away,'' they would 
say.
  If you take a look the 1986 tax bill, the same problem. If you take a 
look at the most recent tax bills, laced with special privileges. And 
the fact is that those special privileges aren't just 1-year affairs, 
as a lot of appropriations earmarks are. They continue giving again and 
again and again, as the TV commercial goes.
  So I would say if the gentleman has legitimate objections to specific 
earmarks, by all means, it is his right to raise that on the floor. But 
I think if the gentleman wants to be taken seriously on this effort in 
the House, then he needs to support a systematic and systemic approach, 
which will reduce the number of earmarks to a number which this House 
has the capacity to handle.
  I don't think that we particularly add to the effort if we just pick 
and choose on the basis of, say, funny names. I recall once, for 
instance, when a Senator from will my own State, Bill Proxmire, made 
fun of an earmark for a research project because it was research on 
Polish pigs, and everybody laughed about Polish pigs. But the fact is, 
out of that study came a new blood pressure medicine, which has been 
used by millions of Americans for years.

                              {time}  1915

  So I would suggest there is a constructive way and a not so 
constructive way to go after earmarks. I would prefer we follow a 
constructive road.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I would agree with the gentleman from Wisconsin on the 
point about trying to associate Members with activities that are well 
known throughout this town and throughout this country that were 
inappropriate.
  But, unfortunately, when Members come and lack truth and substance 
and real meat in their debates, they often times resort to try to take 
a debate to that level. Anyone who opposes a person on an issue or an 
amendment in this body, to have them associated with someone who has 
really done themselves wrong and done the country wrong is really bad 
form and, in the view of I believe the overwhelming majority of the 
Members of this House, really uncalled for.
  So if there are Members here who want to conduct their debates at 
that level, it is unfortunate, and we cannot stop them. But, again, I 
hope that we would conduct this debate at a substantive level. And with 
that, I would again oppose the amendment strongly.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time there is 
remaining?
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. There is 1 minute remaining.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, at no time have I tried to associate anyone here with 
the actions of the former Member. At no time have I done so. And I 
apologies if that inference was gained.
  But we have a process here that is bad, that there are too few 
controls. That particular Member was able to get his earmarks through 
the entire process without being challenged, without one person being 
able to stand up and say, you know, are those earmarks going for the 
right purpose, or are they going off for some other purpose?
  That is what this earmark battle is about. And I agree with virtually 
every word said by the gentleman from Wisconsin, and I want to work 
with him on systemic reform. We got some of that in the lobby reform 
bill that we passed a few weeks ago. We need far more of it. We need 
far more than just transparency.

[[Page 9288]]

  Mr. Chairman, you have got to have accountability as well. This is 
one part. Being able to challenge earmarks. No Member ought to assume 
that they can get a project for their district and not ever be 
challenged on it, to explain what it is about. That is what this debate 
is about.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
  The amendment was rejected.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Flake

  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the Clerk will read the 
amendment.
  There was no objection.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Flake:
       At the end of the bill, before the short title, insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to fund research and education activities for 
     greenhouse nurseries in Ohio.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, this earmark is a greenhouse nurseries earmark, 
$726,000 for greenhouse nurseries in Ohio, an increase of $5,000 over 
last year. This was described as intended to develop marketing plans to 
showcase this industry that has branded itself as the Maumee Valley 
Growers.
  Mr. Chairman, let me just make the point again. I do not know what 
else to do here. I have been screaming for 5 years that earmarks are 
out of control. Yet in that same 5 years, we have doubled, probably 
quadrupled the number of earmarks that this body has in the 
appropriations bills every year. I do not know what else will work, 
what other avenue do rank-and-file Members who are not on the 
Appropriations Committee have to point out the absurdity of funding 
some of these items, only to be told, well, do not take this 
opportunity, challenge it another way.
  I would like to see, where? Where do we have the opportunity? Why 
should we not have the opportunity to stand in this body and challenge 
the earmarks that Members get? Why should any Member have the 
opportunity to earmark a certain amount of money for his or her 
district, or for a particular company or non-profit organization or 
group of individuals, without being challenged on it?
  Where is that right or so-called right that we have to do so? I 
simply do not see it. And I have looked, believe me, for years for 
opportunities to say, we are out of control. The gentleman from 
Wisconsin mentioned, I thank him for doing it. He says we are out of 
control. There is no way we can police the number of earmarks. There is 
no way that we can actually have real oversight here.
  But if I cannot stand up and challenge these earmarks, what am I to 
do? What are other rank-and-file Members to do? Where is the forum if 
not here on the floor of the House?
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, once again, it appears that the author of 
the amendment is seeking to acknowledge some frustration and to quote 
one of his lines here, I do not know what else to do. Again, I would 
offer advice to not just this Member but any Member that was seriously 
concerned about further fiscal responsibility again to emphasize this 
bill is almost $100 million below last year's bill.
  We have cut the number of Member projects in it. We cut discretionary 
spending again last year. So those of us who are truly trying to make a 
difference are making a difference. Is it enough? Of course not. But if 
Members are actually looking for honest roadmaps to success in this 
area, again, the area of entitlements needs to be addressed.
  So I would suggest that any Member who really wants to tackle fiscal 
responsibility in this area go for it. That would matter. Dealing with 
a budget process before we get to this point, that would matter. 
Offering amendments that are substantive again, but that would actually 
have an effect on spending, whether it goes up or down, that would 
matter. So, again, to address the frustrations that are being expressed 
here, those are three clear roads to further fiscal responsibility that 
I would suggest to any Member who might ask.
  But, again, to offer amendments that have nothing to do with cutting 
a dime out of this bill is useless. And I can understand why the 
feeling of desperation might occur.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentlewoman from 
Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman very much for 
yielding me time.
  Mr. Chairman, as a member of this subcommittee for many years, I 
would like to point out that everyone of the projects that is included 
in this bill is carefully monitored and with the proposals being 
reviewed on campuses before they are submitted to the U.S. Department 
of Agriculture for funding. Then the U.S. Department of Agriculture 
reviews each project to be sure that the projects are ones of 
scientific merit, and research contracts are effectively negotiated 
between the USDA and the recipient.
  And the subcommittee monitors each one of the projects with detailed 
questions at every hearing. This is the most recent hearing manual with 
each of the amendments that the gentleman is offering about. There is 
careful review. There are quarterly reports. There is documentation 
that is required for every single project.
  So I do not quite agree with what the gentleman has said, because it 
is a contract negotiation and because there is careful review and a lot 
of projects do not get funded. The gentleman mentioned something about 
400 projects. Well, we have 435 Members of this institution.
  And we do have a responsibility to the country. There are projects in 
Arizona. There are projects in Ohio. And we cannot fund everything that 
we are asked, but we do the best job that we can, and we try and make 
and build a better country.
  So the specifics, the gentleman had a question about I think the 
greenhouse nurseries projects in Ohio. And I can assure the gentleman 
that the unsubsidized family farmers of Ohio in this particular 
industry are competing in a global market. And the work that is being 
done by several land grant universities, including Ohio State 
University, Michigan State University, Indiana State University, are 
trying to help an endangered industry compete against subsidized 
Canadian production where power in that nation is made available at 
much cheaper rates.
  The power costs of operating these kinds of greenhouses is enormous 
in the current marketplace. I only wish that our region of the country 
had what the gentleman has, and that is the Bureau of Land Reclamation, 
and your subsidized water projects in the west that have literally 
pulled much of our vegetable production from nonirrigated facilities to 
the irrigated west.
  I wish we had the kind of subsidies the gentleman's region has 
benefited from. Perhaps because the gentleman lives in a suburb, he 
does not appreciate what it takes to produce food in our country with 
the kind of competition that we face.
  Now I read in the gentleman's biography that he grew up on a ranch. I 
sure would like to know if your family benefited from any of those 
Bureau of Land Management subsidies or any of those Arizona water 
projects. Maybe the gentleman gets his water from the rain. I do not 
know. But, you know, other parts of America need to compete, too, and 
they are not subsidized.
  So we hope that our industry will be able to survive. But I would 
defend any of the projects that have gone through this careful review 
through the U.S.

[[Page 9289]]

Department of Agriculture along with many of our land grant 
institutions.
  Mr. Chairman, I would ask the gentleman to take a look in the mirror 
and to his own State.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I would simply point out that one of the amendments I 
offered is actually to cut funding that goes to my State. I would 
simply point out again, last year there were more than 10,000 earmarks 
worth $29 billion. I would say, again, to the average American, that 
may not seem like much to us, but it seems like a lot to them. It is a 
lot to all of us.
  And as mentioned before, earmarks are the gateway drug to spending 
addiction. When we get earmarks, it is much easier to vote for other 
things as well. The gentleman asked why we do not attack some of the 
other spending and look to entitlement spending.
  Twenty-five Republicans voted against the prescription drug benefit. 
We have worked to limit that program to where we can afford it. We 
added more unfunded liabilities to Medicare than exist in all of Social 
Security with that single bill. We voted against it.
  We offered alternative legislation. We tried to rally our colleagues 
to vote against it. What else are we supposed to do there? Here, with 
these earmarks, what other forum do we have to say, let us cut back 
somewhere, somewhere. On the road to 10,000 earmarks, cannot we just 
say, we have gone too far? Can we change this process?
  If we are funding, I would submit, greenhouse nursery earmarks, 
$726,000, we have not scrubbed this bug well enough. And the notion, 
again, that if we do not spend this money here, it will just get spent 
elsewhere demeans us as legislators, because it is our duty to actually 
police how this money is spent. And if it is not going to be spent 
here, then, again, let's go to the Budget Committee and say, we do not 
need this big of an allocation.
  Let's put it to the war effort. Put it to pay down the debt, 
somewhere else. But this process, it ought to be authorization, 
appropriation, oversight. And somehow we have neglected the first two, 
authorization and oversight. And all we do is appropriate. And then 
these earmarks, very few of them actually have any oversight, these 
special research grants, there is some kind of reporting there. But in 
most of the earmarks, there are not.
  As I mentioned, most of the agencies do not even know that these are 
being funded, or do not even know what the program is, they simply fund 
them. They do not have the opportunity to exercise oversight there. And 
we do not certainly exercise the oversight here.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
  The amendment was rejected.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Flake

  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the Clerk will read the 
amendment.
  There was no objection.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Flake:
       At the end of the bill, before the short title, insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to fund aquaculture in Ohio.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, the goal of this project, the aquaculture in Ohio 
earmark, is to foster the development of a statewide aquaculture 
industry in Ohio.

                              {time}  1930

  Again, I have to ask the threshold question here: Where is the 
Federal nexus? Why are we taking taxpayer funds from someone in Maine 
and putting it here in aquaculture in Ohio? How do we make that leap 
that it is our responsibility as legislators to do that?
  Again, we can save this money. This money does not have to be spent. 
All we have to do is say change our allocation. Give less money. We can 
take some $400 million we are spending in Member earmarks and pay down 
the debt, fund the war effort, anything else but these earmarks, I 
would submit.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Idaho (Mr. Simpson) to begin the debate for those opposed.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, while I do not want to respond to this 
specific project, I do want to respond to what the gentleman from 
Arizona talked about just a little bit ago. He mentioned 10,000 
earmarks and $29 billion last year. And he seeks to reduce the spending 
because somehow I guess the implication is that that $29 billion is 
wasteful spending. What that is is $29 billion that Congress has 
directed how it is going to be spent and not the administration.
  When the administration proposes a budget, it is a recommendation 
that comes to Congress. It is full of earmarks. Administration 
earmarks. Earmarks that they believe how the money should be spent. 
Congress in their budget process, in their hearing process, in the 
Appropriations Committee make certain determinations. Some of them, in 
fact, most of them are that the administration's requests are 
appropriate. Sometimes we disagree with them. We say spending ought to 
be done somewhere else. We have different priorities. Those are called 
earmarks. I call them congressionally directed spending.
  To tell you the truth, I wish we congressionally directed all of the 
spending. Remember, the President just makes recommendations. It is 
this Congress's responsibility to determine where the spending is going 
to go and to tell an administration or an agency that some of this 
money, a very, very small percentage of it is going to be spent in 
certain projects that we think are important, at least a majority here 
do, I think is our role. And to suggest that all $29 billion or 10,000 
earmarks, whatever the amount was, is wasteful spending is to mislead 
the American people.
  Are there some wasteful things in there? Sure. But if you think 
giving the money just to the administration to determine how it ought 
to be spent rather than Congress directing it, all of the sudden it is 
going to be spent appropriately, then I want to know why there are 
10,000 trailers sitting in Hope, Arkansas.
  The administration can waste money just like Congress can. Sure, 
there is some spending in there that we would all say is inappropriate, 
but that is our job to get after it.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I thank the gentleman for making those points. They are good ones. We 
have failed in our oversight function. But I would submit it is very 
difficult to criticize the Department of Defense for not buying 
sufficient body armor, for example, when we have instructed them with 
an earmark to spend more than a million dollars on a museum in New York 
with a congressional earmark, with a Member earmark. So we demean our 
role in oversight of the Federal agencies when we have instructed and 
stipulated that spending be on aquaculture in Ohio.
  It is very difficult to, with a straight face, tell the agencies you 
are misspending the taxpayers money when we are doing this. So we have 
a process that is a great process. This was set up right in this 
country. Authorization, appropriations, oversight. If we do not like 
the way the President is submitting his budgets or his recommendations, 
then in authorizing bills, let's say don't do that; these are the only 
programs that we are going to authorize.

[[Page 9290]]

  The trailers that ended up in Arkansas, I could not agree more. That 
was our mistake for giving $12 billion up front to FEMA. We should have 
said, let's have smaller trounces. Come every week and justify what you 
have done. Some of us recommended doing that. But it was not accepted, 
and we ended up with trailers in fields that are still in Arkansas. So 
we have a process. We need to follow it. We need to get back to it. 
That is what we are recommending here.
  Some people point out that earmarks have been around as long as 
Congress has, and I suppose that is true to some extent. But everyone 
knows, over the last decade in particular, we have simply gone hog wild 
with earmarks. We simply have to get this process under control.
  As the gentleman from Wisconsin pointed out again, we simply do not 
have enough staff to police this. We are out of control and if not to 
stand up here and challenge earmarks, I am at my wits' end. I do not 
know what else to do. I am frustrated. I am frustrated. I think a lot 
of us are. I know the taxpayers are. So that is why we are going 
through this process today.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished, 
hardworking gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Schmidt).
  Mrs. SCHMIDT. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to this 
amendment. Aquaculture is becoming a burgeoning industry in my State. 
Ohio aquaculture has grown 17 percent in the last year alone.
  Ohio State University, Ohio's land grant university, has been 
conducting this vital research in my district to most importantly help 
Ohio's tobacco farmers transition to new crops, and that is important 
that we find ways for Ohio's tobacco farmers to transition to new crops 
or otherwise those farmers will find themselves unable to continue to 
be farmers in Ohio.
  This funding is not just important to my district. It is essential to 
the aquacultural research in all of Ohio through a state-wide 
aquacultural extension program. This funding is well spent, and it 
produces real dividends for Ohio farmers. A few years ago I got to 
witness one of the farms that actually participated in this research, a 
tobacco farmer that now raises shrimp and is making money off raising 
shrimp in Ohio.
  I am a conservative and a fiscal conservative, and I do not like to 
spend people's money, but I do understand the importance of this kind 
of economic research for Ohio's farmers and Ohio's folks.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. 
I would like to join my dear colleague from Ohio (Mrs. Schmidt) in 
saying that aquaculture is a growing business in Ohio. We want to keep 
all of our communities competitive.
  I would say to the gentleman from Arizona, Ohio is really a shrimp in 
this. Arizona has a $4.2 million aquaculture designation in this bill. 
So we are really a shrimp compared to Arizona with your subsidized 
water and your Bureau of Land Reclamation incentives for your folks out 
there.
  But I can tell you, when I was born we had 146 million people in this 
country. Today we have 300 million. The oceans are half depleted in 
fish. And the Great Lakes are in great competition with Canada. We have 
to put caps on what our commercial fishermen can fish. And this project 
has resulted in a 30 percent increase in juvenile perch, one of the 
most desired fish in the region. So we need more fish. The oceans are 
not providing. We have to do our job here. Life is important. Being 
competitive in the international aquaculture environment is important. 
And the gentleman's own State, though it costs more to do it there 
because you have all those irrigation costs, we are trying to do it 
using fresh water. I think this is a wonderful investment by the 
American people in their own self-interest.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
  The amendment was rejected.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Flake

  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the Clerk will read the 
amendment.
  There was no objection.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Flake:
       At the end of the bill, before the short title, insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to fund the Hydroponic Tomato Production, Ohio grant.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I thank the Chair for his and this body's indulgence.
  This is a hydroponic tomato production earmark that we are 
challenging here. Again, let me make the broader point, what business 
is it of the Federal Government to pick winners and losers in the 
economy, to decide that we ought to be promoting hydroponic tomato 
production earmarks instead of promoting the cherry tomato or grape 
tomato or others out there that any Member could get an earmark for? 
Why is it this is important and the others are not?
  We as legislators have to decide how we are going to husband the 
Nation's resources. I would submit that when we have 10,000 earmarks a 
year or more and when we are growing it at a rate of 872 percent over 
the last 10 years, at some point, I do not know where that point is, 
maybe it is with hydroponic tomatoes, some point we have got to take a 
stand and say enough is enough. We simply cannot continue spending 
money like this.
  Again, let me just point out the notion that we cannot cut spending, 
that this money if it is not going to be spent here it will just be 
spent somewhere else by the administration is false. We can spend less. 
We can cut our own spending. We can cut our own allocations and say we 
simply do not need to spend this much money.
  Again, we are not potted plants here. We are legislators. We are here 
to make these decisions. I would submit that when we are spending 
$180,000 on hydroponic tomatoes that something has gone awry and we 
have lost our focus. That is what this debate is about.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, historically when Members target projects 
in this body, everybody understands the game. When you talk about 
tomatoes and aquaculture and programs that have names that do not 
immediately jump out to people with a true purpose, the press releases 
go out, the media circles when you walk out of the House Chamber, and 
there you have your name in the paper as a great slayer of funding 
programs.
  But again, the hard work when you talk about fiscal conservatism as 
we have again last year cutting spending, trimming this bill down 
almost $100 million, cutting back on the Member requests, all of those 
things, that is the work that is done in the trenches day in and day 
out.
  So, again, we all realize in this body what makes a headline. So if 
you make fun of the tomato and you make fun of the research project 
that is in a particular State, more power to you. But I think for the 
most part we are going to find that the Members of this body understand 
that again there is not a single dime that is going to be cut out of 
this amendment. True reform comes from the kind of work in the trenches 
that I have been suggesting, entitlement reform, budget reform, those 
are the processes that really matter. Or again, in the end, amendments 
that actually make a difference in terms of spending or cutting the 
budget.

[[Page 9291]]

  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, in response I would simply say I reject the premise 
that we cannot cut spending. This notion again that we will not save 
anybody by getting rid of earmarks. It is valid. This isn't a debate in 
a vacuum that really does not matter. If we reform the way we do 
earmarks, we will save significant money. I do not know about you, but 
$29 billion seems like a lot to me, $29 billion last year in 
appropriation earmarks. That is a lot of money. It adds up. A billion 
here and a billion there, soon enough you have got real money.
  So this notion that we cannot save and we are just throwing out a 
couple of names here, I would like to bring all 450 Member earmarks to 
the floor that were in this bill. Simply we do not have the time and we 
do not have the patience and I understand that. But how else can we 
highlight this? What other forum do we have? Believe me, if it is there 
we have used it. We have got to start somewhere. I think we have got to 
make a stand.
  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 would say to the gentleman who is offering this 
amendment directly, it is not that we cannot cut spending, because we 
have. The issue here is that he cannot cut spending with any of the 
amendments that he is proposing. So, again, I do not know how much more 
clearly I could say that or any other Member of this body.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. 
Kaptur).
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to put on the record that 
the State of Ohio used to be one of the leading tomato-growing States 
in the Nation until subsidized western water, and we lost our industry 
to the West.
  Now, Arizona is one of the most irrigated States in the country. You 
are draining water that is never going to come back. And yet I look at 
our part of the country that has to fight for such a small part of the 
market right now. I would just ask the gentleman, I would love to look 
at the type of subsidies that attend to your agriculture in Arizona 
from major government agencies that do not come to Ohio farmers.

                              {time}  1945

  We are trying to maintain a very small market share. Hydroponic 
production is one of the ways in which we are successfully doing it, 
but I would just beg for the gentleman to take a look at what has 
really happened to the movement of agriculture. One State in the Union 
now produces over half the fruits and vegetables in the country, most 
of it irrigated. Ohioans have a right to compete in this market.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  To the gentlewoman's points, we do in Arizona get subsidies. We 
should not, particularly with cotton. Cotton is very water intensive. 
We receive subsidies in cotton in many ways, particularly through the 
farm bill. I would ask you, please join me in opposing the farm bill 
next year. We will have an extension of the farm bill perhaps this 
year. Please join me in opposing it for subsidizing far too much as 
well.
  We are spending too much money. It is not just in earmarks here, but 
it is other areas as well, but if we say we are not going to cut it in 
earmarks or other ways, where do we cut it? That is why our budget is 
simply growing and growing.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FLAKE. I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I just want to say this may be the first 
year America imports more food than she exports. This is not just a 
problem inside the borders of the United States. We have to keep our 
agriculture alive in this country, and it is becoming more and more 
difficult every year because of what is happening in the global economy 
and subsidies that are out there in other countries. Thank you for 
yielding.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentlewoman 
for that point.
  We do have a problem entering into free trade agreements because we 
subsidize our agriculture so much. It is complicating the Doha round 
right now. We are limiting the markets that we can sell into because of 
our own subsidies.
  The country of New Zealand a few years ago thought they could never 
get away from agriculture subsidies. They just up and said one day, we 
are not going to do it anymore; we cannot afford to anymore. People 
predicted that their agriculture would drop considerably. It has not. 
They have thrived. If we simply trust in the market here and let the 
market take over, we would be far better off.
  But in this point, again, I would make the point, we can save money 
here. Earmarks are costing us a whale of a lot of money, not just 
because of the money in the earmarks themselves, but in the amount of 
funding that they leverage elsewhere because when you have an earmark 
in an appropriations bill, you had better not vote against that 
appropriations bill or you might see your earmark vanish. So it is not 
just the money in the earmarks, it is the money that is leveraged.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman's time has expired.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I was not going to say anything on this point until the 
gentleman made his last remark about people taking earmarks away if 
they do not vote for a bill.
  I do not recall a single Member of the majority party helping me 
when, 2 years ago, I urged Democrats to vote against the Labor, Health 
and Education bill because it was grossly insufficient to meet our 
education and health care and science needs. I well recall when the 
Republican Appropriations Subcommittee chairman announced to his entire 
caucus that, because not a single Democrat voted for that inadequate 
Labor bill, that no Democrat was going to get a project.
  I am proud of the fact that Democrats stuck against that bill anyway 
because we saw our duty as requiring us to oppose that bill because it 
put cuts for millionaires ahead of increasing the Pell Grant for kids 
trying to go to college. They put tax cuts for millionaires ahead of 
funding health professions training. They put tax cuts for millionaires 
ahead of worker protection programs.
  So I would simply say, I welcome the gentleman's finally saying 
tonight that it is improper for earmarks to be used as internal 
blackmail. I just wish he had spoken up when we actually faced that 
issue 2 years ago.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, the bill that you mention is a perfect 
example. We do not need earmarks like this. We knocked all the earmarks 
out. We survived just fine. Members survived just fine. They were 
reelected. They came back. That was the only Labor-HHS bill I have ever 
voted for because it did not have earmarks. We finally got it right. We 
ought to continue it.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, well, with all due respect, the issue before 
us tonight is not what happened to past appropriations bills. The issue 
is whether or not, since the gentleman has chosen to take on these 
particular earmarks, the issue is whether or not the earmark in 
question merits support or not.
  I recognize the gentleman is trying to do what Otto Passman when he 
ran the Foreign Aid Committee, which is to offer amendments for 
illustrative purposes, but the fact is, tonight the House is not going 
to be making judgments on whether there should or should not be 
earmarks. The House, under procedures tonight, is simply being asked to 
make a judgment about whether a specific earmark is meritorious or not, 
and I would hope that that is the basis upon which they would cast 
their votes.

[[Page 9292]]

  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. FLAKE. 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 Arizona will be 
postponed.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Flake

  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the Clerk will read the amendment.
  There was no objection.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Flake:
       At the end of the bill, before the short title, insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to fund the Wood Utilization grant.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, the committee has provided $6,371,000 to 
provide science that addresses problems with harvesting, 
transportation, manufacturing and marketing of economical forest 
products. For all the talk about, we are cutting too much timber and we 
are doing too much of this, to provide this kind of subsidy for 
research on how to do it just seems to me out of line.
  Let me just point out, some of these earmarks we have been talking 
about have been just a few hundred thousand dollars, not that that is 
small money, but this one is $6 million. If we looked since 1985, this 
program is the wood utilization program that received Federal funds in 
excess of $86 million. So it goes on and on and on.
  This earmark was not included in the President's request. The United 
States is the world's largest producer of lumber and wood products used 
in residential construction and in commercial wood products such as 
furniture and containers. The United States is also the leader in the 
pulp and paper business, producing about 34 percent of the world's pulp 
and 29 percent of the world's output in paper and paper board.
  The forest products industries is a strong contributor to the 
Nation's economy, employing close to 1.3 million people in all regions 
of the country, ranking among the top 10 manufacturing industries in 46 
States. Why in the world do we need to be spending over $6 million a 
year to talk about wood utilization? Again, let me repeat: The United 
States is the leader in pulp and paper business, producing 34 percent 
of the world's pulp, 29 percent of the world's output in paper and 
paper board, employs more than 1.3 million in all regions of the 
country, among the top 10 manufacturing industries in 46 States. Yet, 
we need a program that one of its goals is funding also goes towards 
educating graduate students to be knowledgeable in wood as a renewable 
resource?
  Now, we have been doing this program since 1985. I think wood has 
been around a lot longer than that. I think people know what a valuable 
resource it is. I do not think we need to be spending $6 million more 
in taxpayer money again this year to educate graduate students in wood 
as a renewable research.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Georgia is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Idaho (Mr. Simpson).
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Let me first say, the gentleman from Arizona has every right to do 
exactly what he is doing. I believe he is sincere in his efforts, and 
he is right, we are not potted plants. We are elected representatives. 
The funny thing about democracy is a majority has a tendency to rule, 
and if the gentleman offers something and a majority vote against him, 
then they have obviously supported what he does not. That is the way 
the process works.
  I do not ask for congressionally directed spending that I cannot 
justify. In fact, not all of the congressionally directed spending that 
I have requested is for projects in my district. Some of them are in 
other districts for things that I think are important. One of them is 
the wood utilization program. In fact, I post all of the 
congressionally directed spending that I have had part in obtaining on 
my Web site. I want my constituents to be able to see it, and I tell 
them if they think there is anything in there that is wasteful, that we 
should not be spending on, to call me and talk to me and let me know.
  In fact, I entered in the Record earlier today on this bill all of 
the projects that I had had any part in directing the congressional 
spending on so the people could see them, and I have put in the 
justification for them that I felt.
  The gentleman said that the Labor-HHS bill last year was the only one 
we got right, and I would only ask, you know, by putting no 
congressionally directed spending in there, who knows their districts 
better, who knows the needs of their constituents better, bureaucrats 
in Washington, D.C., or the people they elect to Congress? To suggest 
the only reason we put them in there is to gain the votes of a majority 
of this place to pass a bill, is wrong. To suggest that every 
congressionally directed spending earmark, as you would say, is 
wasteful, is wrong.
  Now, with the wood utilization program, I want to show you a list, 
and I will not enter it into the journal because it would take up too 
much paper, these are the saw mills that have closed since 1998. You 
can go through here: Alabama; geez, California's had so many, It is 
something like 98; Georgia, 18; Idaho, 17; Arizona, 17; Louisiana, 24; 
Oregon 218. These are the saw mills that have closed since 1998 because 
we have stopped using and cutting timber.
  Because of the Healthy Forest Initiative and because of fire 
suppression in the past, we have got a lot of stands that are small 
diameter timber. The days of cutting the old-growth, large trees are 
pretty much gone. We have to learn how to use small diameter timber, 
and that is what a lot of how this program is for, is how do we 
effectively use small diameter timber?
  The research that is being done in these programs at I guess 11 
different State universities that receive this funding are to help the 
industry develop products that are used today with the small diameter 
timber, and there are wood byproducts that occur.
  To me, that is an appropriate use of congressional spending, and so I 
support it and I justify it, and we will see if the majority agrees 
with you or me.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I will repeat again, I think that congressional 
earmarking has gotten way out of hand, but having said that, I want to 
challenge the idea that somehow every project that is funded by an 
agency downtown is pure, and every project selected for funding by a 
Member of Congress is impure.
  I want to give you one example. A few years ago, when Mitch Daniels 
was still head of OMB, he put out his so-called pork list, and leading 
the list in an attempt to embarrass me was an attack on a wind sled 
which I had gotten for Ashland and Bayfield in my district on the 
shores of Lake Superior.

                              {time}  2000

  That water is cold; 40 degrees in the summertime. And the OMB decided 
that they were going to try to trumpet this project and being an 
illegitimate use of taxpayer funds, so they described what was wrong 
with it in their OMB booklet.
  There was only one problem. They had the wrong wind sled, they had 
the wrong model, and they described it as being a pleasure craft. In 
fact, here is why I got the money for the wind sled in that budget: 
because the local sheriff called me and told me that he had seen a 
young boy drown in Lake Superior who went through the ice, and the

[[Page 9293]]

old device which they had to try to rescue the boy simply did not work. 
So this boy's parents stood on the shore watching their son drown just 
30 or 40 feet away and they could not reach him and neither could 
anybody else.
  So the sheriff asked me if I could please get enough funds to help 
them provide a decent rescue vehicle for that area, and I got the wind 
sled, and I am proud I did. And I think that I knew a whole lot more 
about the facts than the head of OMB sitting on high in his office who 
was simply trying to skewer a Congressman from the other party, not 
having the foggiest idea of why we got it or what it was for.
  Now, I certainly don't defend every earmark. I have attacked a number 
of them in my years in this Congress. But if you are going to go after 
an earmark, it would be useful if you knew enough about it to judge 
whether or not it is a decent use of taxpayers' money or not. And I can 
tell you that most of the attacks I have heard on this floor over the 
past 15 or 20 years have not measured up in terms of knowing what they 
were talking about.
  So I just wanted to tell that little story to illustrate that I agree 
with the gentleman from Idaho that all of the wisdom in government is 
not deposited in the agencies. And I would point out that in many 
instances what you have in an agency is some political appointee 
sitting down there deciding on project after project after project who 
is going to get the money, and it is not on the merits; it is on the 
basis of who has a connection and who has an angle. The only difference 
is, their process is a whole lot more invisible than the process is up 
on the Hill.
  We ought to have improvements in the process. And if we are in the 
majority and if I am chairman of the Appropriations Committee, I 
guarantee you there is going to be a lot more discipline than there is 
today. But having said that, I do not think it is fair to simply pick 
out these projects and then move to a generalization that somehow the 
executive branch is always more qualified to decide what ought to 
happen in each congressional district.
  If we aren't qualified to know at least as much about that as the 
anonymous bureaucrats downtown, then we indeed don't belong here.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute of my time to the 
gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy, 
since we are on opposite sides in this debate this evening. But I 
wanted to follow on something Mr. Obey said, because I used to work for 
a former President in the United States and I understand quite a bit 
about the way OMB operates.
  One of the most shocking things I learned as a White House staff 
member was that you might have somebody in front of you who was the OMB 
examiner on agriculture this year, and then next year they switch that 
person to defense or switch them out to another agency, and you find 
out they do not know the details about anything.
  I was shocked that the defense examiners at OMB have nowhere near the 
experience that the Members of this institution do, and this is really 
where historical memory and where experience in detail rests.
  So I would agree with the gentleman from Wisconsin, we need a lot 
more sunlight over there on the executive side. We have total sunlight 
over here. And I have a totally different impression of the OMB as a 
former White House staff member than I ever did before, when I used to 
hold them in very high esteem until I realized they did not know the 
details of many programs. They just shifted them around, and they did 
not have the kinds of commitment and depth of knowledge that Members of 
Congress do.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maine (Mr. Allen).
  Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I believe the gentleman from Arizona is really looking for savings in 
all the wrong places. To take just one example, the Medicare Advisory 
Commission has pointed out there is $50 billion, with a B, $50 billion 
in overpayments to Medicare Advantage, HMOs, and PPOs that could easily 
be drawn back. So that $50 billion is one place to look.
  But these funds for scientific research are critically important, and 
I wanted to describe at the University of Maine the wood utilization 
project that has been going on there for some significant period of 
time. It has had a significant effect in the spinoffs of businesses, 
because the wood composite program, the research that has been done 
there, married to fiberglass technology and other forms of plastics 
that I don't understand, has led to a variety of new projects.
  I really disagree with the gentleman from Arizona. The public sector 
and the private sector in this country are intertwined, for good or ill 
sometimes. But this is a case where we are generating economic 
development that is very important. I would go beyond that and say with 
this particular project at the University of Maine, you haven't yet 
heard about all they are doing, but they are basically making products 
for the Coast Guard and for the Army that will materially strengthen 
the ability of our military at home and around the globe.
  They have developed a lightweight bridge that is easily transported 
because it is using these composite materials. And you haven't heard 
the concept yet of up-armored tents, but that is the next product line. 
It is going to make our tents in Iraq much safer than they ever have 
been from IEDs or incoming mortars.
  I think it is wrong to all too quickly decide that these research 
projects, like the one we are discussing today, don't have economic 
spinoffs or, in this case, security spinoffs that are fundamentally 
important to this country.
  With that, I urge the defeat of the amendment.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I want to just say to the gentleman from 
Idaho that I appreciate working with him in this process to reform the 
earmark process. His insights as a member of the Appropriation 
Committee have been valuable, and he has agreed that it is a good thing 
to have Members' names attached to these earmarks.
  When people wonder why we are seeking this process now and how we are 
to provide oversight, I can tell you that with 450 earmarks in this 
bill, not one name was attached. That is why it has been a great 
process here today to see some of the authors, the sponsors of the 
earmarks come to the floor; otherwise, we wouldn't have known, unless 
you can find it in a press release somewhere, that they sponsored this 
legislation.
  We are looking for sunlight here. We would like to provide oversight, 
but it is difficult when we don't even know. We got the report last 
week. How are we supposed to scrub this?
  Let me also say that the executive branch doesn't always spend it 
wisely. All you have to do is drive through the fields of Arkansas and 
see those trailers and realize they bungle it often. What I am saying 
is that we diminish our credibility as those conducting oversight when 
we insert stipulations like this, when we say you have got to spend 
money on the Punxsutawney Weather Museum in Pennsylvania, or we have to 
spend $6 million on wood utilization that we have been doing for almost 
20 years and we never seem to get out of.
  We diminish our role as the conductors of oversight when we so 
trivialize this process and ignore the authorization and the oversight 
function.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time having expired, the question is on the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
  The amendment was rejected.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Flake

  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the Clerk will read the amendment.
  There was no objection.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Flake:
       At the end of the bill, before the short title, insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to fund the National Grape and Wine Initiative.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) and a

[[Page 9294]]

Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Again, this is another example of the Federal Government funding a 
program that can and is funded by the private sector. I should note 
here the vision of the initiative says: ``By 2020, the American grape 
and wine industry will triple its economic impact and become the 
undisputed world leader in consumer value and sustainability. The 
target is an economic impact of $150 billion within 16 years. This is 
based on a conservative estimate of current annual impact of 
approximately $50 billion a year.''
  I would submit that if an industry out there has a $50 billion-a-year 
impact on the economy, $50 billion, then the Congress need not spend 
$250,000 for strategic research and a plan to enhance the grape 
industry's competitiveness and contribution to the U.S. economy.
  I can tell you what the contribution is to the U.S. economy. We have 
been told. It is about $50 billion a year. Yet here we are spending 
$250,000 for strategic research to enhance the grape industry's 
competitiveness and contribution.
  Again, if we are going to get control on spending, we have to start 
somewhere. I would submit this is a great place to start.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, and I 
yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson).
  Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding, and I rise in opposition to this amendment and in support of 
this initiative.
  The grape industry is very, very important to the country, as the 
gentleman noted; but this program is also very important to the grape 
industry and to the consumers across this country. Grapes are the sixth 
largest crop in the United States and the largest specialty crop in the 
United States.
  In the past, wine, wine grapes, raisins, table grapes, and the grape 
juice industry have all competed for Federal funds. This is funding 
that does work in regard to pest control and in research for health 
issues that are important to the American people. Because of this 
competition factor in the past, oftentimes those funds were spent in 
ways that were duplicative and were uncoordinated. That is not healthy 
for the taxpayers, for the industry, or for the American people.
  With this initiative, all of those aforementioned industries have 
come together to ensure that the funding would be coordinated and it 
would be focused. It would be focused to work to benefit not only all 
of these industries but all of the American people. Again, this is in 
research for health care, for health issues, and for pest control.
  An example: at UC Davis, some of the work they have been doing under 
this program has led to some incredibly good developments in combating 
diabetes. If this amendment were accepted, that program would go away 
and all of this work would be lost. We shouldn't reduce the funding in 
this program, and we should all vote against the gentleman's amendment.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I would simply make the point again: a $50 
billion industry I think probably has the means at its disposal to fund 
this kind of research that we are talking about and could perhaps fill 
the void.
  A $50 billion industry could fill the void of $250,000 that is given 
back to the taxpayers or spent in another area. If you can find a 
definition of corporate welfare in the dictionary, this would probably 
be it. A $50 billion industry, and yet we are giving them $250,000 to 
have research carried out to enhance the industry's competitiveness and 
contribution to the U.S. economy.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I want to say this, and I appreciate what 
the gentleman from Arizona is doing, because I think that we all need 
to be accountable for anything that is in the bill or anything we vote 
on. One of my gripes with the other body is that they keep things in 
committee, and it is an incumbent protection system.

                              {time}  2015

  So I think having the opportunity to come down here and debate and 
fight for what we believe is important.
  I want to point out, last year, our budget passed in the final 
version out of conference committee 212-214. That is a two-vote margin. 
So if you put more spending in the budget, it probably would not have 
passed. If you put less spending in the budget, it probably would not 
have passed also. It truly was a balance between those who wanted to 
spend more and those who wanted to spend less. And there are a lot who 
want to spend less.
  However, politics is the reality of the possible or the passable. 
What you have sometimes is budgets that are hard to justify. I remember 
Mr. Obey telling a good story about something called the soldier fly. 
Down in the area I represent, there is a lot of agriculture. There are 
a lot of chicken growers, and chicken growers have chickens in hen 
houses. But, unfortunately, or fortunately, in a lot of rural areas, it 
has turned urban. And what do chickens have? Chickens have flies. They 
have blue flies. People build houses, and then the first thing they do 
is complain about the flies coming from the chicken houses. And the 
farmers were there first, but it does not matter.
  Well, enter the soldier fly. The soldier fly comes in, Mr. Chairman, 
like a big hero and eats the blue flies; solves the problems for the 
farmer, solves the problem for the homeowners in rural areas. And this 
is a big economic issue, getting rid of the flies in chicken houses.
  Well, we want to know, what can you do to foster more soldier flies? 
And so you study soldier flies. It is a nontoxic way to take care of 
pollution, but of course, it is great fodder for Reader's Digest to say 
they are studying the mating habits of soldier flies, which is not 
necessarily true.
  But having the opportunity to come out here, and it was not an 
earmark, but to come out here and have an opportunity to debate things 
is good. I think it is a healthy exercise. But I want to say this as a 
committee member: When things are in the budget, and this budget, as 
you know, is down 8 percent from last year and that Member priorities 
are down $35 million, you are under budget. And what somebody in 
California agriculture or somebody from Ohio agriculture supports may 
be different from what people in, say, Georgia support. But the overall 
goal is within the budget.
  This year we have only passed a budget on the House side by a mere I 
believe 7 or 6 votes. So we are all walking that balance.
  But I want to say I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment, but I do 
like this process. I also want to say on behalf of the Appropriations 
Committee members, we do favor earmark reform. But we also believe when 
you have things like the Bridge to Nowhere that don't come from an 
appropriation bill, you have to open up the process to all of the other 
committees as well.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  I want to thank Members for their indulgence. I know it is not easy 
to sit through so many amendments in a row. I appreciated this process, 
for one actually to see and hear people defend their earmark on the 
floor. That is something which has been missing. As I mentioned, you 
see 415 projects in the report; no description really of them, and no 
Members' name attached. You could not call them and ask, what is this 
about? So the only way you can do that is come to the floor and do what 
we just did.
  I would submit that we need to do a lot more of it, and we need to 
get back to authorization, appropriation and oversight. Let me say 
again, when we are spending money like this, then we seem to have money 
to throw around, and I would submit that the average taxpayer in 
California or Oregon or Arizona or anywhere would look at this

[[Page 9295]]

and say, why are we taking my hard-earned money and spending it to give 
$250,000 to the grape and wine industry that means about $50 billion to 
the U.S. economy? That is not a prudent use of taxpayer resources.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. FLAKE. 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 Arizona will be 
postponed.


          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 by Mr. Garrett of New Jersey.
  Amendment by Mr. Flake of Arizona regarding dairy education.
  Amendment by Mr. Flake of Arizona regarding hydroponic tomato 
production.
  Amendment by Mr. Flake of Arizona regarding grape and wine 
initiative.
  Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the Chair will reduce to 
2 minutes the time for any electronic vote after the first vote in this 
series.


             Amendment Offered by Mr. Garrett of New Jersey

  The 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 ayes 
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 266, 
noes 153, not voting 13, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 189]

                               AYES--266

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Bean
     Beauprez
     Berkley
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boustany
     Boyd
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Case
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chandler
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Cooper
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (KY)
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeFazio
     Dent
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Edwards
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Feeney
     Flake
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herseth
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hooley
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hyde
     Inglis (SC)
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Jindal
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kanjorski
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Lynch
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marshall
     Matheson
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McMorris
     Melancon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Osborne
     Otter
     Oxley
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Price (GA)
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ross
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Saxton
     Schmidt
     Schwarz (MI)
     Scott (GA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Smith (TX)
     Sodrel
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Taylor (MS)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Turner
     Upton
     Visclosky
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--153

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Becerra
     Berman
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Costa
     Costello
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Ehlers
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Frank (MA)
     Gonzalez
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kaptur
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Pelosi
     Porter
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz (PA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Solis
     Stark
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tauscher
     Thompson (MS)
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--13

     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Davis (FL)
     DeLay
     Evans
     Hunter
     Issa
     Jefferson
     Kennedy (RI)
     Larson (CT)
     Payne
     Snyder
     Taylor (NC)

                              {time}  2046

  Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD and Messrs. BRADY of Pennsylvania, MEEK of Florida, 
FATTAH and GUTIERREZ changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mrs. DAVIS of California and Ms. HOOLEY and Messrs. LAHOOD, COOPER, 
KIND, GERLACH, POMEROY and LYNCH changed their vote from ``no'' to 
``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 189 
my card did not register for the second time. I voted ``aye'' but it 
did not register.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Flake

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) 
regarding dairy education 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 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 92, 
noes 325, not voting 15, as follows:

[[Page 9296]]



                             [Roll No. 190]

                                AYES--92

     Akin
     Andrews
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Bean
     Bilirakis
     Blackburn
     Blumenauer
     Bradley (NH)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buyer
     Campbell (CA)
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cooper
     Cubin
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     Doggett
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Eshoo
     Everett
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Ford
     Fossella
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (AZ)
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gibbons
     Gingrey
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Harris
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Holt
     Inglis (SC)
     Jindal
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kline
     Lewis (KY)
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Mack
     Marchant
     Matheson
     McHenry
     Meehan
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Myrick
     Norwood
     Otter
     Owens
     Pallone
     Paul
     Pence
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Price (GA)
     Ramstad
     Rohrabacher
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Smith (WA)
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Tiberi
     Udall (CO)
     Van Hollen
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield

                               NOES--325

     Abercrombie
     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Allen
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Beauprez
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boustany
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (OH)
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Butterfield
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Cannon
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Carter
     Case
     Chandler
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Conyers
     Costa
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (KY)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Edwards
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     Engel
     English (PA)
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gerlach
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Granger
     Graves
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall
     Harman
     Hart
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Herger
     Herseth
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hostettler
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Israel
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCaul (TX)
     McCollum (MN)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     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
     Oxley
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Pearce
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Pickering
     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
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schmidt
     Schwartz (PA)
     Schwarz (MI)
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Sodrel
     Solis
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stark
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sweeney
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--15

     Ackerman
     Brown, Corrine
     Cantor
     Davis (FL)
     Evans
     Higgins
     Hunter
     Issa
     Jefferson
     Kennedy (RI)
     Larson (CT)
     McMorris
     Payne
     Snyder
     Taylor (NC)

                              {time}  2050

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Flake

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) 
regarding hydroponic tomato production 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 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 90, 
noes 328, not voting 14, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 191]

                                AYES--90

     Akin
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Bass
     Bean
     Beauprez
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blumenauer
     Bradley (NH)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Campbell (CA)
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cooper
     Cubin
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     Doggett
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Eshoo
     Everett
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Fossella
     Franks (AZ)
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gohmert
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Harris
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Inglis (SC)
     Jindal
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     Kline
     Lewis (KY)
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Maloney
     Matheson
     McHenry
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Myrick
     Norwood
     Otter
     Paul
     Pence
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Price (GA)
     Ramstad
     Rohrabacher
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Smith (WA)
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Taylor (MS)
     Terry
     Tiberi
     Velazquez
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield

                               NOES--328

     Abercrombie
     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Barton (TX)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boustany
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (OH)
     Burgess
     Butterfield
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Carter
     Case
     Castle
     Chandler
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Conyers
     Costa
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (KY)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Edwards
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     Engel
     English (PA)
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Granger
     Graves
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall
     Harman
     Hart
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Herger
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hostettler
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Israel
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Lynch
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Markey

[[Page 9297]]


     Marshall
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCaul (TX)
     McCollum (MN)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     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
     Owens
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Pearce
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Pickering
     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
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schmidt
     Schwartz (PA)
     Schwarz (MI)
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Sodrel
     Solis
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stark
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sweeney
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Visclosky
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--14

     Ackerman
     Brown, Corrine
     Davis (FL)
     Evans
     Gingrey
     Hunter
     Issa
     Jefferson
     Kennedy (RI)
     Larson (CT)
     McMorris
     Payne
     Snyder
     Taylor (NC)

                              {time}  2054

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Flake

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) 
regarding grape and wine initiative on which further proceedings were 
postponed and on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 87, 
noes 328, not voting 17, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 192]

                                AYES--87

     Akin
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Bean
     Beauprez
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Bradley (NH)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buyer
     Campbell (CA)
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cooper
     Cubin
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Everett
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Fossella
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (AZ)
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gibbons
     Gingrey
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Harris
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Inglis (SC)
     Istook
     Jindal
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     Kline
     Lewis (KY)
     Mack
     Marchant
     Matheson
     McHenry
     McMorris
     Miller (FL)
     Myrick
     Norwood
     Obey
     Otter
     Paul
     Pence
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Ramstad
     Rohrabacher
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Smith (WA)
     Sodrel
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Tiberi
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield

                               NOES--328

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boustany
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown (SC)
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Butterfield
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Carter
     Case
     Chandler
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Conyers
     Costa
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (KY)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Edwards
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     Engel
     English (PA)
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Filner
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gerlach
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Granger
     Graves
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall
     Harman
     Hart
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Herger
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hostettler
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCaul (TX)
     McCollum (MN)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Mica
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Musgrave
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Owens
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Pearce
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (NC)
     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
     Schiff
     Schmidt
     Schwartz (PA)
     Schwarz (MI)
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Shaw
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Solis
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stark
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sweeney
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Wasserman Schultz
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--17

     Brown, Corrine
     Davis (FL)
     Evans
     Fattah
     Hunter
     Issa
     Jefferson
     Kennedy (RI)
     Larson (CT)
     Neal (MA)
     Payne
     Pickering
     Rush
     Snyder
     Taylor (NC)
     Van Hollen
     Waters

                              {time}  2058

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 192, I was unavoidably 
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
  The CHAIRMAN. 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, 2007''.

                              {time}  2100

  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. Ryan of Wisconsin, Chairman of the

[[Page 9298]]

Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that 
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 5384) 
making appropriations for Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug 
Administration, and Related Agencies for the fiscal year ending 
September 30, 2007, and for other purposes, 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 830, the 
previous question is ordered.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment 
by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel) be considered to have been 
adopted in the Committee of the Whole with the modifications I have 
placed at the desk.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the modification.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec.--. None of the funds made available in this Act may be 
     used in contravention of section 303 of the Energy Policy Act 
     of 1992 (42 U.S.C. 13212).

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. 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 378, 
nays 46, not voting 8, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 193]

                               YEAS--378

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Beauprez
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boustany
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Butterfield
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Carter
     Case
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chandler
     Chocola
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (KY)
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     Engel
     English (PA)
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Granger
     Graves
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harman
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Herger
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hostettler
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inglis (SC)
     Inslee
     Israel
     Issa
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jenkins
     Jindal
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Lynch
     Mack
     Maloney
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marshall
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCaul (TX)
     McCollum (MN)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McMorris
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Mica
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Otter
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Pearce
     Pelosi
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     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
     Royce
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schmidt
     Schwartz (PA)
     Schwarz (MI)
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shaw
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Sodrel
     Solis
     Souder
     Spratt
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     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 (AK)
     Young (FL)

                                NAYS--46

     Baldwin
     Bass
     Bean
     Biggert
     Blackburn
     Blumenauer
     Bradley (NH)
     Capuano
     Conyers
     DeFazio
     Delahunt
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Fossella
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (AZ)
     Gibbons
     Green (WI)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Kanjorski
     Kind
     Lee
     Markey
     Matheson
     Meehan
     Miller, George
     Moran (VA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Owens
     Paul
     Petri
     Price (GA)
     Rohrabacher
     Ryan (WI)
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Stark
     Stearns
     Tancredo

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Brown, Corrine
     Davis (FL)
     Evans
     Jefferson
     Kennedy (RI)
     Larson (CT)
     Payne
     Snyder

                              {time}  2117

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

                          ____________________