[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 15]
[House]
[Pages 21101-21126]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




               FARM, NUTRITION, AND BIOENERGY ACT OF 2007

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 574 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the state of the Union for the further consideration of the bill, 
H.R. 2419.

                              {time}  1149


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the state of the Union for the further consideration of 
the bill (H.R. 2419) to provide for the continuation of agricultural 
programs through fiscal year 2012, and for other purposes, with Mr. 
Schiff (Acting Chairman) in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole rose earlier 
today, amendments en bloc by the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. 
Peterson) had been disposed of.


           Amendment No. 21 Offered by Mr. Udall of Colorado

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 21 
printed in part B of House Report 110-261.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 21 offered by Mr. Udall of Colorado:
       In section 1102(b)(6), strike ``$0.0667'' and insert 
     ``$0.06''.

       In section 2104 strike subsection (b) and insert the 
     following new subsection:
       (b) Enrollment of Acreage.--Subsection (b)(1) of section 
     1238N of the Food Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3838n(1)) 
     is amended by striking ``2,000,000 acres'' and inserting 
     ``2,224,000 acres''.

       In section 2401, insert after subsection (c) the following 
     new subsection (and redesignate subsequent subsections 
     accordingly):
       (d) Grassland Reserve Program.--Section 1241(a) of the Food 
     Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3841(a)) is amended by 
     striking paragraph (5) and inserting the following new 
     paragraph:
       ``(5) For each of fiscal years 2008 through 2012, the 
     grassland reserve program under subchapter C of chapter 2.''.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 574, the gentleman 
from Colorado (Mr. Udall) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Colorado.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, let me start by thanking 
Chairman Peterson and Ranking Member Goodlatte for their hard work on 
this important piece of legislation. I will be very proud to support 
the bill on final passage.
  While clearly this reform legislation, and I want to underline this 
is reform legislation, is a positive step forward in ag policy, I 
believe my amendment improves the bill. It is a win-win for ranchers 
and the environment.
  Mr. Chairman, the amendment is modest and very simple. It would make 
a small reduction in the direct payment rate for cotton, just two-
thirds of a cent. That savings, which would be $127 million, would be 
used to fund additional enrollment in the Grassland Reserve Program. 
The Grassland Reserve Program is a jointly administered program by the 
National Resources Conservation Service and the Farm Service Agency. It 
uses long-term rental agreements and easements to help landowners and 
producers restore and protect grasslands while

[[Page 21102]]

maintaining them in a condition suitable for grazing.
  This investment of Federal dollars also helps to leverage State and 
local monies to expand these preservation areas. The reserves that I am 
speaking of provide habitat for diverse wildlife, including prairie 
chickens, grassland birds, game species, and prairie plants. 
Unfortunately, it was underfunded in the previous farm bill. There 
remains, therefore, a significant backlog for those wanting to access 
the program.
  According to data from the United States Department of Agriculture, 
the 2006 backlog of unfunded applications totaled more than $1.1 
billion, or 11 million acres, and interest continues to grow.
  Now, the Agriculture Committee has made great strides to enhance this 
grasslands program, but their hard work will be for naught unless there 
is additional funding to ease the backlog of program applicants. We 
really cannot wait to make this investment because much of America's 
grassland continues to be converted to row crops, and other grasslands 
throughout the west are being developed and subdivided.
  According to CRS, between 1982 and 2003, we have lost more than 10 
percent of our pastureland, which is over 10 million acres.
  The amendment would reduce total direct payments in the bill by less 
than one-tenth of 1 percent. Direct payments are not the only support 
for cotton producers in the bill. As the committee report notes, there 
are important changes in the loan program to make American cotton more 
competitive and move stocks out of storage. The bill also allows the 
Department of Agriculture to continue to pay for upland cotton storage 
until 2012.
  So the amendment doesn't cause real great hardship for cotton 
producers, but it would help many of our ranchers. I urge the House to 
support the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, I have to oppose the 
gentleman's amendment. Not that I don't support the Grassland Reserve 
Program, but the provisions of the commodity title were worked out by 
the committee very carefully in an effort to balance all of the various 
commodities' needs in that process. We don't think that it is fair to 
single out one commodity for changes even though it is for a worthwhile 
purpose. Cotton has already seen major changes with the bill's 
termination of the storage payments and also major reforms in payment 
limitations.
  Additionally, the bill provides 1,340,000 acres to be enrolled in 
GRP, a substantial increase. I know that the gentleman from Colorado 
has been a leader in the coalition that has been advocating this 
program, and I appreciate his efforts and leadership in this area. 
Unfortunately, targeting any single commodity, in this case, cotton, 
for further reductions in their safety net is unwarranted and unfair. 
Therefore, I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment.
  I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Neugebauer).
  Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Mr. Chairman, I also rise in strong opposition to the 
Udall amendment. This amendment singles out one commodity for reduction 
in order to increase an unrelated program.
  This bill already increases funding to enroll nearly 1 million new 
acres in the Grassland Reserve Program. That is a significant amount of 
land.
  Some might think this is a small change in direct payment. It doesn't 
seem like much; however, this bill does not make changes in any of the 
current direct payments, and this would single out only one commodity, 
that being cotton, for reduction in direct payments.
  The House Agriculture Committee has already made significant changes 
to cotton. The bill reduces cotton target prices and eliminates cotton 
loan storage credits. In addition, payment limit changes are more 
likely to affect cotton farmers than any other commodity.
  If you want to increase the grasslands program, the offsets should 
not come from one commodity that is already taking a fairly major 
change in this bill. Let's treat all commodities the same and oppose 
the Udall amendment.
  Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
chairman of the General Farm Commodity Subcommittee that deals with 
this issue, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Etheridge).
  Mr. ETHERIDGE. I thank the gentleman for his leadership.
  Mr. Chairman, as you've heard, this commodity has already taken a 
major hit, a major change in the whole list of that commodity. It is 
really unfair to single out cotton.
  I agree with the gentleman from Colorado; we have done some things in 
conservation and wish we could have done more and wish we had more 
money. You have already heard how we have been strapped for cash, but 
the truth is this amendment is unfair. And I will oppose the 
gentleman's amendment, and I would encourage my colleagues to oppose it 
as well.
  We will continue to work with him as the bill moves forward to try 
and help, but it is absolutely unfair, once we have reached this very 
delicate balance within the bill, to reach in and single out one 
commodity that has already been hit harder in terms of cuts than any 
other commodity within all of the commodity titles.
  Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Conaway).
  Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for giving me a 
quick minute.
  I, too, rise in opposition to the Udall amendment, not because I am 
opposed to conservation of grasslands, but simply because hard choices 
were made to craft a bill that was as balanced as we can get it. If you 
were on the living end of the commodity program and cotton, you know 
already the dramatic changes that are going to be in the offing if this 
bill does pass. To come in now and ask for one more change, one more 
reduction, is inappropriate, and I would oppose that and hope that our 
good colleagues who support conservation would understand this is a 
very difficult process. We have set priorities, and I think the finely 
tuned bill that came out of the committee is one we ought to support 
and not make this change. I respectfully oppose the gentleman's 
amendment.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, how much time remains?
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Colorado has 2 minutes. The 
gentleman from Minnesota has 1 minute.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, I think that the other 
gentlemen have eloquently stated the case, and I want to reiterate that 
this is not a fair process to single out one commodity.
  I want to take the balance of my time to recognize the tremendous 
efforts of the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Berry) in working with us 
on this farm bill. And also, if he were here, he would be speaking out 
very strongly on this amendment as well. We oppose this amendment and 
encourage our colleagues to support us in that regard.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my 
time.
  As I close my arguments for this important amendment, I would again 
like to thank the chairman and ranking member for a bill that truly is 
about reform. That is the theme I would like to strike here. This 
amendment would take us further down the path of reform.
  This is less than one-tenth of 1 percent to expand the Grassland 
Reserve Program. I would note for the record that a number of 
organizations that are highly respected in the States of Texas and 
Minnesota and all over the country support the amendment. The

[[Page 21103]]

American Farmland Trust, Environmental Working Group, Republicans for 
Environmental Protection, the National Wildlife Federation, the 
American Bird Conservancy, Defenders of Wildlife, the Trust for Public 
Land all think that this amendment makes real sense.
  It is $127 million, less than one-tenth of 1 percent out of the 
direct payments program to preserve these important legacy areas, our 
grasslands, in the great American west. I urge an ``aye'' vote. This is 
an important amendment that would help strengthen the bill.

                              {time}  1200

  Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Udall).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the 
noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado 
will be postponed.


                 Amendment No. 25 Offered by Mr. Putnam

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 25 
printed in House Report 110-261.
  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 25 offered by Mr. Putnam:
       At the appropriate place in the conservation title, add the 
     following new section:

     SEC. 2__. ADJUSTED GROSS INCOME LIMITATION REGARDING PAYMENTS 
                   UNDER CONSERVATION PROGRAMS.

       Section 1001D(b)(1) of the Food Security Act of 1985 (7 
     U.S.C. 1308-3a(b)(1)), as amended by section 1504 [and the 
     manager's amendment, pages 34 and 35], is further amended by 
     adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
       ``(C) Special rule for conservation programs.--
     Notwithstanding subparagraphs (A) and (B), in the case of 
     covered benefits described in paragraph (2)(C), an individual 
     or entity shall not be eligible to receive any benefit 
     described in such paragraph (2) during a crop year if the 
     average adjusted gross income of the individual or entity 
     exceeds $1,000,000, unless not less than 75 percent of the 
     average adjusted gross income of the individual or entity is 
     derived from farming, ranching, or forestry operations, as 
     determined by the Secretary.''.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 574, the gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. Putnam) and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. 
Peterson) each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Chairman, we have a number of speakers on this so I 
want to be brief.
  One of the common misperceptions about the farm bill that didn't used 
to be a misperception, it used to be a reality and was very frustrating 
to taxpayers, was that professional athletes and broadcasters and 
people like that could game the system to receive conservation 
payments. And to the chairman and Mr. Goodlatte's credit, this bill 
does make significant strides towards improving the commitment to 
conservation. However, there is a change in the bill that is disturbing 
which lowers the AGI limit for eligibility for conservation payments.
  The effect of that is that it takes out what had been a requirement 
that 75 percent of your income be farm income, and in the process of 
doing that, it eliminates many of the most successful farmers who are 
doing their best to take advantage of government-matching dollars to 
improve their operations from an environmental perspective. It 
eliminates their ability to do so.
  And setting aside the family farm narrative, if you are truly a 
family farm, where you have multiple generations operating, then for 
sheer survival you have to grow in order to feed grandpa and dad and 
two brothers and their families who are all in the dairy business or in 
the livestock business.
  If this language were to remain in the bill as is, the Florida 
Department of Agriculture reports unofficially that roughly half of 
Florida producers would be ineligible for conservation payments. Many 
of the producers on the Chesapeake watershed, we've heard a lot today 
about the Chesapeake, the Everglades watershed, irrigation projects in 
the American West would be ineligible for these matching dollars 
because of this new AGI limitation.
  And I would urge Members to review this carefully and adopt this 
amendment so that these conservation payments would find their way to 
the farmers that are doing the best job, that are the most successful 
and are full-time. These are not hobby farmers. These are full-time 
agricultural producers in America who are feeding this country.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my fellow cosponsor from Florida 
(Mr. Mahoney).
  Mr. MAHONEY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my friend and 
colleague from Florida. I'm proud to cosponsor this important amendment 
with the gentleman, as he and his family are champions of Florida 
agriculture.
  One recurring theme we've heard throughout this debate is that 
although this farm bill is historic for American agriculture, it does 
not give everyone what they wanted.
  In the case of conservation programs, I believe it's a mistake for 
this bill to further restrict the American farmers' access to important 
conservation programs by lowering the adjusted gross income limits.
  This is bad policy because it hurts farmers that produce high-value 
crops from accessing conservation programs. In Florida, we are fighting 
to protect our environment. We've spent billions to preserve the 
Everglades. These new, more restrictive limits will disincent Florida 
ranchers and growers from investing with the Federal Government to 
preserve our lands and clean our waters.
  I urge my colleagues to use common sense. This amendment provides 
real farmers, not millionaires, access to critical conservation 
programs.
  I urge my colleagues to take an important step in keeping our rural 
lands green, to protect our wetlands, and to support our national 
agricultural heritage.
  This is a good amendment, and it deserves your support.
  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, we had a debate similar to 
this not too long ago, and I'll say it again, that while we've added 
several billion dollars to the conservation baseline, we still have 
backlogs in most of those programs.
  And the question to me is the same: if large farms shouldn't be 
eligible for title I payments, why should they be eligible for title II 
payments? If these operations are diversified enough to have problems 
with farm income exemption, same question, do they really need Federal 
payments?
  So I'd like to hear the arguments against because, to me, a strong 
title I is necessary to even carry out our conservation programs. If 
the farmers don't have a strong safety net, that work on conservation 
is going to be the first thing that's sacrificed. So with limited 
Federal funds for conservation, we need to make priorities, and 
providing funds for larger producers and folks with lots of off-the-
farm income is a tough choice; but it's a choice we have to make.
  I'd just like to say that one of the most important reforms that 
people have pointed to in this bill is that we have finally put a hard 
cap on adjusted gross income, and this has caused a lot of pain for a 
lot of people. So it just is not right to have a hard cap on the 
commodity title and not have a hard cap on conservation.
  So I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Chairman, does the gentleman have additional speakers 
opposed to the amendment?

[[Page 21104]]


  Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. I guess we have no further speakers, so I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. PUTNAM. How much time is remaining, Mr. Chairman?
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Florida has 1\1/2\ minutes 
remaining. The gentleman from Minnesota has yielded back.
  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Chairman, I just want to reiterate, while this has a 
major impact on specialty crop and dairy and livestock States like 
California and Florida, it is a national issue because under current 
law, if 75 percent of your income is from farms, then you are eligible 
for this higher AGI. By taking that out, you are redirecting 
conservation dollars from people who are full-time farmers, full-time 
producers, presumably the people that the farm bill is intended to 
benefit, and directing it to hobby farmers, people who are enjoying 
their gentlemanly estates in the suburbs of Washington or New York or 
other metropolitan areas, where they enjoy the bucolic lifestyle, while 
the people who get up before dawn every morning and go to bed after 
dark every night, and live and die by the vagaries of the marketplace 
and pests and disease will be ineligible for the additional 
conservation help.
  So you either drive them out of business because of the impact on 
watersheds, or you will pay for it out of a different program; but one 
way or the other you will either drive agriculture out of the 
Chesapeake, drive agriculture out of the Glades, drive agriculture out 
of the prairie potholes, out of the Dakotas, out of the flyways, or we 
can make this minor amendment to let the people who farm full time 
eligible for the green payments that recognize the social benefits that 
come from their activities.
  I urge the adoption of this amendment, and I thank my friend from 
Florida for his assistance.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Putnam).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the 
noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida will 
be postponed.


                 Amendment No. 27 Offered by Mr. Cooper

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 27 
printed in House Report 110-261.
  Mr. COOPER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 27 offered by Mr. Cooper:
       At the end of the bill, insert the following new title:

                       TITLE XII--CROP INSURANCE

     SEC. 1201. CONTROLLING CROP INSURANCE PROGRAM COSTS.

       (a) Administrative Fee for Catastrophic Risk Protection.--
     Section 508(b)(5) of the Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 
     1508(b)(5)) is amended by striking subparagraph (A) and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(A) Basic fee.--
       ``(i) In general.--Except as provided in clause (ii), each 
     producer shall pay an administrative fee for catastrophic 
     risk protection in an amount which is, as determined by the 
     Corporation, equal to 25 percent of the premium amount for 
     catastrophic risk protection established under subsection 
     (d)(2)(A) per crop per county.
       ``(ii) Maximum amount.--The total amount of administrative 
     fees for catastrophic risk protection payable by a producer 
     under clause (i) shall not exceed $5,000 for all crops in all 
     counties.''.
       (b) Payment of Portion of Premium by Corporation.--Section 
     508(e)(2) of the Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 
     1508(e)(2)) is amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (B)(i), by striking ``67 percent'' and 
     inserting ``62 percent'';
       (2) in subparagraph (C)(i), by striking ``64 percent'' and 
     inserting ``59 percent'';
       (3) in subparagraph (D)(i), by striking ``59 percent'' and 
     inserting ``54 percent'';
       (4) in subparagraph (E)(i), by striking ``55 percent'' and 
     inserting ``53 percent'';
       (5) in subparagraph (F)(i), by striking ``48 percent'' and 
     inserting ``46 percent''; and
       (6) in subparagraph (G)(i), by striking ``38 percent'' and 
     inserting ``36 percent''.
       (c) Reduction in Portion of the Premium Paid by the 
     Corporation.--Section 508(e) of the Federal Crop Insurance 
     Act (7 U.S.C. 1508(k)(3)) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(6) Premium payment incentive.--The Corporation may 
     increase payment of a part of the premium from the amounts 
     provided under subsection (e)(2) by not more than 5 percent 
     for a policy or plan of insurance that is not based on 
     individual yield to provide an additional incentive to create 
     broader use of such policies.''.
       (d) Share of Risk.--Section 508(k)(3) of the Federal Crop 
     Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1508(k)(3)) is amended by striking 
     paragraph (3) and inserting the following:
       ``(3) Share of risk.--The reinsurance agreements of the 
     Corporation with the reinsured companies shall require the 
     reinsured companies to cede to the Corporation 22 percent of 
     its cumulative underwriting gain or loss.''

     SEC. 1202. CROP INSURANCE PROGRAM COMPLIANCE.

       (a) Use of Unused Funding to Improve Program Integrity.--
     Section 522(e)(3) of the Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 
     1522(e)(3)) is amended by striking ``the Corporation may 
     use'' through the end of the paragraph and inserting the 
     following: ``the Corporation may use--
       ``(A) not more than $10,000,000 for each fiscal year to 
     improve program integrity, such as
       ``(i) increasing the number of compliance personnel;
       ``(ii) increasing compliance related training;
       ``(iii) improving analysis tools and technology related to 
     compliance;
       ``(iv) identifying, utilizing, and expanding innovative 
     compliance strategies and technology; and
       ``(v) developing and maintaining the information management 
     system developed pursuant to section 10706(b) of the Farm 
     Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (7 U.S.C. 8002(b)); 
     and
       ``(B) any excess amounts to carry out other activities 
     authorized under this section.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment Regarding Violation of Highly 
     Erodible Land Conservation Requirements.--Section 1211(a)(1) 
     of the Food Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3811(a)(1)) is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking ``or'' at the end of subparagraph (C);
       (2) by inserting ``or'' at the end of subparagraph (D); and
       (3) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:

     SEC. 1203. REAUTHORIZATION OF, AND INCREASED ENROLLMENT 
                   AUTHORITY FOR GRASSLAND RESERVE PROGRAM.

       (a) Extension and Funding.--Section 1241(a) of the Food 
     Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3841(a)) is amended by 
     striking paragraph (5) and inserting the following new 
     paragraph:
       ``(5) For each of fiscal years 2002 through 2013, the 
     grassland reserve program under sub chapter C of chapter 
     2.''.
       (b) Enrollment Goals.--Section 1238N(b)(1) of the Food 
     Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3838N(b)(1)) is amended by 
     striking ``2,000,000 acres'' and inserting ``5,000,000 
     acres''.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 574, the gentleman 
from Tennessee (Mr. Cooper) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Tennessee.
  Mr. COOPER. Mr. Chairman, everyone should be able to support the 
upcoming Cooper amendment, whether you're for or against the farm bill. 
It really doesn't make any difference because my amendment doesn't 
affect 99 percent of what's in the farm bill, but it does affect 1 
percent.
  And what is that? It's called the crop insurance industry, a little 
known curious part of the insurance world that is completely dominated 
by 16 fabulously rich companies. These companies, at taxpayer expense, 
made $2.8 billion in profits, underwriting gains, in the last 5 years. 
I don't begrudge anyone big profits out in the real world; but when 
it's at taxpayer subsidy expense, I get a little worried.
  So what my amendment would do is two things. Number one, it would 
reform that industry and reform it in the way that the U.S. Department 
of Agriculture has recommended, and I'm proud that they strongly 
support my amendment.
  But it also does something else, and we only found this out 
yesterday, and this is very important because it could well not only 
save the bill, it could save the reputation of many of our colleagues 
in the House because there is a provision in the bill today that I'm 
sure was unintended. I have no idea how it got in there, how it found a 
place on page 668 of the bill. It just happens to enrich forever these 
16 crop insurance companies.

[[Page 21105]]

  Now, what does that little slender provision do which the Bush 
administration has already said allows them to collude to raise prices 
for consumers and the government? That little provision allows them an 
antitrust exemption, an antitrust exemption that, of course, was never 
referred to the Judiciary Committee. No one on the Judiciary Committee 
knows about it. I haven't found anybody on the Agriculture Committee 
who knew about it, but it's a long-sought goal of the crop insurance 
industry so that they can collude to price-fix, to bid-rig in their 
negotiations with the government so they can get even more subsidies, 
because apparently $2.8 billion in profits in the last 5 years was not 
enough.
  So my amendment is the only way to cut out that provision. Unless 
some of our colleagues are not attuned to antitrust laws, these 
antitrust obligations are not just wrong. Talking in contract 
negotiations is supposed to be an open-bidding process, a real free 
market competition. This sort of behavior is not just wrong; it is 
criminal, criminal.
  So unintentionally and apparently unbeknownst to most folks on the 
committee, we are giving them a license to conduct what would otherwise 
be criminal antitrust behavior. This is wrong. This is so wrong it 
should not be part of any of this bill, and I am sure that no one 
intended it, although it just happens to benefit these 16 companies.
  Now, these are not bad people who work for these companies; but it's 
a rotten system, and it doesn't need to be destroyed, but it does need 
to be reformed; and we need to follow the guidelines of the Bush 
administration in reforming it because I haven't found anybody else 
who's willing to take on this task.
  But surely this can bring us together in a bipartisan fashion to cure 
this flaw in the bill.


         Modification to Amendment No. 27 Offered by Mr. Cooper

  Mr. COOPER. Mr. Chairman, in order to discourage this illegal 
criminal behavior, I ask unanimous consent for a modification of my 
amendment so that it can be handled properly according to parliamentary 
fashion.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will report the modification.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Modification to amendment No. 27 offered by Mr. Cooper:
       The amendment as modified is as follows:
       In section 2104 strike subsection (b) and insert the 
     following new subsection:
       (b) Enrollment of Acreage.--Subsection (b)(1) of section 
     1238N of the Food Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3838n) is 
     amended by striking ``2,000,000 acres'' and inserting 
     ``2,500,000 acres''.
       In section 2104, add at the end the following new 
     subsection:
       (f) Funding.--Section 1241(a) of the Food Security Act of 
     1985 (16 U.S.C. 3841(a)) is amended by striking paragraph (5) 
     and inserting the following new paragraph:
       ``(5) For each of fiscal years 2002 through 2013, the 
     grassland reserve program under subchapter C of chapter 2.''.
       At the end of subtitle A of title XI, add the following new 
     section:

     SEC. 110__. ADDITIONAL CROP INSURANCE AMENDMENTS.

       (a) Expected Loss Ratio.--
       (1) Projected loss ratio.--Section 506(o)(2) of the Federal 
     Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1506(o)(2)) is amended--
       (A) in the paragraph heading, by striking ``1998'' and 
     inserting ``2007'';
       (B) by striking ``1998'' and inserting ``2007''; and
       (C) by striking ``1.075'' and inserting ``1.00''.
       (2) Premiums required.--Section 508(d)(1) of the Federal 
     Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1508(d)(1)) is amended by 
     striking ``1.1'' and all that follows through ``October 1, 
     1998'' and inserting ``1.00 on and after October 1, 2007''.
       (3) Effective date.--This subsection shall take effect on 
     September 30, 2007.
       (4) Annual reporting requirement.--The Risk Management 
     Agency will report annually, by March 1st, in the Federal 
     Register--
       (A) the projected loss ratio upon which premiums are based 
     for the coming reinsurance year; and
       (B) the projected loss ratio of the Corporation for the 
     coming reinsurance year that excludes the portion of the 
     premium paid by the Corporation.
       (b) Controlling Crop Insurance Program Costs.--
       (1) Administrative fee for catastrophic risk protection.--
     Section 508(b)(5) of the Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 
     1508(b)(5)) is amended by striking subparagraph (A) and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(A) Basic fee.--
       ``(i) In general.--Except as provided in clause (ii), each 
     producer shall pay an administrative fee for catastrophic 
     risk protection in an amount which is, as determined by the 
     Corporation, equal to 25 percent of the premium amount for 
     catastrophic risk protection established under subsection 
     (d)(2)(A) per crop per county.
       ``(ii) Maximum amount.--The total amount of administrative 
     fees for catastrophic risk protection payable by a producer 
     under clause (i) shall not exceed $5,000 for all crops in all 
     counties.''.
       (2) Payment of portion of premium by corporation.--Section 
     508(e)(2) of the Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 
     1508(e)(2)) is amended--
       (A) in subparagraph (B)(i), by striking ``67 percent'' and 
     inserting ``62 percent'';
       (B) in subparagraph (C)(i), by striking ``64 percent'' and 
     inserting ``59 percent'';
       (C) in subparagraph (D)(i), by striking ``59 percent'' and 
     inserting ``54 percent'';
       (D) in subparagraph (E)(i), by striking ``55 percent'' and 
     inserting ``53 percent'';
       (E) in subparagraph (F)(i), by striking ``48 percent'' and 
     inserting ``46 percent''; and
       (F) in subparagraph (G)(i), by striking ``38 percent'' and 
     inserting ``36 percent''.
       (3) Reduction in portion of the premium paid by the 
     corporation.--Section 508(e) of the Federal Crop Insurance 
     Act (7 U.S.C. 1508(k)(3)) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(6) Premium payment incentive.--The Corporation may 
     increase payment of a part of the premium from the amounts 
     provided under subsection (e)(2) by not more than 5 percent 
     for a policy or plan of insurance that is not based on 
     individual yield to provide an additional incentive to create 
     broader use of such policies.''.
       (4) Share of risk.--Section 508(k)(3) of the Federal Crop 
     Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1508(k)(3)) is amended by striking 
     paragraph (3) and inserting the following:
       ``(3) Share of risk.--The reinsurance agreements of the 
     Corporation with the reinsured companies shall require the 
     reinsured companies to cede to the Corporation 30 percent of 
     its cumulative underwriting gain or loss.''
       (5) Reimbursement rate.--Section 508(k)(4)(A) of the 
     Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1508(k)(4)(A)) is 
     amended by striking clause (ii) and inserting the following:
       ``(ii) for each of the 2008 and subsequent reinsurance 
     years, 15 percent of the premium used to define loss 
     ratio.''.
       (c) Renegotiation of Standard Reinsurance Agreement.--
       (1) In general.--Section 508(k) of the Federal Crop 
     Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1508(k)) is amended by adding at the 
     end the following:
       ``(8) Renegotiation of standard reinsurance agreement.--The 
     Corporation may renegotiate the financial terms and 
     conditions of each Standard Reinsurance Agreement not more 
     frequently than once every 3 years. Crop insurance companies 
     are not allowed to collude during the renegotiation of 
     financial terms of the Standard Reinsurance Agreement.''.
       (2) Conforming amendments.--Sections 536 of the 
     Agricultural Research, Extension, and Education Reform Act of 
     1998 (7 U.S.C. 1506 note; Public Law 105-185) and section 148 
     of the Agricultural Risk Protection Act of 2000 (7 U.S.C. 
     1506 note; Public Law 106-224) are repealed.
       (d) Crop Insurance Program Compliance.--
       (1) Use of unused funding to improve program integrity.--
     Section 522(e)(3) of the Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 
     1522(e)(3)) is amended by striking ``the Corporation may 
     use'' through the end of the paragraph and inserting the 
     following: ``the Corporation may use--''
       ``(A) not more than $10,000,000 for each fiscal year to 
     improve program integrity, such as
       ``(i) increasing the number of compliance personnel;
       ``(ii) increasing compliance related training;
       ``(iii) improving analysis tools and technology related to 
     compliance;
       ``(iv) identifying, utilizing, and expanding innovative 
     compliance strategies and technology; and
       ``(v) developing and maintaining the information management 
     system developed pursuant to section 10706(b) of the Farm 
     Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (7 U.S.C. 8002(b)); 
     and
       ``(B) any excess amounts to carry out other activities 
     authorized under this section.''.
       (2) Conforming amendment regarding violation of highly 
     erodible land conservation requirements.--Section 1211(a)(1) 
     of the Food Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3811(a)(1)) is 
     amended--
       (A) by striking ``or'' at the end of subparagraph (C);
       (B) by inserting ``or'' at the end of subparagraph (D); and
       (C) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
       ``(E) crop insurance under the Federal Crop Insurance Act 
     (7 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.);''.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN (during the reading). Without objection, the 
reading is dispensed with.
  There was no objection.

[[Page 21106]]

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the modification?
  Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, this is 
ridiculous. We have an Agriculture Committee. The Agriculture Committee 
has under it the jurisdiction of the crop insurance program. The crop 
insurance program's largely governed by the crop insurance law which is 
going to be up for reauthorization in the next Congress. We are close 
to completing a farm bill. The gentleman, who is not on the committee 
but participated in a hearing in the Government Oversight Committee, 
has developed a keen interest in the crop insurance program. He has 
advanced an amendment which has been made in order. It would have 
substantial consequences to the crop insurance program, and it has not 
had a hearing in the Agriculture Committee.
  But beyond that, as with all amendments, there are timelines to 
submit to the Rules Committee, printed in the Record. Everyone has a 
chance to evaluate precisely what the gentleman is saying.

                              {time}  1215

  Well, that's not enough, because this morning, he comes to the floor 
and says that he has discovered, almost like a Grisham novel, 
discovered, on page 668, language. It's not just wrong, it's criminal, 
and if we only followed this man, we can alleviate ourselves of 
wrongdoing that must be criminal and save the reputation of our House 
and Members in it. Oh, what drama is unfolding here. What nonsense is 
purported by the gentleman asking for this unanimous consent request.
  I will assert objection to the unanimous consent request. This is not 
accidental language. It didn't fall from the sky. It's part of a 
complete plan on crop insurance and the structure of a public-private 
partnership.
  I look forward to working with the gentleman in an ongoing effort to 
really dig to the bottom of the gentleman's questions. But I will tell 
you something, none of us, certainly not me, is so doggone smart that 
after a hearing I go off and do a little more study, write a bill 
totally undoing vital risk protection to our farmers, and if that's not 
enough, come to the floor of the House and ask for unanimous consent to 
try and further rewrite this program right here as we go, without even 
having printed language before us.
  Mr. Chairman, I assert the objection to the unanimous consent 
request.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard. The amendment is not 
modified.
  Mr. COOPER. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Tennessee has 1 minute 
remaining.
  Mr. COOPER. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman who just spoke knows that we 
discussed this precise matter at dinner last night. He was not caught 
unawares at all. We discussed it at some length at dinner.
  Second, it is the prerogative of any Member of this House to defend 
the honor of this institution. I am personally extremely disappointed 
that our provision allowing what would otherwise be antitrust 
violation, wrongful, possibly criminal behavior, would be allowed to be 
inserted in this bill, apparently without the knowledge of anyone on 
the committee, certainly not of anyone on the Judiciary Committee.
  I regret his objection. But my intention is clear. We need to reform 
crop insurance in America. I only found out about this issue, as the 
gentleman said correctly, because I am fortunate enough to be a member 
of the Government Reform Committee.
  Under the hearings led by Henry Waxman, we did more to uncover abuse 
in this area than the Agriculture Committee ever did. In fact, when I 
attended the agriculture hearing, only four members of that committee 
were present to hear the government witnesses to describe the ongoing 
abuse in the crop insurance industry, witnesses from the GAO and USDA 
IG.
  This is important information that every Member of the House deserves 
to have, because we should not be party to handing out free antitrust 
exemptions without anybody knowing about it.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition and yield the 
customary 2\1/2\ minutes to the ranking member from Virginia.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
Scott), a member of the committee.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman from Virginia 
may control 2\1/2\ minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, with all due respect to the 
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cooper) whose intentions are certainly 
well meaning, here is the situation. This was never brought before our 
committee. We spent hour after hour, most times till 1:00 or 2:00 in 
the morning, working on a variety of these issues.
  Now, if there are charges that he is speaking of, and they appear to 
be serious, they belong in the jurisdiction of the Justice Department, 
not in the Agriculture Committee.
  That is where this argument needs to be taken, but not at this late 
hour at a time when it has not been brought before our committee. And, 
as he said, he might have mentioned it to the gentleman, Mr. Pomeroy, 
at dinner, but that's a hue and a cry from having this discussion in 
the full Agriculture Committee.
  The other point is that there are 16 companies who provide crop 
insurance. If this rather draconian amendment were even adopted, it 
would severely wreak havoc in the crop insurance industry as we know it 
and provide fewer choices for our farmers.
  Again, it is beyond the jurisdiction of the Agriculture Committee.
  I respectfully ask that we oppose the gentleman's amendment.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, the committee bill makes significant 
reforms to the Crop Insurance Program. The bill reduced the statutory 
loss ratio to an actuarially sound 1.0. By doing this, we were able to 
include a provision by Mr. Neugebauer that makes additional crop 
insurance available, which has to be paid for, which will lessen need 
for disaster assistance.
  Mr. Neugebauer's provision is similar in many respects to the 
administration's crop insurance plan. The committee bill increases 
premiums for the catastrophic level of coverage.
  We authorize the USDA to renegotiate the standard reinsurance 
agreement every 5 years. The committee bill specifically authorizes 
data mining to ensure compliance with rules of the program. The 
committee bill also reduces the reimbursement rate by 2 percentage 
points. These are significant changes that make the program more 
actuarially sound and make the program more responsible with taxpayer 
dollars.
  Additionally, the committee-passed bill authorized an additional 1 
million acres in the GRP land to protect sensitive grasslands in this 
country. While we all would like more money for many programs, this is 
a carefully balanced approach. I think we have done a good job of 
balancing the needs of both commodity producers and those that would 
like to preserve native grasslands.
  I strongly oppose this amendment.
  Mr. COOPER. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GOODLATTE. I would be happy to yield.
  Mr. COOPER. I have the highest respect for the gentleman and for all 
the members of the Agriculture Committee. I am sure this was not 
intentional. That's why I am trying to correct the problem.
  When I looked into it, 84 percent of the savings that are in the 
agriculture bill from crop insurance happened only in year 5. Nothing 
happens in year 1, 2, 3, 4. Year 5 is the year in which the next 
agriculture bill will be drafted. It's very unlikely that those cuts 
will ever occur, when 84 percent of them are back-loaded in year 5. So 
that was my concern about those cuts.
  But the larger provision, allowing these collusive discussions and 
negotiations with the government, surely the gentleman is disturbed by 
those.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Reclaiming my time from the gentleman, let me just say 
that these changes are real, they are legitimate, they will be put into 
effect. The chairman has committed to

[[Page 21107]]

holding additional hearings and investigation into the matter. We will 
do that.
  But to pull the safety net out from under American farmers and 
ranchers by doing something in a precipitous fashion is not a good 
idea.
  Therefore, I oppose the amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy).
  Mr. POMEROY. Some quick facts: the insurance industry operates in 
this country under an antitrust exemption. It was passed into law in 
1945 in the McCarron-Ferguson Act. But for a relatively recent 
interpretation of the Department of Justice, in constant negotiation, 
the Federal Government to the private sector partner has always been 
conducted under the way anticipated under the bill.
  Twenty years ago I was a State insurance commissioner. At that time 
there were more than 60 companies writing crop insurance. Now they are 
down to 16. Why is that? Because there is so doggone much money here? 
Heck, no. It's because it's a tough line of business to work.
  I am not saying that we don't need to look at it, but the committee 
takes out $2.9 billion, and now we got a guy that thinks he knows we 
can take out billions more. I tell you, you take out billions more, my 
farmers don't have the vital risk protection they need when crops fail 
and they need to make the payment back to the banker on their loans. So 
this is serious stuff. This isn't an academic exercise. This is vital 
risk protection for the farmers.
  Vote ``no'' on this amendment.
  Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Chairman, as chairman of the Subcommittee on 
General Farm Commodities and Risk Management, we have already held 
three hearings this year. The chairman has indicated that the committee 
is going to hold more hearings. We are going to look into this deeper. 
I think that's appropriate. To make this kind of change on the floor of 
the House at the 11th hour is unfair to the farmers of America.
  I oppose the gentleman's amendment and would ask the Members of this 
body to do the same. Let it go back to the committee so we will have 
the opportunity to do it at committee level where it should be done.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cooper).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the 
noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. COOPER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Tennessee 
will be postponed.


                  Announcement by the Acting Chairman

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings 
will now resume on those amendments printed in part B of House Report 
110-261 on which further proceedings were postponed, in the following 
order:
  Amendment No. 7 by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas.
  Amendment No. 12 by Mr. Rangel of New York.
  Amendment No. 13 by Mr. Boehner of Ohio.
  Amendment No. 19 by Mr. Davis of Illinois.
  Amendment No. 21 by Mr. Udall of Colorado.
  Amendment No. 25 by Mr. Putnam of Florida.
  Amendment No. 27 by Mr. Cooper of Tennessee.
  The Chair will reduce to 2 minutes the time for any electronic vote 
after the first vote in this series.


          Amendment No. 7 Offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Texas 
(Ms. Jackson-Lee) on which further proceedings were postponed and on 
which the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 422, 
noes 3, not voting 12, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 748]

                               AYES--422

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Allen
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldwin
     Barrett (SC)
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Bordallo
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boustany
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Braley (IA)
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Butterfield
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chandler
     Christensen
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Cohen
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Davis, Lincoln
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Emerson
     Engel
     English (PA)
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Faleomavaega
     Fallin
     Farr
     Fattah
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Giffords
     Gilchrest
     Gillibrand
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Granger
     Graves
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hall (TX)
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hobson
     Hodes
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Inglis (SC)
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jindal
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Jordan
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Klein (FL)
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     Kuhl (NY)
     Lamborn
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Lynch
     Mack
     Mahoney (FL)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCollum (MN)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     McNerney
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Mica
     Michaud
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murphy, Tim
     Murtha
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Neugebauer
     Norton
     Nunes
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pearce
     Pence
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rodriguez
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Salazar
     Sali
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schmidt
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Sestak
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sires
     Skelton
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Souder
     Space
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Sutton
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor
     Terry
     Thompson (CA)

[[Page 21108]]


     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh (NY)
     Walz (MN)
     Wamp
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (OH)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Yarmuth
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                                NOES--3

     Gohmert
     King (IA)
     Weldon (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Castor
     Clarke
     Cubin
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Emanuel
     Fortuno
     Frank (MA)
     Hastert
     Issa
     Kucinich
     LaHood
     Slaughter

                              {time}  1249

  Mrs. CAPPS and Messrs. CANTOR, BARROW, CAMPBELL of California, FRANKS 
of Arizona and FEENEY changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 748 I voted 
``no.'' I meant to vote ``aye.''


                 Amendment No. 12 Offered by Mr. Rangel

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


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 182, 
noes 245, not voting 10, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 749]

                               AYES--182

     Abercrombie
     Allen
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Bartlett (MD)
     Becerra
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Camp (MI)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carney
     Carson
     Castle
     Christensen
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Lincoln
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ellison
     Emerson
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Faleomavaega
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Flake
     Giffords
     Gilchrest
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Grijalva
     Hall (NY)
     Harman
     Herger
     Herseth Sandlin
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jindal
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Loebsack
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     McNulty
     Meeks (NY)
     Michaud
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Norton
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Peterson (MN)
     Poe
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Ross
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shays
     Shea-Porter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Stark
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor
     Thompson (CA)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Woolsey
     Wynn

                               NOES--245

     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Barrow
     Barton (TX)
     Bean
     Berkley
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono
     Bordallo
     Boustany
     Boyd (FL)
     Braley (IA)
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Butterfield
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carter
     Castor
     Chabot
     Chandler
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Donnelly
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ellsworth
     Engel
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Fallin
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gillibrand
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Green, Gene
     Gutierrez
     Hall (TX)
     Hare
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Higgins
     Hobson
     Hodes
     Hoekstra
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Inglis (SC)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Jordan
     Keller
     Kennedy
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Klein (FL)
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     Kuhl (NY)
     Lamborn
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Mahoney (FL)
     Marchant
     Marshall
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meek (FL)
     Melancon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murphy, Tim
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pearce
     Pence
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rodriguez
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Rothman
     Royce
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Salazar
     Sali
     Saxton
     Schiff
     Schmidt
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Space
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Sutton
     Tancredo
     Terry
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh (NY)
     Wamp
     Wasserman Schultz
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (OH)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Wu
     Yarmuth
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Clarke
     Cubin
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Emanuel
     Fortuno
     Frank (MA)
     Hastert
     Issa
     Kucinich
     LaHood


                  Announcement by the Acting Chairman

  The Acting CHAIRMAN (during the vote). Members are advised that they 
have 1 minute remaining in this vote.

                              {time}  1255

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


                Amendment No. 13 Offered by Mr. Boehner

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


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 153, 
noes 271, not voting 13, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 750]

                               AYES--153

     Allen
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrett (SC)
     Bean
     Berman
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bono
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Castle
     Chabot
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, David
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doggett
     Donnelly
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake

[[Page 21109]]


     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gillmor
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Granger
     Hall (TX)
     Harman
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holt
     Honda
     Hunter
     Inglis (SC)
     Israel
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Keller
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Kirk
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     Lamborn
     Lewis (CA)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Matheson
     McCaul (TX)
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     McNerney
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Mitchell
     Moore (WI)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Myrick
     Paul
     Pence
     Petri
     Pitts
     Poe
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Reichert
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Saxton
     Schmidt
     Schwartz
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Sestak
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Space
     Stark
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Turner
     Upton
     Walberg
     Wamp
     Waxman
     Weldon (FL)
     Westmoreland
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Wu
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--271

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baker
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Boozman
     Bordallo
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boustany
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Burgess
     Butterfield
     Camp (MI)
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson
     Carter
     Castor
     Chandler
     Christensen
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Cohen
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, Lincoln
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dent
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Emerson
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Faleomavaega
     Fallin
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Gerlach
     Giffords
     Gilchrest
     Gillibrand
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez
     Graves
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hare
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Herger
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Inslee
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jindal
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     King (IA)
     Kingston
     Klein (FL)
     Kuhl (NY)
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Lynch
     Mahoney (FL)
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matsui
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum (MN)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy, Tim
     Murtha
     Musgrave
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Neugebauer
     Norton
     Nunes
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pearce
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Pickering
     Platts
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Rehberg
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rodriguez
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (MI)
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Shea-Porter
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NE)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor
     Terry
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh (NY)
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--13

     Broun (GA)
     Clarke
     Cubin
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Emanuel
     Fortuno
     Frank (MA)
     Hastert
     Issa
     Kucinich
     LaHood
     Maloney (NY)
     Sali


                  Announcement by the Acting Chairman

  The Acting CHAIRMAN (during the vote). Members are advised that there 
is 1 minute remaining in this vote.

                              {time}  1259

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


           Amendment No. 19 Offered by Mr. Davis of Illinois

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


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 144, 
noes 282, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 751]

                               AYES--144

     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrett (SC)
     Bean
     Berkley
     Berman
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Blackburn
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Brady (PA)
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Burton (IN)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Castle
     Chabot
     Christensen
     Clay
     Cooper
     Costello
     Courtney
     Culberson
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Doggett
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Ellison
     English (PA)
     Eshoo
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Fossella
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Gutierrez
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Higgins
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holt
     Inglis (SC)
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (OH)
     Jordan
     Kanjorski
     Keller
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Langevin
     Lee
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Manzullo
     McCarthy (NY)
     McKeon
     Mitchell
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murphy, Tim
     Myrick
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Paul
     Payne
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Reichert
     Rohrabacher
     Roskam
     Royce
     Rush
     Ryan (WI)
     Schiff
     Schmidt
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Sestak
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Souder
     Stark
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walberg
     Wamp
     Waters
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Westmoreland
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--282

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Arcuri
     Bachmann
     Baker
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Becerra
     Berry
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Bonner
     Bordallo
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boustany
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (TX)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Butterfield
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson
     Carter
     Castor
     Chandler
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Cohen
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Conyers
     Costa
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Davis, Lincoln
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Donnelly
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellsworth
     Emerson
     Engel
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Faleomavaega
     Fallin
     Farr
     Fattah
     Feeney
     Filner
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Giffords
     Gilchrest
     Gillibrand
     Gillmor
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Granger
     Graves
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Hall (NY)
     Hall (TX)
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Herger
     Herseth Sandlin
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jindal
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (NC)
     Kagen
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     King (IA)
     Klein (FL)
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     Kuhl (NY)
     Lamborn
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Lynch
     Mack
     Mahoney (FL)
     Maloney (NY)
     Marchant
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (CA)

[[Page 21110]]


     McCaul (TX)
     McCollum (MN)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McMorris Rodgers
     McNerney
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Mica
     Michaud
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murtha
     Musgrave
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Neugebauer
     Norton
     Nunes
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pastor
     Pearce
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickering
     Poe
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (NC)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Rehberg
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rodriguez
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sali
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NE)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Space
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor
     Terry
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh (NY)
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Watson
     Watt
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Yarmuth
     Young (AK)

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Clarke
     Cubin
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Emanuel
     Fortuno
     Frank (MA)
     Hastert
     Issa
     Kucinich
     LaHood
     Saxton


                  Announcement by the Acting Chairman

  The Acting CHAIRMAN (during the vote). Members have 1 minute 
remaining in this vote.

                              {time}  1303

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated against:
  Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Chairman, on July 27, 2007, I inadvertently voted 
``aye'' on Davis Amendment to H.R. 2419 (rollcall No. 751). I intended 
to vote ``no'' on the amendment.


           Amendment No. 21 Offered by Mr. Udall of Colorado

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


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 175, 
noes 251, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 752]

                               AYES--175

     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Bean
     Berkley
     Berman
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boucher
     Boyda (KS)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Capps
     Carney
     Castle
     Chabot
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Cooper
     Courtney
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Dent
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dreier
     Ehlers
     Ellison
     English (PA)
     Eshoo
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Frelinghuysen
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Hall (NY)
     Harman
     Heller
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hobson
     Hodes
     Hoekstra
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kennedy
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Kirk
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     Kuhl (NY)
     Lamborn
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McNerney
     McNulty
     Meeks (NY)
     Michaud
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Musgrave
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Obey
     Olver
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Putnam
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reichert
     Reynolds
     Rohrabacher
     Royce
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shays
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Souder
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tancredo
     Tauscher
     Terry
     Thompson (CA)
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Walsh (NY)
     Waters
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Yarmuth
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--251

     Abercrombie
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Becerra
     Berry
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Bordallo
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boustany
     Boyd (FL)
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Braley (IA)
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Butterfield
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Carter
     Castor
     Chandler
     Christensen
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Cohen
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Conyers
     Costa
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Davis, Lincoln
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     Delahunt
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Donnelly
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Drake
     Duncan
     Ellsworth
     Emerson
     Engel
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Faleomavaega
     Fallin
     Farr
     Fattah
     Feeney
     Filner
     Forbes
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Gallegly
     Giffords
     Gilchrest
     Gillibrand
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (TX)
     Hare
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herseth Sandlin
     Hill
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Holden
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Inglis (SC)
     Jefferson
     Jindal
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Jordan
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     King (IA)
     Kingston
     Klein (FL)
     Lampson
     Larsen (WA)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Mahoney (FL)
     Marchant
     Marshall
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meek (FL)
     Melancon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy, Tim
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Norton
     Nunes
     Oberstar
     Ortiz
     Pastor
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Pickering
     Poe
     Price (GA)
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Salazar
     Sali
     Sarbanes
     Schmidt
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (TX)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Space
     Spratt
     Sullivan
     Tanner
     Taylor
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Turner
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Walz (MN)
     Wamp
     Wasserman Schultz
     Watson
     Watt
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Clarke
     Cubin
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Edwards
     Emanuel
     Fortuno
     Frank (MA)
     Hastert
     Issa
     Kucinich
     LaHood


                  Announcement by the Acting Chairman

  The Acting CHAIRMAN (during the vote). Members are advised there is 1 
minute remaining in this vote.

                              {time}  1309

  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN changed her vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. WYNN, Mr. TOWNS, and Mrs. BOYDA of Kansas changed their vote from 
``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                 Amendment No. 25 Offered by Mr. Putnam

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

[[Page 21111]]




                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 175, 
noes 252, not voting 10, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 753]

                               AYES--175

     Abercrombie
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachmann
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Barton (TX)
     Bean
     Berman
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Blackburn
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bono
     Boyd (FL)
     Brady (TX)
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Cardoza
     Carter
     Castle
     Castor
     Chabot
     Costa
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Davis, David
     Davis, Lincoln
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doggett
     Doolittle
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Ellison
     Engel
     English (PA)
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Granger
     Green, Gene
     Hall (TX)
     Harman
     Hastings (WA)
     Heller
     Herger
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hirono
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hunter
     Johnson, Sam
     Keller
     Kind
     Klein (FL)
     Knollenberg
     Lamborn
     Langevin
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Mack
     Mahoney (FL)
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     McNerney
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Nunes
     Paul
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (KY)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Salazar
     Sali
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schmidt
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Sestak
     Shays
     Shea-Porter
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sires
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Taylor
     Thompson (CA)
     Thornberry
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Wamp
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Welch (VT)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (OH)
     Wilson (SC)
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--252

     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berry
     Bilbray
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Bonner
     Boozman
     Bordallo
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boustany
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Burton (IN)
     Butterfield
     Buyer
     Campbell (CA)
     Capuano
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson
     Chandler
     Christensen
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Cohen
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Cuellar
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Donnelly
     Doyle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Edwards
     Ellsworth
     Emerson
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Faleomavaega
     Fallin
     Fattah
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Giffords
     Gilchrest
     Gillibrand
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Graves
     Green, Al
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hare
     Hastings (FL)
     Hayes
     Hensarling
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hinojosa
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Inglis (SC)
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jindal
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Jordan
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline (MN)
     Kuhl (NY)
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (KY)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Lynch
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCollum (MN)
     McCotter
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murphy, Tim
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Neugebauer
     Norton
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pearce
     Pence
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Poe
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Rehberg
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ross
     Rothman
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Shadegg
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Space
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Terry
     Thompson (MS)
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walsh (NY)
     Walz (MN)
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Wu
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Clarke
     Cubin
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Emanuel
     Fortuno
     Frank (MA)
     Hastert
     Issa
     Kucinich
     LaHood

                              {time}  1313

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


                 Amendment No. 27 Offered by Mr. Cooper

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


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 175, 
noes 250, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 754]

                               AYES--175

     Ackerman
     Allen
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Bartlett (MD)
     Bean
     Berman
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boucher
     Buchanan
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carnahan
     Castle
     Castor
     Chabot
     Chandler
     Christensen
     Cohen
     Cooper
     Costello
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, David
     Davis, Lincoln
     Davis, Tom
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Dent
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Ellison
     English (PA)
     Eshoo
     Faleomavaega
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Fossella
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Giffords
     Gillibrand
     Gillmor
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Grijalva
     Hall (NY)
     Harman
     Hensarling
     Higgins
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hodes
     Hoekstra
     Holt
     Honda
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Kaptur
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Kirk
     Knollenberg
     Kuhl (NY)
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larson (CT)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Lynch
     Maloney (NY)
     Marchant
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Michaud
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Neal (MA)
     Olver
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pence
     Petri
     Pitts
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Reichert
     Rogers (MI)
     Rothman
     Ryan (WI)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Sensenbrenner
     Sestak
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Solis
     Stark
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Tauscher
     Taylor
     Terry
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Visclosky
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Yarmuth
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--250

     Abercrombie
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Barrow
     Barton (TX)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berry
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Bordallo
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boustany
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Braley (IA)
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Butterfield
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Cantor
     Capito
     Cardoza
     Carney
     Carson
     Carter
     Clay

[[Page 21112]]


     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Conyers
     Costa
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (KY)
     Deal (GA)
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Drake
     Edwards
     Ellsworth
     Emerson
     Engel
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Fallin
     Farr
     Fattah
     Feeney
     Filner
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Gilchrest
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Green, Gene
     Gutierrez
     Hall (TX)
     Hare
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Heller
     Herger
     Herseth Sandlin
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hobson
     Holden
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Inglis (SC)
     Jackson (IL)
     Jindal
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Jordan
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Keller
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     King (IA)
     Kingston
     Klein (FL)
     Kline (MN)
     Lamborn
     Lampson
     Larsen (WA)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Loebsack
     Lucas
     Mack
     Mahoney (FL)
     Manzullo
     Marshall
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McMorris Rodgers
     McNerney
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murphy, Tim
     Murtha
     Musgrave
     Napolitano
     Neugebauer
     Norton
     Nunes
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Ortiz
     Pastor
     Paul
     Pearce
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Pickering
     Platts
     Poe
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rodriguez
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sali
     Sarbanes
     Schmidt
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shea-Porter
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (TX)
     Snyder
     Souder
     Space
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Turner
     Velazquez
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh (NY)
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (OH)
     Wilson (SC)
     Young (AK)

                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1

       
     Gingrey
       

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Clarke
     Cubin
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Emanuel
     Fortuno
     Frank (MA)
     Hastert
     Hunter
     Issa
     Kucinich
     LaHood


                  Announcement by the Acting Chairman

  The Acting CHAIRMAN (during the vote). Members are reminded they have 
1 minute remaining in this vote.

                              {time}  1318

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an 
amendment today to give pollinator protection and the concern of Colony 
Collapse Disorder a prominent presence in H.R. 2419, the Farm Bill 
Extension Act of 2007. This amendment reflects the contributions of 
countless organizations and a bi-partisan coalition of Members of 
Congress who share a common concern for pollinator decline.
  When issues like Colony Collapse Disorder and pollinator decline 
threaten one-third of American agriculture, they must be taken 
seriously. I commend Chairman Peterson and the Committee on Agriculture 
for their tireless work on provisions in the current Farm Bill 
Extension Act to address pollinator research. However, my amendment 
demonstrates the need to clarify that significant research and 
conservation programs will play an important role in combating Colony 
Collapse, Disorder and North American pollinator decline in years to 
come. If we want our children to enjoy food grown in this nation in the 
coming years, then we must save bees and other pollinators.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment adds a section to the bill authorizing 
$86.5 million over 5 years for facilities improvement and research 
grants to combat Colony Collapse Disorder and North American native/
managed pollinator decline. These funds would be authorized through a 
combination of initiatives at the U.S. Department of Agriculture, USDA, 
including the Agricultural Research Service, ARS, the Cooperative State 
Research, Education, and Extension Service, CSREES, and the Animal 
Plant and Health Inspection Service, APHIS. This section of the 
amendment is very similar to my legislation H.R. 1709, the Pollinator 
Protection Act, which has the bi-partisan support of 50 cosponsors. 
This amendment also incorporates welcome adjustments to the Pollinator 
Protection Act which I collaborated with Senator Barbara Boxer to 
develop in the companion legislation, S. 1694, the Pollinator 
Protection Act of 2007.
  My amendment also clarifies the importance of native and managed 
pollinators in vital conservation programs of USDA. This component of 
the amendment reflects the content of H.R. 2913, the Pollinator Habitat 
Protection Act of 2007, which Representative Earl Blumenauer and I 
recently introduced, similar to S. 1496 introduced by Senator Max 
Baucus. On the Senate side, this similar legislation has received vast 
bi-partisan support from 33 cosponsors.
  Mr. Chairman. Moments like this truly demonstrate the collaborative 
capacity of this great Congress to meet a dire need with thoughtful 
policy that truly engages stakeholders and impacted communities.
  I thank Members of Congress that worked with me in both chambers of 
Congress in this effort to save American agriculture. I also thank the 
many scientists and organizations for their endorsement of this 
amendment, namely: the American Beekeeping Federation, Inc., American 
Honey Producers Association, American Farmland Trust, California Farm 
Bureau Federation, California State Beekeepers Association, Center for 
Biological Diversity, Coevolution Institute, Defenders of Wildlife, 
Environmental Defense, Florida Farm Bureau Federation, National 
Wildlife Federation, Partners for Sustainable Pollination, Sonoma 
County Beekeepers Association, Sustainable Agriculture Coalition, Wild 
Farm Alliance, and the Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation.
  I thank Chairman Peterson for his support and I urge my colleagues 
support this vital amendment.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to 
continuation of a failed farm policy that takes from the poor to give 
to the rich. Although the Farm Bill, H.R. 2419 before us is being sold 
as a reform package, it is little more than a dressed up version of 
previous ``Farm Bills'' that have paid over $1 billion to dead farmers 
and $1.3 billion to individuals who do not farm.
  Our so-called ``farm policy'' overwhelmingly benefits the wealthiest 
landowners at the expense of small farmers. The top 10 percent of 
recipients collect 60 percent of all payments. Large landowners receive 
the most subsidies, which allows them to purchase the best land from 
smaller farmers. This drives many farmers out of business and increases 
the price of land.
  This bill does lower the income cap and prohibits individuals with 
more than $1 million in annual income from receiving direct payments. 
Unfortunately, there are numerous loopholes in this provision, which 
led the Bush Administration's own Agriculture Department to estimate 
that as few as 3,000 out of the 1.5 million individuals receiving 
direct payments will be cut off. This bill therefore does little to end 
the corporate welfare that has become the hallmark of our agriculture 
policy.
  Congressmen Kind and Flake are offering real reform. I support their 
Fairness in Farm and Food Policy Amendment because it creates a 
meaningful income limit to make sure no subsidies go to farmers with a 
yearly income over $250,000. It gradually reduces direct payments and 
reforms the bloated crop insurance program. These savings are then 
invested into conservation, minority farmers, fruit and vegetable 
production, and a $5.6 billion boost to vital nutrition programs. This 
is the new direction in which America's farm policy should be headed.
  I applaud the efforts of my many colleagues who worked hard to 
include additional funding for the Food Stamps program and the 
McGovern/Dole International Food program. Their efforts will help 
millions of hungry families in this country and around the world. 
However, this bill, does not go far enough to provide food for the 
hungry and looks to the wrong place to pay for the limited funding it 
does provide. If we are truly concerned about our Nation's hungry and 
poor, we could stop subsidizing agri-business and put the money we 
recoup from eliminating current subsidies to feed our neighbors and 
support family farms.
  I urge my colleagues to vote for meaningful reform, support the Kind/ 
Flake amendment, and oppose the underlying bill.
  Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, during debate tonight on the Fairness in Farm 
and Food Policy Amendment to the farm bill I offered with my colleagues 
Mr. Flake, Mr. Blumenauer, Mr. Ryan, and others, a false claim was made 
regarding the budgetary impact of the amendment, and I would like to 
correct the record to reflect the truth. While the error, to the best 
of my knowledge, was not intentional and the false statement was not 
made knowingly, I believe it is important that I make the accurate 
information known.
  Tonight, Chairman Peterson stated that the savings claimed by the 
reforms made by the

[[Page 21113]]

amendment were not realized, and he questioned, therefore, the validity 
of these reforms. Unfortunately, the statement was based on inaccurate 
information. After consulting with the Congressional Budget Office, it 
appears the Chairman was basing his comments on a comparison with 
current law rather than a comparison to H.R. 2419, which was how our 
amendment was drafted. The official CBO score shows that our amendment 
would have, in fact, saved the government billions of dollars during 
both the five- and 10-year windows in relation to the bill as reported 
by the Agriculture Committee.
  It is unfortunate this mistake was made on the House floor tonight 
and was not corrected at the time. When writing policy that affects 
every single American, it is important that we base our decisions on 
timely and accurate information. I appreciate this opportunity to 
provide the real facts on our amendment.
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of section 
10404 of the 2007 Farm Bill, which would provide $35 million in funding 
over the next five years for farmers' markets through the Farmer 
Marketing Assistance Program. This provision also designates that 10 
percent of the funding will be used to support the use of Electronic 
Benefits Transfer, EBT, technology at farmers' markets. I want to thank 
Representative Kagen for his leadership and his amendment to the bill 
that strengthens our nation's farmers' markets and provides much needed 
resources for food stamp recipients to use their benefits at farmers' 
markets. I also appreciate his working with me on this issue.
  As someone who regularly shops at a farmers' market in my hometown of 
Evanston, IL, I have seen first hand that farmers' markets are a 
positive force wherever they crop up, providing consumers with fresh 
food options, preserving family farms, increasing health and nutrition 
and connecting urban and rural Americans. Direct marketing of farm 
products has ballooned in recent years from 1,755 farmers markets in 
1994 to over 4,385 in 2006. These markets average $245,000 per year in 
revenue, with the typical farmer netting about $7,108. Even though 
farmers' markets are highly seasonal, 25 percent of vendors rely on 
them as their sole source of farm-based income.
  Even as farmers' markets are expanding to unprecedented numbers, the 
2006 USDA Farmers' Market Survey found that only 6 percent of these 
markets have implemented EBT technology. In my home city of Chicago, we 
only have one farmers' market that can accept EBT cards: the Logan 
Square market became the first farmers' market in Illinois just last 
month. However, at a time when obesity, food insecurity and chronic 
illnesses impact millions of low-income Americans, most still cannot 
use their food stamp benefits to purchase nutritious food at farmers' 
markets.
  This past May, I participated in the Food Stamp Challenge and lived 
on the national average food stamp benefit for one week. Even though 
the $3 per day allotment was inadequate, I had the good fortune of 
access to nearby grocery stores. Millions of Americans, however, have 
no grocery stores near their homes and live in what are known as ``food 
deserts.'' In fact, a 2004 study by Mississippi State University found 
that in the midwest, 34 percent of Americans live in food deserts, with 
this percentage approaching 50 percent in western States. Investments 
in farmers' markets are a low-cost solution to the crisis of food 
deserts and provide new options for Americans who currently have 
limited access to healthy food.
  In 2006, USDA received over $15 million in grant applications from 
farmers' markets across the country under the Farmer Marketing 
Assistance Program and with only $1 million in available funds, it was 
only able to meet a fraction of the need. That represents a tremendous 
missed opportunity to improve the health of Americans. Today's raising 
of funding of the Farmer Marketing Assistance Program to $35 million 
over 5 years will help us get closer to meeting the need we know is out 
there. I urge my colleagues to pass the 2007 Farm Bill, which includes 
the Kagen Amendment, and to retain this important measure in 
Conference.
  Ms. BORDALLO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 2419, the Farm, 
Nutrition, and Bioenergy Act, because I recognize its value to rural 
America and the promise it brings for renewing our national commitment 
to agriculture, nutritional research and food safety, and alternative 
energy and conservation.
  I recognize that this legislation has been carefully crafted by a 
committee chaired by our highly respected colleague, the gentleman from 
Minnesota, Mr. Peterson. I commend him for his leadership. This 
legislation sets Federal farm policy and will be the basis for 
agricultural governance over the next 5 years. Importantly, it takes 
into account in several respects, the needs and priorities of farmers 
and ranchers residing in the territories.
  The bill earns my support because it provides a reliable safety net 
for commodity crops, buttresses, in many respects, core conservation 
programs, and will now strengthen important domestic and international 
food nutrition programs.
  Within this bill is a renewed and increased commitment to specialty 
crops. Specialty crops are important to the farmers and ranchers and 
consumers in the territories. Mr. Chairman, in the territories, we live 
and share the experiences of everyday life in rural America. We have 
much in common with our fellow Americans living and working in the 
small States and in the heartland of the U.S. mainland. We are 
economically challenged and strong Federal-local partnerships are the 
backbone of our ability to grow and diversify our economies.
  Conservation in the islands is achieved through such partnerships. 
This bill presents a means through which such partnerships can be 
continued and strengthened. Historically, the Government of Guam has 
sought and utilized loans and programs under the Rural Development 
umbrella of the United States Department of Agriculture, USDA, to build 
its public works and infrastructure. Our utilities have largely and 
historically been constructed with Rural Development support. The 
continuation of authority for the range of Rural Development programs 
administered by USDA through Title VI of H.R. 2419 is one reason why I 
lend my support to this bill. These programs will be relied upon as a 
means to help our community of Guam meet additional and projected needs 
associated with the rebasing of Marines from Okinawa to Guam and 
realignment of defense forces in the Pacific Rim.
  The bill carries other provisions of unique interest to me and to my 
colleagues from the territories. In particular, I am grateful for the 
accommodations made and the support received from Chairman Peterson and 
the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Goodlatte, for two specific 
provisions.
  First, now within the research title of the bill, as a result of the 
amendment I sponsored with the gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands, 
Mrs. Christensen, the gentleman from American Samoa, Mr. Faleomavaega, 
and the gentleman from Puerto Rico, Mr. Fortuno, that was packaged into 
the en bloc amendment offered by Chairman Peterson, USDA will have 
authority to award grants to the land grant institutions in the 
territories for facilities improvements, construction, and equipment 
acquisition and repair.
  Congress designated the University of Guam and the University of the 
Virgin Islands as land grant institutions by an Act passed in 1972. 
That Act was amended by Congress in 1980 to designate American Samoa 
Community College, the Northern Marianas College, and the College of 
Micronesia, as land grant institutions.
  The land grants colleges and universities in the territories are a 
unique set of institutions with special needs and challenges within the 
national land grant college and university family. Our institutions are 
known informally as the 1972 community, and like the 1890 and 1994 
communities, are an underserved set of institutions that USDA has 
authority to support in key areas.
  The new authority under this bill for a grants program in support of 
facilities improvements and equipment acquisition will strengthen the 
institutional capacity at the land grant institutions in the 
territories to sponsor research and execute extension activities of 
national value. This is a $40 million authorization across 5 years. We 
have requested that this authority be included within the bill to 
complement USDA resources to support research and extension and 
instruction capacity building in the territories. Our land grant 
institutions are vital to our success in the islands--economically, 
agriculturally, scientifically, and environmentally. Our institutions 
have limited resources, but these institutions and the territorial 
governments meet the matching requirements under the Hatch Act each 
year because these programs are so important to our communities.
  The bill also extends the authorization for two grants programs 
authorized by the 2002 farm bill. These are the resident instruction 
and distance education grants programs for the territories.
  Second, is an amendment that we proposed and that was placed into the 
bill to amend the definition of ``State'' in the Specialty Crops 
Competitiveness Act of 2004 to include American Samoa, Guam, the 
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and the Virgin Islands of 
the United States, as eligible recipients of block grant funding that 
stands to be reauthorized by this bill. The inclusion of this provision 
is a significant victory for the territories. I am grateful for the 
support received

[[Page 21114]]

from the gentleman from California, Mr. Cardoza, for its inclusion in 
the bill.
  Our farmers have invested in harvesting many traditional and tropical 
fruits, nuts, and horticultural specialties. Avocados, bananas, beans, 
betel nuts, breadfruits, coconuts, cucumbers, grapefruit, guavas, limes 
and lemons, mangoes, oranges, papayas, peppers, pineapples, squash, 
sweetsops, tangerines, tomatoes, and watermelons, are, for example, 
several of the specialty crops harvested in the territories whose 
market competitiveness stands to be improved now as a result of this 
bill.
  The inclusion of the territories in this block grant funding will 
help our local Departments of Agriculture increase the capacity of our 
farmers to competitively farm and sell specialty crops. On Guam alone, 
the market value of specialty crops sold was estimated in 2002 by the 
National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) at $3.4 million. We 
hope this new funding will result in increased production of fresh 
vegetables and local fruits and make Guam's market prices competitive.
  It is for these reasons, and others, that I support H.R. 2419. As the 
Chairwoman of the Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife and Oceans, I 
recognize the value the bill presents for conservation. I support it 
because of its conservation provisions. I look forward to working with 
the leadership to protect the provisions important to the territories 
and to national conservation by the conference committee.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this bipartisan Farm 
Bill, and, in particular, section 4302. This section includes language 
directing the Secretary of Agriculture to undertake training, guidance, 
and enforcement of current Buy American Statutory requirements. I 
applaud the Agriculture Committee for including this important 
provision in the Farm Bill.
  Congress has time and time again expressed its desire that taxpayer 
dollars be used to purchase domestically produced goods. We have 
consistently stated, through public law and senses of the Congress, 
that American-made goods should be given top priority.
  Despite the repeated efforts of Congress, however, the United States 
Department of Agriculture (USDA) has chosen not to enforce the law. 
Schools, if they are even aware of the Buy American requirement, need 
training and assistance in how to incorporate the requirement into 
their bid solicitations.
  Some companies blatantly disregard the requirement. A year ago, at a 
national school food conference, a food company marketed their peaches 
to school foodservice authorities. However, these peaches were clearly 
marked: ``peaches from China, packed in Thailand.'' If a school 
foodservice authority were to purchase this product for use in the 
national school lunch and breakfast programs, it would be an outright 
violation of Federal law.
  After this was brought to the attention of USDA, a letter was issued 
to the conference host. No additional guidance, no additional training, 
no attempt to bring awareness to the issue. Obviously, the problem has 
not been adequately dealt with. A year later, at the same national 
school food conference, held just a week ago, the same product was 
exhibited: ``peaches from China, packed in Thailand.'' Evidently, 
nothing has changed. USDA needs to take responsibility to fulfill its 
duty to implement the law.
  We produce, and should be promoting, plenty of high quality fresh, 
canned, and frozen product in the U.S. There is no reason to violate 
the law and purchase foreign goods. Now, more than ever, when our 
farmers need support, when we are facing food imports of questionable 
safety, it is vital that we ensure our school children are eating 
products produced by American Agriculture.
  I applaud the Agriculture Committee for including this important 
language.
  Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Farm 
Bill.
  I commend Chairman Peterson and Ranking Member Goodlatte for 
producing a fair compromise that will go a long way in sustaining our 
agricultural system as well as supporting vital nutrition, conservation 
and research programs.
  I would also like to thank the Chairman for including language 
directing the Government Accountability Office to conduct a study of 
waste water infrastructure along the U.S.-Mexico border.
  Many rural communities along the border are living with inadequate 
waste water treatment plants and sewer management systems.
  Without improved infrastructure and access to clean water these 
communities face significant public health threats.
  This study will determine what steps the Federal Government can take 
to bring inadequate waste water systems in rural border communities up 
to date.
  In my district alone I have heard from the communities of Sabinal, 
Clint, Fort Stockton, Presidio and Fort Hancock, Texas, all of which 
are in desperate need of assistance with their waste water management 
systems.
  I represent over 600 miles of the U.S.-Mexico border and when I 
travel through my district I hear over and over again that these 
communities need help.
  Our rural and underserved populations need our support in addressing 
the health hazards that come with insufficient water management systems 
and this study is a critical first step.
  Current programs at the USDA Rural Development agency provide for 
loan/grant awards for rural infrastructure needs.
  More often than not, the loan portion is 75 percent or more of the 
award. As we all know, waste water systems can range from $5 to $10 
million or more. Rural communities do not have the revenue or tax base 
to take on loans for millions of dollars.
  If these programs are the only assistance we have to offer, then we 
need to reevaluate these programs.
  It is my hope, that this GAO study will shed some light on this issue 
and will provide a critical first step to bring adequate waste water 
systems to our rural communities on the border.
  Again, I thank the Chairman for his work on the Farm Bill and for the 
inclusion of this important language.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I would first like to commend Chairman 
Peterson and the members of the Agriculture Committee for completing 
the difficult task of bringing this bill to the floor in a bipartisan 
fashion.
  I supported the 2002 farm bill, which has served Michigan farmers 
well. The agricultural sector in this country is strong, and it is a 
good time to take a look at our farm support system and figure out how 
we can make it better for small farmers and specialty crop farmers.
  We must recognize that farming is an inherently risky enterprise; 
producers are exposed to both production and price risks. Therefore, it 
is incumbent upon our government to be there for farmers when markets 
fail. We cannot afford to turn our back on America's farmers and our 
farm policy should be structured so that those who produce the safest 
and most abundant food supply in the world have an adequate safety net. 
We should also promote research to find new uses for the agricultural 
products grown in our fields and to promote these products in the 
global marketplace. However, it is not our responsibility to give cash 
payouts to millionaires, dead farmers or suburbanites who have no 
involvement in farming but just happened to purchase a house located on 
farmland.
  In 2005, 92 percent of the total farm payments last year went to just 
five crops. Michigan has the second-most diverse agriculture base in 
the Nation and I am glad to see that for the first time, the farm 
legislation before us today guarantees a historic $1.5 billion in 
funding for fruit and vegetable programs, including the school fresh 
fruit and vegetable program, the farmer's market promotion program, 
specialty crop block grants and research and organic food programs--all 
of which provide valuable support for the fresh fruit and vegetable 
growers in Michigan.
  The legislation before us today strengthens incentives for farmers to 
conserve valuable natural resources and protect the environment. 
Currently, three out of four farmers are turned away from conservation 
programs due to lack of funding. It is unacceptable for farmers who are 
trying to do the right thing for the environment to be rejected because 
we have not allocated enough resources to help them. H.R. 2419, the 
Farm, Nutrition, and Bioenergy Act of 2007, adds $4.3 billion more to 
preserve farm and ranchland, improve water quality and quantity, and 
enhance soil conservation, air quality, and wildlife habitat on working 
lands.
  I support the Fairness amendment offered by my colleague Ron Kind not 
because I am dissatisfied with H.R. 2419 but because I believe that it 
goes one step farther towards curbing taxpayer subsidies by reforming 
our farm payment system to direct aid to those who need assistance. 
Make no mistake, the Fairness amendment does not dismantle the safety 
net--it just modernizes the program so that it works better for family 
farms and 348 Congressional Districts, including Michigan's 15th 
District, which would gain $6 million under the Kind proposal.
  The Fairness amendment does not weaken any of the commendable 
nutrition or conservation provisions in H.R. 2419--rather, it makes 
them better by adding $2 billion for nutrition programs and $3 billion 
for conservation programs. Moreover, it does all of this without 
requiring spending offsets or new taxes.

[[Page 21115]]

  Mr. Chairman, H.R. 2419 contains no legislative text expressing a 
view on whether manure should be deemed a hazardous substance pursuant 
to the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and 
Liability Act, CERCLA, or the Emergency Planning and Community Right to 
Know Act, EPCRA. The absence of any such text is proper both for 
parliamentary and policy reasons.
  The report that accompanies this legislation, however, references a 
``sense of the committee'' amendment that farm animal manure should not 
be deemed a hazardous substance pursuant to CERCLA and EPCRA.
  I strongly disagree with these sentiments, which would create a 
blanket exemption from important environmental laws for those large 
concentrated animal feeding operations that pollute public drinking 
water supplies with phosphorous and emit more than 100 pounds per day 
of ammonia and hydrogen sulfide into the air.
  Manure is not at risk of being deemed a ``hazardous substance'' or 
``hazardous waste.'' That is misinformation put forth by some. 
Phosphorous, however, is a ``hazardous substance'' under CERCLA and the 
Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, has determined that both ammonia 
and hydrogen sulfide are ``extremely hazardous substances'' for the 
``reportable quantity'' reporting requirements of EPCRA.
  Congress clearly intended that the Superfund program deal with the 
improper and excessive application of fertilizer that pollutes drinking 
water supplies or damages natural resources. This is manifestly clear 
because Section 101 (22) of the Superfund statute creates an exemption 
from the definition of release for ``the normal application of 
fertilizer.'' If substances such as phosphorous that emanate from the 
excessive application of manure fertilizer are exempted, the only 
people being protected are the bad actors.
  These large concentrated animal feeding operations produce huge 
amounts of animal waste. For example, an animal feeding operation with 
2 million hogs produces a volume of manure equal to the solid waste 
stream of a U.S. city of about 2.7 million--a city similar in size to 
Chicago's 2.8 million population.
  The Environmental Protection Agency has found that large-scale 
concentrated animal feeding operations present significant human health 
and environmental risks. Let me quote EPA's findings:
  ``Significant human health and environmental risks are generally 
associated with large-scale Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations, 
CAFOs. Improper handling of manure from feedlots, lagoons and improper 
land application can result in excessive nutrients (nitrogen and 
phosphorous); pathogens (i.e., fecal coli form); and other pollutants 
in the water. This pollution can kill fish, cause excessive algae 
growth, and contaminate drinking water. In addition, emissions of air 
pollutants from very large CAFOs may result in significant health 
effects for nearby residents.''
  A blanket exemption from CERCLA for excessive application of manure 
fertilizer would also shift the costs onto community water systems and 
their ratepayers for additional treatment to make water potable. I 
attach the July 23, 2007, letter from the Association of Metropolitan 
Water Agencies that highlights the serious consequences that any such 
an exemption would have for the quality our Nation's drinking water 
supplies.
  Mr. Chairman, the Farm Bill Extension Act also makes changes to the 
Rural Utilities Service broadband loan and loan guarantee program. 
While this program is in dire need of reform, I am concerned about 
several provisions in the measure as drafted.
  The measure wisely limits loans and loan guarantees in areas where 
consumers already have broadband service available to them. I am deeply 
concerned, however, that it describes those areas where broadband is 
available too broadly, so that applications to provide broadband to 
large areas of a community that currently have no broadband service at 
all would be denied.
  The bill also prohibits support in areas where more than 75 percent 
of households have access to broadband. National satellite broadband 
providers can in theory reach close to 100 percent of households. 
However, while satellite-delivered broadband is a rapidly-improving and 
valuable service, particularly in remote areas, today it is often not 
comparable to terrestrially-delivered broadband. It typically cannot 
reach the same speeds and is more expensive and subject to outages in 
heavy rainstorms and other severe weather. While I appreciate the 
bill's commitment to technological neutrality, if satellite-delivered 
broadband is not excluded from the 75-percent requirement, there may be 
few areas that would be eligible for loans.
  When it comes to broadband service, speed is critical, and the 
measure could also be improved by giving priority to applications that, 
other things being equal, propose to offer higher broadband speeds to 
consumers.
  I also strongly disagree with creating within the Department of 
Agriculture a National Center for Rural Telecommunications Assessment 
to increase broadband penetration and develop assessments of broadband 
availability in rural areas. These are matters that fall squarely 
within the expertise of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and 
should be left to that agency's expertise. Likewise, any report 
describing a comprehensive rural broadband strategy should be developed 
by the FCC rather than by the Department of Agriculture. I applaud the 
goal of working toward universal broadband availability and urge my 
colleagues to ensure that we attain that goal by allowing the FCC, the 
agency with the most expertise, to spearhead that effort.
                                                    Association of


                                  Metropolitan Water Agencies,

                                    Washington, DC, July 23, 2007.
     Subject: Oppose CERCLA Animal Waste Exemption in Farm Bill.

       Dear Representatives: As the House of Representatives 
     prepares this week to consider legislation to reauthorize the 
     Farm Bill, we urge you to reject language that would exempt 
     components of animal waste from designation as a hazardous 
     substance pursuant to the Comprehensive Environmental 
     Response Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA). Enactment 
     of such an exemption would bring about serious consequences 
     for the quality of America's drinking water supplies.
       During last week's markup of the legislation, the 
     Agriculture Committee adopted an amendment expressing the 
     ``sense of the committee that farm animal manure should not 
     be considered as hazardous substance'' under CERCLA. This 
     follows the introduction earlier this year of legislation in 
     the House and Senate that would specifically exempt animal 
     waste and its components from the law.
       As representatives of community drinking water systems, we 
     believe it is important to note that animal manure itself is 
     not currently considered a hazardous substance, pollutant or 
     contaminant under CERCLA. Moreover, the law already contains 
     an exemption for the normal application of fertilizer that 
     includes manure.
       However, phosphorus and other CERCLA-regulated hazardous 
     substances that are known to compromise the quality of 
     drinking water are commonly present in animal manure. If 
     Congress were to provide a blanket CERCLA exemption for 
     animal waste, consolidated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) 
     would be free to discharge manure containing such hazardous 
     substances into the environment without regard to its impact 
     or liability for its damages. As a result, the costs of 
     additional treatment to make water potable would be forced 
     upon community water systems and their ratepayers, unfairly 
     shifting the burden of cleanup away from polluters.
       Later this year, Congress will celebrate the 35th 
     anniversary ofthe Clean Water Act, landmark legislation 
     modeled on the belief that all Americans must share the 
     responsibility of maintaining the health of our nation's 
     water supply. Exempting CAFOs from their fair share of this 
     duty not only threatens to reverse the water quality gains 
     that have been realized over the recent decades, but would 
     also set a dangerous precedent encouraging other polluters to 
     seek waivers from our environmental laws.
       Again, we urge you to oppose a blanket exemption for animal 
     waste and its components from the important requirements of 
     CERCLA.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Diane VanDeHei,
                                               Executive Director.

  Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. Mr. Chairman, during debate on H.R. 2419, 
the Department of Agriculture Appropriations bill, the issue of school 
nutrition came before the House. As the Chairwoman of the Committee on 
Education and Labor's Subcommittee on Healthy Families and Communities, 
ensuring our Nation's youth have access to healthy school lunches and 
understand the importance of a healthy lifestyle is of vital importance 
to me.
  As a nurse, I have seen first hand the importance of a balanced diet. 
Many health issues can be avoided by simply maintaining a balanced 
diet. Unfortunately, our Nation's youth do not always have healthy 
options. The high sugar snacks they see advertised on television 
provide no nutrition and are a major factor in weight gain. It is 
important that our Nation's youth have healthy options that taste good 
and are appealing to them.
  Obesity is a major problem facing our Nation's youth. Childhood 
diabetes is also on the rise. Type II diabetes, which only used to be 
seen in older adults is now becoming prevalent in children. These 
issues clearly extend beyond children to the whole family and the 
community in which they live. One way Congress can help reduce these 
numbers is by providing healthy school lunches.

[[Page 21116]]

  Although meals provided in schools are required by law to follow 
nutrition standards in accordance with the ``Dietary Guidelines for 
Americans'', a child with the money available can just as easily avoid 
nutrition and grab a soda and a bag of chips down the hall in the 
vending machines. These items, although bad for one's health, often 
taste better to students and there are no guidelines for schools on 
healthy living and eating.
  Another issue facing school nutrition is the reduced price meal 
program. This is a vital program that helps low-income families afford 
meals for their children. Unfortunately, for many families, the cost is 
found to be a challenge. It breaks my heart to read that families 
struggle to afford the 30 cents for breakfast and 40 cents for lunch 
which is the charge for the reduced price meals.
  Families cannot afford less than $1 a day to have two solid, 
nutritious meals provided to a child. This is a travesty, and I support 
study to see the effects of using the WIC income guidelines as the free 
meal guidelines,
  As Chairwoman of the Subcommittee on Healthy Families and 
Communities, I understand the importance of a healthy lifestyle, and as 
a parent I know that we must teach our children the value of nutritious 
food and healthy living. We cannot ignore the factors outside the 
classroom that contribute to the education of our youth. They are the 
future of our Nation.
  Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 2419, the Farm, 
Nutrition, and Bioenergy Act of 2007 and urge my colleagues to pass 
this meaningful legislation.
  I want to thank Chairman Peterson for crafting this legislation and I 
also want to again thank the Chairman for visiting my district and 
talking and listening with my farmers and ranchers on the Central Coast 
of California.
  I am glad the Chairman got to experience the rangelands of South 
County Monterey and the mile after mile of nutritious fresh produce as 
we drove through the Salad Bowl of the World, the Salinas Valley.
  As the number one agriculture State in the union, California for too 
long has been the stepchild of farm policy. My own district grows more 
than 85 crops commercially with a value of more than $4 billion.
  Our region leads the nation in the production of artichokes, 
broccoli, brussels sprouts, cauliflower, celery, garlic, several 
varieties of lettuce, spinach, strawberries, flowers and foliage.
  The Central Coast contains some of the most fertile and productive 
farm land in the world. It's a combination of soil, climate, and 
private risk capital because for too long specialty crop growers in 
California have sat on the sidelines as other commodities received the 
largess of Federal assistance.
  H.R. 2419 takes farm policy in a new direction, for the first time in 
the history of the Farm Bill we have a package that has something for 
everyone.
  Specialty crop growers finally will get the investment of mandatory 
funds for vital research, technical assistance, pest detection, market 
promotion, and much needed produce food safety will all receive 
mandatory funding.
  With this influx of money we can go beyond new farm policy, we can 
promote health policy as part of the farm bill.
  This great health debate is taking place in American homes, in the 
medical community, and in schools. For the first time we now have a 
link from farm programs to healthy nutritious fruits and vegetables.
  Here we are as a society, talking constantly about obesity and diets, 
and yet until now our farm policies were not structured to encourage 
the kind of diet that the food pyramid suggests we should adopt.
  I have said it many times--if people would eat more of what 
California grows we would be healthier for it. Specialty Crops are now 
taking its rightful place at the center of the debate on how to solve 
the problem.
  The Agriculture Committee's version provides funding for important 
conservation programs, nutrition programs, and a strong farm safety net 
to protect America's farm economy.
  H.R. 2419 includes additional funding for conservation programs, $350 
million to expand the fruit and vegetable snack program to schools 
throughout the country, $365 million to fund the specialty crop block 
grant program, funding for pest exclusion activities, $215 million for 
specialty crop research, and $30 million for organic research.
  I want to make special note of the $25 million in mandatory spending 
for the produce food safety grants included in this bill. As ground 
zero for the spinach E. Coli outbreak last year I understand all too 
well what happens when the food system breaks down.
  I am thankful for the $25 million investment in mandatory research 
grants so we can gain the needed knowledge and understanding so we 
never have to go through this kind of outbreak again.
  All of these provisions provide significant benefits to California's 
specialty crop growers, who make up the majority of California 
agriculture.
  Ms. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Farm 
Bill Extension Act of 2007 not because it is a perfect bill but because 
of the many good things that it does for poor people and minorities in 
our country.
  I want to begin by commending Chairman Peterson and Subcommittee 
Chairman Cardoza for their willingness to work with me and other 
members to address concerns we had with the bill.
  I am especially pleased that the bill includes language to correct an 
apparent oversight in the 2004 Specialty Crops Competitiveness Act that 
defined a State to exclude the Virgin Islands or any of the other 
smaller territories; which meant that my district, the Virgin Islands 
has been denied any specialty crop block grant funding by the USDA.
  Mr. Speaker, the Virgin Islands once had a significant history of 
agricultural production. A substantial portion of our current 
agricultural production now consists of vegetables (e.g., cucumbers, 
lettuce, and tomatoes), fruits (e.g., bananas, mangoes and papayas) and 
horticultural specialties, including ornamental plants. The Government 
of the Virgin Islands and in particular our Department of Agriculture, 
believes that there are considerable opportunities to expand production 
of these specialty crops.
  As an island economy, we must import a large portion of its fruits 
and vegetables for its own residents and for the 2 million tourists who 
visit the Islands each year. We see great opportunity to increase local 
production of fresh specialty crops to serve both its residents and 
visitors. The eligibility for us to receive specialty crop block grant 
funding would greatly assist us in our efforts to expand and enhance 
specialty crop production in the Virgin Islands.
  The bill before us provides $365 million in mandatory funding to 
expand the specialty crop block grant program, meaning that our farmers 
will not have to rely upon annual renewal of the program through the 
appropriations process.
  I am also very pleased the Farm Bill Extension offers significant 
improvements to the Food Stamp Program, 1890 land-grant institutions, 
and improved access to programs for Socially Disadvantaged Farmers and 
Ranchers, including language and funds to address outstanding claims 
from Pigford v. Veneman.
  Mr. Chairman, as I noted at the outset, this bill is not a perfect 
bill. But as the old saying goes, we should not let the perfect be the 
enemy of the good. This is a good bill for the American people and I 
urge my colleagues to support its adoption.
  Mr. HALL of New York. Mr. Chairman, I thank the Chairman and rise to 
offer an amendment to help farmers in regions across the country 
simultaneously meet the goals of continued production and environmental 
protection.
  My amendment would establish a Conservation on Muck Soils program 
that would provide conservation assistance tailored to the specific 
needs of farmers who grow crops on what is known as muck soil.
  In politics I know we hear a lot about wallowing in the partisan muck 
or muckraking, but I'm sure that some of my colleagues are scratching 
their heads and asking, ``What exactly is muck soil?'' Well, muck is a 
special type of dirt that develops a thick organic layer of topsoil 
that is highly vulnerable to erosion when the lands are exposed to air. 
It's extremely fertile, loose soil in which farmers grow crops like 
onions, potatoes, lettuce, celery, and other specialty crops.
  Mr. Chairman, I am very supportive of the conservation programs 
administered by the USDA. They make an important contribution by making 
it economically feasible for farmers to manage their land while being 
environmentally responsible. In States like my home of New York, they 
are critical to making sure that farmers aren't penalized for doing the 
right thing. I'm extremely pleased by the increases in conservation 
program levels under this bill, and I'm sure that they'll make these 
programs more accessible and effective.
  However, they are broad programs built to accommodate a wide array of 
conditions. Because of muck's special characteristics, existing 
conservation programs don't necessarily provide support to growers on 
these lands in the most efficient, effective way possible. My amendment 
would attempt to acknowledge the nature of this soil with a tailored 
approach that improves on the current application of the Conservation 
Reserve Enhancement Program.
  The CREP program is a good program. It attempts to further the 
important goals of preventing soil erosion and protecting water quality 
through a voluntary retirement program. In

[[Page 21117]]

order to obtain conservation payments, the CREP program requires 
farmers to enter into 10-15 year agreements to remove qualifying land 
from agricultural production.
  As I said, this is a good program but it does not always present an 
adequate conservation solution, particularly for farmers who want to 
prevent soil erosion or runoff pollution without foregoing production.
  At times, this aspect of the program has created unintended 
consequences, including the retirement of specialized, productive soil 
from farming and a lack of land maintenance leading to weed and pest 
threats on neighboring lands.
  My amendment would address these concerns and help muck soil farmers 
remain viable by providing support for conservation activities on 
working lands.
  In addition to being actively involved in farming on muck soil, in 
order to qualify farmers would have to have a spring cover crop planted 
with the primary crop to prevent soil erosion, maintain a winter cover 
crop to prevent off season soil loss, have surrounding ditch banks 
seeded with grass on a year round basis to stave off runoff and 
erosion.
  These are practices specifically designed to prevent erosion, runoff, 
and water pollution. By doing so, it would not force farmers to make 
the choice between conservation and cultivation.
  Mr. Chairman, the COMS program would provide a unique opportunity to 
support active farmers and protect the environment. That's why it has 
been endorsed by the New York Farm Bureau and the National Farmers 
Union. I urge support for the amendment.
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the Farm Bill, with great 
appreciation for the many challenges it presented to Chairman Collin 
Peterson, and respect for the Chairman's skill in meeting a multitude 
of complicated and often competing demands. I want to say a word about 
a small change in the bill that nevertheless rises to historic 
dimensions. I thank Chairman Peterson and his staff for providing equal 
treatment in the bill for the University of the District of Columbia, 
UDC, the only all urban 1862 Land Grant Institution in the United 
States. The University performs valuable urban agricultural research 
and extension services. The fact that the provisions the Chairman has 
included were in the Congressional Black Caucus farm bill package 
underscores the UDC changes as necessary to afford the University 
equality under the law. The changes end the disparate treatment of UDC 
by removing obligations not required of other land grant institutions, 
particularly mandatory local matching funds.
  By statute, UDC has been left out of funding opportunities granted to 
other land grant institutions. For example, the University is required 
to provide 100 percent matching funds for its Expanded Food and 
Nutrition Education Programs, EFNEP, the only 1862 Land Grant 
Institution required to do so. Under the bill, this inequitable 
requirement will be removed, putting UDC on par with all other 1862 
institutions, and like other small land grant institutions, UDC will 
qualify to have matching requirements for Hatch Act programs and 
extension programs reduced or waived. We particularly appreciate access 
to grants to significantly enhance the University's teaching and 
research capacity building and its ability to upgrade its research, 
teaching and extension facilities.
  We still require clarification on one issue related to Smith-Lever 
Act funds. We will seek to clarify this issue during conference. 
However, the substance of the changes we requested is in this bill. We 
are grateful for the historic breakthroughs in the equal treatment for 
the country's only all urban land grant institution.
  Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, I submit the following 
information for the Record.

                                         House of Representatives,


                                     Committee on Agriculture,

                                    Washington, DC, July 26, 2007.
     Hon. Charles B. Rangel,
     Chairman, Committee on Ways and Means, Longworth House Office 
         Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Rangel: Thank you for your letter regarding 
     the Committee on Ways and Means' jurisdictional interest in 
     H.R. 2419, the Farm, Nutrition, and Bioenergy Act 2007.
       I appreciate your willingness to expedite this legislation 
     for floor consideration, with the understanding that it does 
     not prejudice your Committee's jurisdictional prerogatives on 
     this or similar legislation.
       I will submit a copy of your letter and this response as 
     part of the Congressional Record during consideration of the 
     legislation on the House floor. Thank you for your support of 
     H.R. 2419 and your cooperation as we work towards enactment 
     of this important legislation.
           Sincerely,
                                               Collin C. Peterson,
     Chairman.
                                  ____

                                         House of Representatives,


                                  Committee on Ways and Means,

                                    Washington, DC, July 23, 2007.
     Hon. Collin Peterson,
     Chairman, Committee on Agriculture,
     Longworth House Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing regarding H.R. 2419--the 
     Farm Bill Extension Act of 2007--which was ordered to be 
     reported by the House Agriculture Committee on July 19, 2007, 
     and is expected to be on the House Floor this week.
       As you know, the Committee on Ways and Means has 
     jurisdiction over import matters, such as the administration 
     of tariff-rate quota programs like sugar. Accordingly, some 
     provisions of H.R. 2419 fall under the Committee's 
     jurisdiction.
       There have been some very productive conversations between 
     the staffs of our committees. Our understanding is that your 
     staff has conceded the Ways and Means jurisdiction over the 
     issues listed above. In order to expedite this legislation 
     for Floor consideration, the Committee will forgo action on 
     this bill and will not oppose its consideration on the House 
     Floor. This is being done with the understanding that it does 
     not in any way prejudice the Committee or its jurisdictional 
     prerogatives on this, or similar legislation in the future.
       I would appreciate your response to this letter, confirming 
     our understanding with respect to H.R. 2419, and would ask 
     that a copy of our exchange of letters on this matter be 
     included in the record.
           Sincerely,
                                                Charles B. Rangel,
     Chairman.
                                  ____

                                         House of Representatives,


                                     Committee on Agriculture,

                                    Washington, DC, July 26, 2007.
     Hon. James L. Oberstar,
     Chairman, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, 
         Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Oberstar: Thank you for your letter regarding 
     the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure's 
     jurisdictional interest in HR 2419, the Farm, Nutrition, and 
     Bioenergy Act 2007.
       I appreciate your willingness to expedite this legislation 
     for floor consideration, with the understanding that it does 
     not prejudice your Committee's jurisdictional prerogatives on 
     this or similar legislation.
       I will submit a copy of your letter and this response as 
     part of the Congressional Record during consideration of the 
     legislation on the House floor. Thank you for your support of 
     H.R. 2419 and your cooperation as we work towards enactment 
     of this important legislation.
           Sincerely,
                                               Collin C. Peterson,
     Chairman.
                                  ____

         House of Representatives, Committee on Transportation and 
           Infrastructure,
                                    Washington, DC, July 26, 2007.
       Dear Chairman Peterson: I write to you regarding H.R. 2419, 
     the ``Farm, Nutrition and Bioenergy Act of 2007''.
       H.R. 2419 contains provisions that fall within the 
     jurisdiction of the Committee on Transportation and 
     Infrastructure. I recognize and appreciate your desire to 
     bring this legislation before the House in an expeditious 
     manner and, accordingly, I will not seek a sequential 
     referral of the bill. However, agreeing to waive 
     consideration of this bill should not be construed as the 
     Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure waiving its 
     jurisdiction over H.R. 2419.
       Further, the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 
     reserves the right to seek the appointment of conferees 
     during any House-Senate conference convened on this 
     legislation on provisions of the bill that are within the 
     Committee's jurisdiction.
       I look forward to working with you as we prepare to pass 
     this important legislation.
           Sincerely,
                                          James L. Oberstar, M.C.,
     Chairman.
                                  ____

                                         House of Representatives,


                                     Committee on Agriculture,

                                    Washington, DC, July 25, 2007.
     Hon. John Dingell,
     Chairman, House Committee on Energy and Commerce, Rayburn 
         House Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Dingell: Thank you for your letter regarding 
     the Committee on Energy and Commerce's jurisdictional 
     interest in H.R. 2419, the ``Farm, Nutrition, and Bioenergy 
     Act of 2007''.
       I appreciate your willingness to expedite this legislation 
     for floor consideration, with the understanding that it does 
     not prejudice your Committee's jurisdictional prerogatives on 
     this or similar legislation. I would support your request for 
     conferees should a House-Senate conference be convened on 
     this or similar legislation.
       I will submit a copy of your letter and this response as 
     part of the Congressional Record during consideration of the 
     legislation on the House floor. Thank you for your support of 
     H.R. 2419 and your cooperation as

[[Page 21118]]

     we work towards enactment of this important legislation.
           Sincerely,
                                               Collin C. Peterson,
     Chairman.
                                  ____

                                         House of Representatives,


                             Committee on Energy and Commerce,

                                    Washington, DC, July 25, 2007.
     Hon.  Collin C. Peterson,
     Chairman, Committee on Agriculture,
     Longworth House Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Peterson: I am writing with regard to H.R. 
     2419, the Farm, Nutrition, and Bioenergy Act of 2007. The 
     Bill contains provisions that fall within the jurisdiction of 
     the Committee on Energy and Commerce. I support passage of 
     the bill, and I recognize and appreciate your desire to bring 
     it up on the House floor in an expeditious manner. The 
     Committee did not send a letter to the Speaker seeking a 
     sequential referral of the bill. This decision was based on 
     my understanding that you have agreed that the inaction of 
     the Committee with respect to the bill does not in any way 
     serve as a jurisdictional precedent as to our two committees.
       Further, as to any House-Senate conference on the bill, the 
     Committee on Energy and Commerce reserves the right to seek 
     the appointment of conferees for consideration of portions of 
     the bill that are within the Committee's jurisdiction. It is 
     my understanding that you have agreed to support a request by 
     the Committee with respect to serving as conferees on the 
     bill (or similar legislation).
       I request that you send a letter to me confirming our 
     agreements as to jurisdiction, including with respect to 
     conferees, and that our exchange of letters be inserted in 
     the Congressional Record as part of the consideration of the 
     bill.
       The portions of the reported bill that are of 
     jurisdictional interest to the Committee on Energy and 
     Commerce include sections 2105, 6002, 6006, 6007, 6012, 6022, 
     6023, 6024, 6028, 6029, 6030, 6031, 7203, 7403, and 7410, and 
     portions of title IX.
       I look forward to working with you on this important 
     legislation. If you wish to discuss this matter further, 
     please contact me.
           Sincerely,
                                                  John D. Dingell,
     Chairman.
                                  ____

                                         House of Representatives,


                                     Committee on Agriculture,

                                    Washington, DC, July 25, 2007.
     Hon. George Miller,
     Chairman, House Committee on Education and Labor, Rayburn 
         House Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Miller: I am writing to confirm our mutual 
     understanding regarding the consideration of H.R. 2419, the 
     ``Farm, Nutrition, and Bioenergy Act of 2007,'' which was 
     reported on June 23. I am aware that the Committee on 
     Education and Labor has a jurisdictional interest in several 
     provisions contained within H.R. 2419, as reported.
       Due to the importance of expediting this legislation, I 
     respectfully request that the Committee on Education and 
     Labor forgo requesting a sequential referral of H.R. 2419. My 
     request should not be construed as my asking the Committee to 
     relinquish its jurisdictional interests and prerogatives in 
     this bill or other similar legislation, and should not be 
     construed as setting a precedent for consideration of matters 
     of jurisdictional interest to the Committee on Education and 
     Labor in the future.
       Please send me, at your earliest convenience, a letter of 
     exchange, and I will ensure that both letters are included in 
     the Congressional Record during the consideration of this 
     bill. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please 
     do not hesitate to call me. I thank you for your 
     consideration.
           Sincerely,
                                               Collin C. Peterson,
     Chairman.
                                  ____

                                         House of Representatives,


                             Committee on Education and Labor,

                                    Washington, DC, July 25, 2007.
     Hon. Collin Peterson,
     Chairman, House Committee on Agriculture,
     Longworth House Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Peterson. I am writing to confirm our mutual 
     understanding regarding consideration of H.R. 2419, the 
     ``Farm, Nutrition, and Bioenergy Act of 2007,'' which was 
     referred to the Committee on Agriculture and reported to the 
     House on June 23. As you know, the Committee on Education and 
     Labor has a jurisdictional interest in several provisions in 
     the bill.
       Given the importance of moving this bill forward promptly, 
     I will not request the sequential referral of H.R. 2419 to 
     the Committee on Education and Labor. However, I do so only 
     with the understanding that this procedural route should not 
     be construed to prejudice this Committee's jurisdictional 
     interests and prerogatives on this bill or any other similar 
     legislation and will not be considered as precedent for 
     consideration of matters of jurisdictional interest to the 
     Committee on Education and Labor in the future.
       I appreciate your cooperation working with us in advance of 
     your Committee's markup of this bill and your commitment to 
     include a copy of our exchange of letters in the 
     Congressional Record during its consideration on the House 
     Floor. In addition, the Committee on Education and Labor 
     reserves the right to seek appointment to any House-Senate 
     conference on this legislation and looks forward to your 
     support if such a request is made.
       If you have any questions regarding this matter, please do 
     not hesitate to call me. I thank you for your consideration.
           Sincerely,
                                                    George Miller,
     Chairman.
                                  ____

                                         House of Representatives,


                                     Committee on Agriculture,

                                    Washington, DC, July 25, 2007.
     Hon. Bennie G. Thompson,
     Chairman, Committee on Homeland Security,
     Ford HOB, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Thompson: Thank you for your recent letter 
     regarding the Committee on Homeland Security's jurisdictional 
     interest in H.R. 2419, The Farm, Nutrition, and Bioenergy Act 
     of 2007. Section 10401 repeals section 421 of the Homeland 
     Security Act of 2002 (P.L. 107-296) and restores import and 
     entry agricultural inspection functions to the Department of 
     Agriculture.
       Although this provision was removed from H.R. 2419 in the 
     Manager's Amendment, I would support your request for 
     conferees from the Committee on Homeland Security should a 
     House-Senate conference to be convened on this or similar 
     legislation which contains such a provision.
       I will submit a copy of your letter and this response as 
     part of the Congressional Record during consideration of the 
     legislation on the House floor. Thank you for your support of 
     H.R. 2419 and your cooperation as we work towards enactment 
     of this important legislation.
           Sincerely,
                                               Collin C. Peterson,
     Chairman.
                                  ____

                                         House of Representatives,


                               Committee on Homeland Security,

                                    Washington, DC, July 24, 2007.
     Hon. Collin C. Peterson,
     Chairman, House Committee on Agriculture,
     Longworth House Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Peterson: I am writing regarding the 
     Committee on Homeland Security's jurisdictional interest in 
     H.R. 2419, the Farm Bill Extension Act of 2007. I appreciate 
     your willingness to work with me to address a concern in H.R. 
     2419, in advance of its consideration by the Full House of 
     Representatives.
       As I expressed to you, section 10401 in the Horticulture 
     Title would have a significant impact on the organization and 
     administration of the Department of Homeland Security. Under 
     Rule X of the Rules of the House of Representatives, 
     legislation impacting the organization and administration of 
     the Department of Homeland Security fall within the committee 
     on Homeland Security's jurisdiction. Like both H.R. 1706 and 
     H.R. 2629, this provision would repeal section 421 of the 
     Homeland Security Act of 2002 (P.L. 107-296) and would 
     nullify the March 2003 transfer of the Animal and Plant 
     Health Inspection Service (APHIS) inspectors from the 
     Department of Agriculture to the Department of Homeland 
     Security. I am pleased that though we may disagree about this 
     policy question, you agreed to strike the provision. I am 
     also pleased to work with you in order to ensure 
     consideration of this important legislation on the House 
     floor later this week.
       Should the provision at issue or any matter related to the 
     operations of the Department of Homeland Security find its 
     way into H.R. 2419 or companion legislation, I request your 
     support for any effort I undertake to secure an appropriate 
     number of conferees in a House-Senate conference on this or 
     similar legislation.
       As a former member of the Agriculture Committee, I have 
     watched my fair share of farm bills work their way through 
     the legislative process. I believe you should be commended 
     for shepherding this wide-ranging bill, as Chairman, in a 
     very effective manner.
       Finally, I request that a copy of this letter, together 
     with your response, be inserted in the Congressional Record 
     when the legislation is considered by the House later this 
     week.
       Thank you, again, for your prompt attention to this matter.
           Sincerely,
                                               Bennie G. Thompson,
                                                         Chairman.

  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 
2419, the Farm Bill Extension Act of 2007. The House Agriculture 
Committee has produced a comprehensive farm bill that represents true 
reform. Not only is the focus on getting vital benefits to family 
farmers and investing in America's producers; but it aims at 
stimulating rural economies, and securing renewable energy resources.
  Chairman Peterson has constructed an outstanding House Farm bill of 
which my colleagues on both sides of the aisle can be proud. H.R. 2419 
protects family farmers and

[[Page 21119]]

agriculture in America in a fiscally responsible way, and provides the 
freedom and the support that farmers need to compete and succeed at the 
business they know best--providing food, fiber and fuel for all 
Americans.
  Furthermore, the 2007 Farm Bill addresses many of my grave concerns 
about improved access to socially disadvantaged, and more specifically 
black farmers by providing Mandatory funding of the 2501 Socially 
Disadvantaged Farmers and Ranchers Outreach Program. Allowing deserving 
claimants in Pigford v. Glickman an opportunity to have their cases 
heard with a fund created to redress civil rights abuses against Black 
Farmers is an important step to providing justice to these families.
  This bill further makes major and timely reforms to the nutrition 
title, especially the Food Stamp program which increases and indexes 
benefits for the 26 million Americans that participate in this program 
each month. The House Agriculture Committee has also taken into 
consideration the need for expanding senior farmer markets and school 
snack programs, so that our elderly and youth have access to the proper 
amounts of fruits and vegetables to lead healthier lives.
  Mr. Chairman, I encourage passage of H.R. 2419 that will both extend 
and reform our nation's farm and nutrition programs into 2012. It is a 
well balanced approach to maintaining the gains we have made in prior 
legislation, and makes the necessary improvements to lead us into the 
future.
  Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, today I rise in strong 
support of H.R. 2419, the Farm, Nutrition and Bioenergy Act of 2007, 
which would make historic investments in conservation, nutrition and 
renewable energy while maintaining a strong safety net for America's 
farmers and ranchers.
  For the first time, this Farm Bill cracks down on farm subsidies and 
would redirect more than a half billion dollars to working family 
farmers and ranchers. The legislation would provide $4.6 billion in 
funding for important conservation programs, which includes the 
Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP), Farm Ranch Lands 
Protection Program (FRPP), and the Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program 
(WHIP). As a member of the House Select Committee on Energy 
Independence and Global Warming, I am pleased that this bill would 
provide $3.2 billion in funding for renewable energy research, 
development and production in rural America. This will expand the role 
of U.S. agriculture in our movement to greater energy independence.
  In addition, this Farm Bill would provide more than $1.5 billion in 
critical funding for specialty crop and organic growers in the United 
States. Under this bill, $365 million in mandatory funding would expand 
the specialty crop block grant program. The block grants are provided 
to states, including Connecticut, to support projects in research, 
marketing, education, pest and disease management, production, and food 
safety. The legislation would also increase and expand the Fresh Fruit 
and Vegetable Snack Program to schools in all 50 States, which will 
continue to encourage healthy diets to our Nation's children. More than 
11,000 dairy farmers in the Northeast will benefit from the extension 
of the Milk Income Loss Contract (MILC) program in the bill.
  Hunger in America is a reality for more than 11 percent of 
households. To this end, the legislation would make a long overdue 
funding increase for Food Stamps and nutrition programs by $4 billion 
over the next five years. Among other things, the bill would reform the 
program by indexing asset limits and eliminate the current cap on 
childcare costs to help the working poor meet rising costs. This will 
benefit the estimated 210,000 individuals in Connecticut who receive 
food stamps every month.
  The legislation before us today was a collective effort from members 
of the House Agriculture Committee who made new investments and 
important reforms in this Farm Bill. I would like to especially thank 
Agriculture Committee Chairman Collin Peterson for his leadership in 
putting forward a comprehensive bill that meets the 21st century needs 
of the United States and enhances programs in Connecticut. I urge my 
colleagues to vote for a new direction in our Nation's agriculture 
policy.
  Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, today we vote on one of the 
most critical bills that will come to the floor during the 110th 
Congress. While essential to farmers and ranchers across the Nation, 
the Farm Bill also impacts each one of us. Its provisions directly 
affect school children in this Nation and others, seniors and families 
struggling to live on fixed incomes, wildlife and wilderness, and 
international farmers struggling to become viable participants in a 
global marketplace.
  I applaud Chairman Peterson and the Agriculture Committee for their 
tireless efforts to produce a compromise bill that dissolves partisan 
boundaries, and improves upon the 2002 Farm Bill authorization. The 
bill takes modest steps towards improving commodity programs, by 
preventing the most wealthy from exploiting this safety net meant for 
assisting ranchers and farmers whose livelihoods precariously teeter at 
the mercy of climate and market fluctuation.
  The committee's bill extends and modestly increases funding for 
effective conservation and food security programs. Conservation 
programs help farmers to manage their lands in a sustainable manner 
that positively impacts wildlife, watersheds, and open spaces. 
Nutrition programs included in the bill bolster the fruits and 
vegetables industry, by increasing fresh food supplements for schools, 
children, families, and seniors.
  The 2007 Farm Bill also takes initial steps towards redistributing 
commodity programs to those who need them most. The bill's 
authorization of new funding for organic farmers, specialty crops, and 
farmer's markets will assist small farmers in meeting organic standards 
and in getting their products into local markets.
  I applaud the committee for initiating this redistribution of 
commodity programs and taking unprecedented steps towards expanding 
funding, outreach, and technical assistance for socially disadvantaged, 
beginning, and minority farmers. The committee's effort in this area 
brings the issue of the 2002 Farm Bill's exceptional lack of support 
for socially disadvantaged, beginning, and minority farmers to light. 
While an improvement, the bill could do more to affect real change in 
this area.
  One quarter of all farmers participate in commodity programs. Of 
these, just 10 percent receive 75 percent of all commodity subsidies. 
Congress must readjust the reach of the farm bill. Too many minority 
farmers lack access to USDA programs, too many farmworkers 
transitioning into farm owners lack access to federal safety nets that 
would help them get on their feet, and too many socially disadvantaged 
farmers lack access to the tools that would help them maneuver through 
the maze of commodity programs.
  With the reauthorization of the Farm Bill, Congress has the 
opportunity to make monumental changes to the distribution of 
agricultural and conservation programs. The Kind amendment would have 
brought such monumental changes to our Nation's agricultural sector and 
to the world economy. By gradually removing depression-era subsidies 
that have turned from a safety net into a security blanket, the Kind 
amendment would have lowered the federal deficit and redirected money 
into nutrition, food insecurity, and conservation programs at rates 
much greater than those outlined in the Farm Bill we are voting on 
today. The Kind amendment would have almost tripled funding for 
outreach and technical assistance for socially disadvantaged and 
beginning farmers, and would have put a moratorium on foreclosures on 
farms owned by socially-disadvantaged farmers and ranchers while 
creating a commission to investigate the causes of foreclosure.
  I am proud to have supported the Kind amendment and hope that such 
comprehensive reform will be possible in the future. Nevertheless, I am 
pleased that the Agriculture Committee has at least taken initial steps 
in the direction of reform, and I will vote in support of their 2007 
Farm Bill.
  Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 2419, the 
Farm, Nutrition, and Bioenergy Act of 2007, better known as the Farm 
Bill. This measure reflects Rhode Island's priorities: protecting our 
farmers and surrounding environment and caring for the most vulnerable 
members of society.
  There has been much discussion about reforming the Farm Bill, 
particularly with regard to how payments are structured to producers of 
certain commodities like cotton, rice and sugar. H.R. 2419 begins this 
process by lowering the annual adjusted gross income of farmers 
eligible for subsidies from $2.5 million to $1 million. For farmers 
making $500,000 to $1 million, 67 percent of their income must come 
from farming or they cannot receive Federal subsidies. This structure 
will prevent millionaires from receiving farm subsidy benefits, and 
will also make payments transparent. While I believe we should go 
further with reform, I look forward to building on this restructuring 
in future legislation.
  This legislation increases funding for important conservation 
programs for Rhode Island, including the Environmental Quality 
Incentive Program, the Farm and Ranchland Protection Program, and the 
Wildlife Habitat Incentive Program. I am also pleased that H.R. 2419 
includes funding for specialty crops, which will benefit our fruit, 
vegetable and nursery crop farmers. These farmers, which make up a 
large percentage of Rhode Island's farming landscape, will now receive 
equal assistance and access to conservation programs.

[[Page 21120]]

  H.R. 2419 increases funding for the nutrition title, which includes 
food stamps and other programs aimed to combat hunger and improve 
nutrition for children, the elderly and low-income Americans. This bill 
reauthorizes programs such as the Community Food Projects program, 
which awards grants to non-profit groups that establish community food 
projects targeted to low-income individuals. This measure also 
increases funding for school nutrition programs for purchasing fruits, 
vegetables and nuts, and creates more avenues for produce to flow from 
local farmers to schools.
  Finally, H.R. 2419 also encourages the expansion of renewable energy 
research and production, contains a new section for horticulture and 
organic agriculture, and includes funding to make sure our food supply 
is safe and stable. Mr. Chairman, this legislation helps farmers meet 
growing environmental challenges, gives consumers more health food 
choices, and promotes critical renewable energy development. I look 
forward to passing this measure into law.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I want to express my opposition to the Farm 
Bill Extension Act for a number of reasons, including the extension of 
our depression era system of quotas and commodity support payments. One 
issue I particularly want to highlight is the opportunity we have 
missed here to make meaningful strides towards establishing the humane 
treatment of farm animals. I am disappointed that there are no 
provisions in this bill that work to this end.
  I believe that there is a need to encourage agriculture companies to 
work towards adding protections for farm animals into their work 
practices. Billions of animals are raised for food every year in the 
United States, giving our families nourishment and helping feed the 
world. But there is no Federal law regarding the humane treatment of 
the animals while they are on the farm.
  On March 28, 2007, Congressman Peter DeFazio and I introduced the 
Farm Animal Stewardship Purchasing Act. This legislation that would 
require that those supplying food to the Federal Government--including 
the military, federal prisons, school lunches, and other programs--meet 
a basic set of modest welfare standards for farm animals.
  The humane treatment of animals speaks to our Nation's core values. 
Modest standards preventing Federal suppliers from engaging in the most 
inhumane current industrial farming practices is a step in the right 
direction.
  In 1958 Congress passed the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act, deciding 
that farm animals deserve a merciful death. Half a century later, we 
must take steps towards giving them a merciful life on the farm. And 
just as the Federal Government already imposes numerous standards on 
contractors, including wage and labor requirements and fuel economy 
standards for government vehicles, we believe it's time to have basic 
humane standards for food purchased with tax dollars.
  I urge opposition to this legislation.
  Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, the attached language was 
inadvertently omitted from H. Rept. 110-256, in regard to Country of 
Origin Labeling, to H.R. 2419, the Farm, Nutrition and Bioenergy Act of 
2007.


             Country of Origin Labeling for Meat Agreement

       The Committee recognizes that the issue of Country of 
     Origin Labeling for meat has become increasingly contentious. 
     With implementation of the statute enacted in the Farm 
     Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 looming, the 
     Committee leadership requested that representatives of the 
     various interested parties discuss opportunities to resolve 
     issues of division. These discussions resulted in general 
     agreement on aspects of the law which could be modified to 
     achieve the goals of: improving marketability of meat 
     products; providing consumers the information they may seek 
     with regard to the origin of meat products; and, doing so in 
     a manner which minimizes the cost of compliance on livestock 
     producers and the meat trade.
       During consideration of H.R. 2419, the Committee was 
     presented with a list of items that were agreed upon by the 
     various interested parties. The list included suggestions to 
     improve the statute with regard to issues including product 
     labels, records, and recordkeeping.
       With regard to product labeling, the Committee adopted 
     amendments to Section 281 of the Agricultural Marketing Act 
     of 1946 that would establish four categories of country of 
     origin labels for meat. The legislative language outlining 
     these categories is self-explanatory.
       Another area of concern was labeling of ground meat 
     products. The amendment adopted by the Committee provides 
     that the label will include a narrative list of reasonably 
     possible countries from which the product may have been 
     derived.
       While the Committee recognizes the interest in providing 
     consumers with information regarding the origin of their meat 
     products, the Committee also recognizes the potential cost 
     associated with complying with any label mandate. As such, 
     the Committee has adopted a grandfather provision to address 
     concerns about the transition.
       With regard to requirements for records and recordkeeping, 
     the Committee has adopted provisions that will enable less 
     burdensome verification requirements. Specifically, the 
     Committee has adopted an amendment that will place limits on 
     the authority of the United States Department of Agriculture 
     (USDA) to audit covered entities. To further shield all 
     parties from liability, the amendment limits the records upon 
     which these USDA audits may rely. By limiting these records 
     to those kept as part of a normal business practice, it is 
     the intent of the Committee that retailers and other covered 
     entities will not impose unnecessary or burdensome 
     obligations on their suppliers.
       The final item of agreement dealt with the issues of 
     liability and enforcement. The amendment adopted by the 
     Committee will limit the applicability of civil penalties to 
     a covered entity that has not made an effort to comply and 
     continues to willfully violate this section. The Committee 
     specifically intends that violations resulting from a good 
     faith effort to come into compliance shall not be subject to 
     civil penalties.

  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, while I was very supportive of the great 
work that was done by House Agriculture Committee Chairman Peterson on 
the farm bill, there is one provision that I have significant concerns 
about and I will work to ensure that the language is removed from the 
bill before it is enacted into law.
  The farm bill contains language that would change the Federal Meat 
Inspection Act and the Poultry Products Inspection Act that would allow 
state inspected meat and poultry products to be sold in interstate 
commerce. Current law limits the sale of state-inspected meat and 
poultry products to the state in which they were produced. The stated 
purpose of the provision is to encourage the creation of new small meat 
and poultry processing businesses and give farmers new markets for 
their products. Because current law permits state-inspection programs 
but requires that they be ``equal to'' the federal program, supporters 
of this provision insist there would be no health risk in permitting 
state-inspected products to be sold any where.
  However, do not be misled by the argument--the proposed change in the 
law would create a serious threat to public health and result in the 
serious weakening of the federal meat and poultry inspection programs. 
Instead of creating new markets for farmers, the reduced health 
standard that this provision would establish ultimately would reduce 
the market for all meat and poultry products.
  There are no data to support the belief that federal inspection 
requirements are too onerous for small companies. In fact, thousands of 
small and very small meat and poultry plants in every single state 
operate successfully under the federal inspection process. There are 
currently 5,603 plants now under federal inspection, and 2,878 of those 
(51 percent) employ ten or fewer people. In addition, there are 
approximately 1,654 other plants that have between 10 and 50 employees.
  While the federal inspection laws require that state inspection 
programs be equal to the federal program, based on reports by the USDA 
Office of Inspector General, plants subjected to state inspection may 
not be as clean and sanitary as federally inspected plants. In October 
2006, the USDA Office of Inspector General published an audit of FSIS's 
oversight of state meat and poultry inspection programs that outlined 
how state inspection programs failed to meet sanitation standards. The 
report also found that FSIS was failing to hold states responsible for 
protecting public health by allowing meat plants in four states to 
continue to sell meat even after finding that the state programs were 
not meeting legal safety standards.
  Although meat and poultry inspection laws require that state programs 
be equal to the federal program, USDA focuses its reviews of 
equivalence on state plans. So, while it is possible to have adequate 
inspection plans on paper, the USDA does not certify that each state 
inspected plant meets federal standards. The agency also does not 
return to these plants to determine that they are continuing to meet 
federal standards.
  Mr. Chairman, you will be disturbed to learn that the USDA conducts a 
far more rigorous oversight of foreign plants that want to export meat 
to the U.S. than it does over state inspected plants. Before a plant in 
a foreign country can ship meat to the U.S., USDA must first determine 
that the foreign country's inspection program is ``equal to'' the U.S. 
program. Then, USDA must examine and certify as acceptable each 
individual plant that wants to ship meat or poultry to the U.S. There 
is no comparable requirement for state-inspected plants to be initially 
certified.

[[Page 21121]]

  The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, rejected the state 
of Ohio's contention that the prohibition on interstate sale of state-
inspected meat violated the Fifth and Tenth amendments to the U.S. 
Constitution. The court explained that the difference between federal, 
international and state inspection programs justified the limitations 
on the shipment of state inspected meat. They found that ``though the 
U.S. Department of Agriculture keeps an eye on state inspection 
programs, it keeps yet a closer eye on its own plants and on meat and 
poultry entering the country, and it is possible that a state program 
could deteriorate without the USDA's knowledge. This possibility 
provides a rational basis for Congress to restrict the interstate 
transport of state-inspected meat.''
  Another important component of this issue to consider is that it 
would be extremely difficult for a state government to manage an 
effective recall of adulterated meat or poultry that has been shipped 
outside the state. The USDA and state governments do not possess 
mandatory recall authority, and recalls must be negotiated between the 
regulatory agency and the company. While a state meat inspection agency 
may direct a state-inspected plant to undertake a recall, a state 
inspection program does not have the legal authority to travel to other 
states to assure a recall of meat and poultry products has been 
executed thoroughly.
  The proposed language in the farm bill would have the unintended 
consequence of opening the door for a major exodus of meat and poultry 
plants from federal inspection to state inspection programs. The 
language would allow 80 percent of all federally inspected plants to be 
eligible to transfer from federal inspection to state inspection if the 
plant is in one of the 28 states that have an inspection program. This 
means that a federally inspected plant that is under pressure from a 
federal inspector to improve its sanitation practices could decide to 
transfer to the state inspection that might offer less stringent 
oversight.
  Mr. Chairman, as you can see, this is a very critical food safety 
issue that needs to be addressed. A Democratic Congress cannot be 
responsible for jeopardizing our food supply and we must work to ensure 
that this provision is not enacted into law.
  Last week, the Safe Food Coalition sent a letter that outlined the 
concerns on this issue in greater detail. I ask that the letter be 
included in the Record.
                                                    July 25, 2007.
       Dear Representative: The undersigned members of the Safe 
     Food Coalition and the American Federation of Government 
     Employees strongly oppose the state-inspected meat and 
     poultry provisions in the ``Farm Bill,'' H.R. 2419. These 
     provisions would lower food safety standards and increase the 
     risk of food poisoning in the U.S. They would encourage the 
     least responsible and competent meat and poultry federally 
     inspected processors to escape the rigorous safety 
     enforcement of federal inspectors and search for more 
     ``understanding'' and ``flexible'' enforcement by state 
     inspectors.
       The provisions amend the Federal Meat Inspection Act and 
     the Poultry Products Inspection Act to permit meat and 
     poultry products inspected by state inspectors to be sold in 
     interstate commerce. The goal, according to supporters, is to 
     ``create new markets for state-inspected meat'' which they 
     say would encourage the start-up of new, small meat and 
     poultry processing companies that would compete with giant 
     international slaughter and processing companies and offer 
     farmers better prices. We agree that both farmers and 
     consumers might benefit from increased competition in meat 
     and poultry processing, but we reject the assumption that new 
     companies and competition must be encouraged by dismantling 
     the federal inspection system, reducing food safety 
     standards, and raising the risk of foodborne illness.
       These provisions do not permit states to establish higher 
     food safety standards. Federal meat and poultry laws pre-empt 
     the states from raising standards. USDA's Inspector General 
     reports that the Department has not closed state programs 
     that fail to provide safety protection ``equal to'' federal 
     standards.
       The provisions affect federal, as well as state, inspected 
     meat and poultry plants. They would make 80 percent of all 
     federally inspected meat and poultry processing plants--4,532 
     of 5,603 plants--eligible to switch from federal inspection 
     to the more ``business-friendly'' state inspection. With that 
     change, if a federal inspector pressures a meat packer to 
     improve sanitation, the packer could instead try to negotiate 
     a more understanding regulatory response from his state 
     inspection program. It is not surprising that both the 
     American Meat Institute and the National Meat Association, 
     whose members are federally inspected plants, have signed off 
     on this language despite the authors' claims that it creates 
     new competition for them.
       A major exodus from federal to state inspection programs 
     would not only threaten food safety but would also adversely 
     affect thousands of federal inspection employees, 
     contributing to a loss of federal inspection positions. Their 
     loss would hurt American consumers who have benefited from 
     the work of well-trained federal inspectors, all sworn to 
     protect the public's health, who have, for over 40 years, 
     been an important part of the nation's public health 
     protection structure.
       The provisions would also unleash lobbying campaigns to set 
     up state inspection programs in the 22 states that currently 
     do not have them so plants in those states can also seek 
     ``more understanding'' enforcement of food safety laws under 
     state programs.
       Thousands of very small plants thrive under federal 
     inspection. Fifty-one percent of all federally inspected 
     plants (2,878 of 5,603) have 10 or fewer employees and 80 
     percent have 50 or fewer employees. These federally inspected 
     small operations comply with federal inspection and make a 
     profit. We do not support providing an unfair advantage to 
     small companies who don't or can't make the commitments 
     necessary to comply with federal food safety requirements.
       The USDA Office of Inspector General reports that plants 
     subject to state inspection may not be as clean and sanitary 
     as federally inspected plants. In 1994 the IG said, ``state 
     programs are weak in policing plant sanitation and the 
     federal government is weak in following up to make sure 
     deficiencies in the state inspection system are fixed.''
       In October 2006, the OIG released an audit of state 
     inspection that included stomach turning examples of state 
     inspection programs failing to meet basic sanitation 
     requirements and of FSIS failing to hold states responsible 
     for protecting public health.
       The OIG reported that FSIS visited 11 meat plants in 
     Mississippi in October 2003. None of the plants met all HACCP 
     requirements. FSIS reported that cutting boards in one plant 
     were heavily contaminated with meat residues from the 
     previous day's work and noted that some plants failed to 
     monitor cooking temperatures, potentially exposing consumers 
     to bacteria that cause foodborne illness.
       The Mississippi meat inspection program allowed the plants 
     to continue operating. FSIS allowed the Mississippi program 
     to keep operating though it was not meeting the ``equal to'' 
     federal inspection legal requirements.
       FSIS allowed meat plants in four states--Missouri, 
     Wisconsin, Delaware and Minnesota to continue to operate, 
     selling meat to unsuspecting consumers, even after finding 
     that the state programs were not meeting legal standards for 
     ``equal to.'' Under current law, the risk from lax state meat 
     and poultry inspection programs is limited because the 
     products cannot leave the state in which they were produced. 
     If Congress approves these provisions the problems would 
     become nationwide as the products travel across the country.
       The USDA does not certify that each state inspected plant 
     meets federal standards before coming into the program, nor 
     does it go back to check to determine that the plants 
     continue to meet federal standards. FSIS officials determine 
     ``equal to'' status primarily by looking at paper, not 
     plants. They examine state plans. They almost never actually 
     go into a state-inspected plant to see what is really 
     happening.
       The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit explains 
     why Congress is justified in limiting the shipment of state-
     inspected meat to the state in which it is produced: ``. . . 
     though the U.S. Department of Agriculture keeps an eye on 
     state inspection programs, it keeps yet a closer eye on its 
     own plants and on meat and poultry entering the country, and 
     it is possible that a state program could deteriorate without 
     the USDA's knowledge. This possibility provides a rational 
     basis for Congress to restrict the interstate transport of 
     state-inspected meat.''
       There is no effective way for state governments to assure 
     recall of state inspected adulterated meat or poultry that 
     has been shipped away from the state where it was produced. 
     These provisions, therefore, will increase the risk of 
     serious foodborne illness. Neither USDA nor state governments 
     has mandatory recall authority. Recalls are negotiated 
     between the regulatory agency and the company. The USDA, 
     however, has the staff and capacity both to negotiate with a 
     company about the size and timing of a recall and to go to 
     all the places where the product may have been distributed to 
     be sure the recalled products are being removed. No 
     individual state agriculture department has the authority or 
     the capacity to institute and manage the recall of 
     adulterated meat or poultry from another state.
       The provisions were approved by the House Agriculture 
     Committee without the benefit of public hearings to explore 
     the crucial issues or give opponents an opportunity to be 
     heard. The provisions were drafted by the National 
     Association of State Departments of Agriculture whose members 
     want to expand their programs. Meat packing trade 
     associations, whose members may welcome the leverage of 
     threatening to switch to state inspection, signed off on the 
     provisions. Consumer and public health experts, as well as

[[Page 21122]]

     the unions who represent federal inspectors and workers in 
     meatpacking plants, had no opportunity to address the issues.
       The provisions assure that the details of implementation 
     would also avoid transparency and exclude public 
     participation. The provisions direct the Secretary of 
     Agriculture to promulgate rules for the major new program 
     within 180 days after the bill becomes law, effectively 
     foreclosing any meaningful opportunity for notice and comment 
     rulemaking, open meetings and public discussion. One of the 
     provisions creates an advisory committee limited to officials 
     of state inspection programs, excluding public health experts 
     and representatives of consumers who might challenge whether 
     public health is being given first consideration.
       Neither the House of Representatives nor the American 
     people are well served by the substance of these provisions 
     or the process that produced them. We believe that approval 
     of the Farm Bill language allowing state inspected meat and 
     poultry products to be sold in interstate commerce would mark 
     the beginning of the end of the nation's strong, uniform 
     federal meat and poultry inspection system and would 
     seriously undermine the public health protection federal 
     inspection has built over the past 40 years.
           Sincerely,
         Carol Tucker Foreman, Founder, Safe Food Coalition; 
           Patricia Buck, Center for Foodborne Illness Research & 
           Prevention; Chris Waldrop, Consumer Federation of 
           America; Wenonah Hauter, Food & Water Watch; Jacqueline 
           Ostfeld, Government Accountability Project; Linda 
           Golodner, National Consumers League; Nancy Donley; Safe 
           Tables-Our Priority; Michael J. Wilson, United Food and 
           Commercial Workers International Union; American 
           Federation of Government Employees.

  Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I rise today with great reluctance that I 
am not able to support the Farm, Nutrition, and Bioenergy Act of 2007, 
H.R. 2419. The Agriculture Committee worked for many months in a 
bipartisan manner to craft an omnibus farm bill that would have 
achieved broad support in the House. H.R. 2419 was not a perfect bill, 
but it was a compromise that I would have supported in hopes that an 
even better package could be produced during conference negotiations 
with the Senate.
  Unfortunately, Democrat leadership decided to insert a last-minute 
tax increase into the farm bill after the bill had left the House 
Committee on Agriculture. The tax provision represents a $7.5 billion 
increase in taxes on companies that supply high-quality, high-paying 
jobs for American workers. These are often union jobs held by hard-
working men and women trying to earn a living for their families. 
Instead of producing a farm bill that meets the needs of America's 
farmers, ranchers, landowners and those who rely on nutrition programs, 
the Democrats have instead resorted to a tax-and-spend policy instead 
of an invest-and-create-jobs policy.
  The $7.5 billion tax increase on foreign-owned American businesses 
inserted in H.R. 2419 could result in more jobs being sent overseas. In 
a time when the United States should be encouraging investment in our 
country and in American jobs, this kind of tax policy takes our economy 
a step backward. The last-minute Democrat tax increase will make it 
less attractive for foreign companies that employ American workers to 
initiate or expand operations in the United States. And that means bad 
news for American workers.
  The United States has negotiated 58 tax treaties with 66 different 
countries. The Democrat tax proposal applies a tax increase on 
companies located in countries with which we have a tax treaty. This 
calls into serious question the United States' upholding our end of the 
treaties, which could invite retaliation.
  Aside from the damage H.R. 2419 would do to American jobs, the 
Democrat's farm bill would cut a total of $3 billion from the crop 
insurance program compared to the 2002 farm bill. Most troubling, is 
that $1 billion of these cuts were made without consideration by the 
full Agriculture Committee to determine how this will effect risk-
management services farmers in Kansas rely upon. With nearly every 
county in Kansas being declared as a federal disaster area in 2007, we 
should think long and hard about cuts to the federal crop insurance 
program. It is disappointing that Democrat leadership chose to make 
this cut without first considering what it will mean for America's 
farmers.
  Another harmful provision included last-minute in the farm bill would 
apply Davis-Bacon act wages to new ethanol plants being built if those 
plants utilize loans or grants from the USDA. This provision negates 
any positive benefit that would have been provided by the USDA's loan 
guarantee program. By artificially dictating what wages have to be paid 
to workers constructing a new ethanol plant, the farm bill will result 
in increased ethanol costs. This translates to higher costs at the pump 
for consumers of ethanol-blended gasoline. Instead of allowing price 
competition for newly constructed ethanol plants that access USDA loans 
or grants, this artificial wage provision is another example of 
unnecessary federal manipulation in a private-market matter.
  I am also disappointed the bill included a prohibition on States 
being able to use private contractors to perform administrative 
functions for the food stamp program. States that choose to enact 
reforms within their systems to provide better food-stamp services at a 
savings to taxpayers are denied that ability under H.R. 2419. Rather 
than defer to States and allow some common-sense savings for taxpayers, 
the Democrats have drafted a farm bill that restricts certain reforms 
at the State level.
  The commodity title of H.R. 2419 proposes a commodity spending cut of 
42 percent compared with the 2002 farm bill. The 2007 farm bill 
proposes $42 billion in baseline spending on commodities, representing 
just 14 percent of the entire farm bill. I think Kansas farmers deserve 
better.
  As a State that is renowned for being the breadbasket of the world, 
Kansas and its farmers deserve a farm bill that provides a solid safety 
net while remaining fiscally responsible to taxpayers. I do not believe 
this $297 billion farm bill meets this standard. And as my colleague 
from Kansas, Mr. Moran, has pointed out, this farm bill fails to fully 
implement a revenue counter-cyclical program that would better respond 
to Kansas farmers in times when they need support the most.
  I urge my colleagues to join me today in voting against H.R. 2419. 
The American farmer, the American taxpayer and the American worker 
deserve a better farm bill. I can only hope negotiations with the 
Senate will address this bill's shortcomings and that the House will 
have another opportunity to vote on comprehensive farm policy that is 
good for all Americans.
  Mr. CARTER. Mr. Chairman, I want to lend my support to the committee-
passed Farm Bill, and specifically the provisions related to research. 
In my District we have one of the Nation's best research teams at 
Tarleton State University, and through the expansion of the research 
title we have the opportunity to use this resource and further address 
water quality and dairy industry issues.
  In the bill there is an expansion of the Nutrient Management Research 
Provision to allow us to address ``unique regional concerns'' and 
``dairy cattle waste''--both of which are ideally suited for the work 
being done at Tarleton State University. Accompanying this expansion is 
report language that calls attention to the challenges and 
opportunities facing the Southwest dairy industry, and environmental 
security issues addressed through the Texas Institute for Applied 
Environmental Research (TIAER) and the Southwest Regional Dairy Center.
  This language will allow the Department of Agriculture to use a 
program such as TIAER for further development of cost efficient tools 
and policies for agriculture, with the goal of cleaner water through 
better science and research. This expanded language will also provide 
expanded dairy research initiatives in line with research already in 
place at Tarleton. The State of Texas has invested $11.1 million 
dollars to construct the Southwest Regional Dairy Center at Tarleton to 
address the needs of the robust dairy industry in the Southwest Region 
of the United States. The Southwest Region is predicted to host the 
greatest concentration of dairies in the nation within 15 years. This 
rapid expansion will create unique economic and environmental 
challenges and opportunities. It's fitting that we, the Federal 
Government, also do our part in supporting this initiative by giving it 
authorization to further develop this regional opportunity.
  The bill also provides for expanded research in the Chesapeake Bay, 
and TIAER is uniquely qualified to assist with the further development 
of this research activity. By using their expertise in water quality 
policy, monitoring, and modeling we can take advantage of existing 
research capabilities to expedite the goals of the Chesapeake Bay 
initiative. I hope these two programs are authorized and funded, as it 
would be foolish and wasteful to ignore and duplicate the experience 
and talent we have developed over the years.
  It is clear that the research language is intended for the use in 
developing sound scientific, economic and environmentally effective 
research and watershed programs. Through programs like TIAER and the 
Southwest Regional Dairy Center we will see coordinated research with 
other research institutions and universities on watershed programs, 
modeling tools, monitoring, applied research, and dairy cattle waste 
management to include bioenergy recovery. With federal assistance, the 
Southwest Regional Dairy Center will research, develop, and implement 
programs to recover energy and other useful products from dairy

[[Page 21123]]

waste and identify best management practices in support of the dairy 
industry.
  The research provisions expanded in this bill would place TIAER as 
the leader in watershed modeling and allow them to establish the 
International Modeling Application Clearinghouse. With this action we 
can save millions of dollars through coordinated research activities. 
If authorized, TIAER will also facilitate the use of the Center for 
Environment and Private Lands (CEPL) and Industry Led Solutions (ILS) 
under the direction of the Institute. With past Congressional funding, 
ILS provides for a group of commodity diverse producers from 
geographically different parts of the U.S. to examine environmental 
policy options for private landowners. This group has been proactive in 
examining environmental initiatives that affect agriculture.
  I appreciate the Committee recognizing the need for the additional 
research in water quality, modeling, program development, monitoring, 
animal waste management and bioenergy recovery for the southwest dairy 
industry. While I continue to encourage expansion of this language to 
outline not only the work to be done through groups like Tarleton and 
the Institute, I realize this is the first step in making sure that 
quality research is not only scientifically sound, but cost efficient.
  I echo the committee in encouraging the Secretary of Agriculture to 
establish these programs promptly so that we can soundly address 
environmental and water quality issues and how they relate to 
agriculture.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. There being no further amendments, under the 
rule the Committee rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Hastings of Florida) having assumed the chair, Mr. Schiff, Acting 
Chairman of the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, 
reported that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill 
(H.R. 2419) to provide for the continuation of agricultural programs 
through fiscal year 2012, and for other purposes, pursuant to House 
Resolution 574, he reported the bill, as amended by that resolution, 
back to the House with sundry further amendments adopted by the 
Committee of the Whole.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  Is a separate vote demanded on any further amendment reported from 
the Committee of the Whole? If not, the Chair will put them en gros.
  The amendments were agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.


              Motion to Recommit Offered by Mr. Goodlatte

  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Yes, in its current form.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Goodlatte of Virginia moves to recommit the bill H.R. 
     2419 to the Committee on Agriculture with instructions to 
     report the same back to the House promptly with the following 
     amendments:
       Strike the two titles designated as title XII in the 
     amendments contained in part A of House Report 110-261 and 
     adopt such amendments as may be necessary to comply with the 
     Committee on Agriculture allocation under H. Con. Res. 99 of 
     the 110th Congress.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the chairman of the 
Agriculture Committee, the members of the Agriculture Committee on both 
sides of the aisle, and the staff of the Agriculture Committee for 
working in a bipartisan fashion to write a good farm bill.
  This farm bill has a lot of things in it I don't like, a lot of 
things I do. I think the chairman would say the same thing about the 
bill. But, Mr. Speaker, I cannot support this legislation because of 
what happened after this bill left the Agriculture Committee and came 
to this floor with a tax increase added in the middle of the night with 
no hearings in the Ways and Means Committee and no markup in the Ways 
and Means Committee.
  This is the wrong way to maintain bipartisan comity in this House, 
and to force the American people and the Members of this House to 
choose between tax increases and the farm bill that America's farmers 
and ranchers need.
  I yield to the ranking member of the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. 
McCrery.
  Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, the tax proposal in the farm bill is 
directly aimed at international companies that invest in the United 
States, where they support more than 5 million jobs. These are well-
known and well-respected companies: Honda, Bridgestone, Toyota, BASF, 
Panasonic. They're not tax dodgers. The jobs they create here are good, 
high-paying jobs. By raising taxes on these businesses by more than $7 
billion over the next decade, we will make America a less attractive 
place for them to invest.
  The majority keeps asserting that the Treasury Department supported 
this provision back in 2002. I want to set the record straight on that. 
It is true that Treasury wrote a report then that income-stripping and 
earning-stripping is a potential problem, but since that 2000 report, 
the Treasury has worked to update our tax treaties, inserting strong 
``limitation of benefits'' language that prevents abuse by denying 
treaty benefits to companies headquartered elsewhere but who establish 
a shell company in the treaty country.
  The Treasury has never, never embraced the sort of ham-handed policy 
that the majority is proposing in this bill. And Secretary Paulson made 
that clear to me yesterday in a letter me sent to me.
  Another contention is that, ``Oh, the President's own budget 
contained this proposal.'' Wrong. The President's budget contained a 
targeted proposal that would raise over 10 years $2.6 billion.
  Mr. Doggett's proposal, which is in the farm bill, raises $7 billion 
over 10 years. Is that the same proposal? Of course not. It's more than 
double. It's huge. It's broad. It's ham-handed. It will discourage 
investment in the United States, and we ought to reject it in this 
bill. It's bad policy; never should have been added to the farm bill; 
should have come through the Ways and Means Committee, where it's 
supposed to come, so we could have a good hearing and Mr. Doggett and I 
could debate it. But that didn't happen. We should vote against this 
bill.
  I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Reclaiming my time, this motion to recommit is very 
straightforward. It takes out the tax increases in this bill, sends it 
back to the Agriculture Committee. And we would be delighted to work 
with the leadership that did not work with us before to find a pay-for 
that works for this.
  We went to the Budget Committee at the start of this process in a 
bipartisan fashion and pointed out that the reforms in this bill cost 
money, and asked for that money to be forthcoming. It was not.
  Now, based upon previous experience, I would not be at all surprised 
to see a cameo appearance in a moment from the majority leader saying 
that, because this bill is sent back to committee to report back 
promptly, that we're killing the bill. We are doing no such time thing. 
We are doing what is necessary to make sure that this bill is treated 
in a bipartisan fashion and that the bill is paid for in a way that 
adjusts our budget fairly to make sure that agriculture and America's 
farmers and rangers got treated the way they should have been treated 
at the outset of this process when $60 billion was lost because of the 
baseline in agriculture.
  And then we're asked to make reforms, many of which I support, but 
this, mark my words, is a tax increase that is not fair to the American 
people. It puts pressure on companies investing in this country. It 
will increase taxes on those workers. It will also call into question 
the credibility of the United States for future investment in this 
country if we violate treaties, 58 treaties that we have negotiated. 
And finally, it will cause retaliation against American investment 
overseas as well.

[[Page 21124]]

  So I urge my colleagues to vote for this motion to recommit. Send it 
back. Do the right thing. Do not put America's workers against 
America's farmers and ranchers. Support this motion to recommit.
  Mr. Speaker, in my time remaining, I would point out that this is a 
tax increase because the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, when 
he came to the floor last night, said it was a tax increase. The tax 
experts I've spoken to say it's a tax increase. Not withstanding what 
anybody says, it's a tax increase. Don't support it.
  Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the 
motion.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I recognize the distinguished 
chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Rangel, for such time as 
he may consume.
  Mr. RANGEL. So, ``the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee said 
that this was a tax increase.'' What is this, Taxes 101? When you and 
other people come to me and say that we need to get this great 
bipartisan agriculture bill out, you didn't go to the chairman of the 
Transportation Committee. You didn't go to the chairman of the 
Appropriations Committee. You went to the tax-writing committee.
  Now, when you say you want revenue enhancers, when you say you want 
to raise the money to pay for food stamps, it means you have to get it 
from somewhere. If you're lucky enough, if you work hard enough, you 
will find that certain people are not paying their fair share of taxes. 
And you would find that they go out of their way to go to foreign 
countries in order to avoid paying the United States obligation.
  I would be less than honest if I didn't tell you that as far as those 
people who don't pay any or little taxes, oh, yes, they will consider 
this a tax increase. Give me some language that I can call it something 
else. But I'm saying that equity and fair play means if you're not 
paying what you should pay and we catch up with you, you can run to 
your accountant and say, ``We gotcha.''
  Now, I can understand how philosophically you don't like to talk 
about taxes. But just, Mr. Ranking Member, when your time expired 
yesterday, you said on the floor that none of us ever came to you and 
asked for the money. Now, I don't know where you thought, when you 
asked me where do you go to get the money, when I say ``you,'' I mean 
you by name.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will suspend. Members are 
reminded to address their remarks to the Chair.
  Mr. RANGEL. I agree with you. But anyway, let me thank all of you 
that thanked me for making it possible for you to get a bill out. And 
if something happened on the way to the floor, believe me, politically, 
I understand it. But for all of you who thanked me, we did the best we 
could. We catch the devil for it. But if you take a look at foreigners 
that are avoiding taxes and hardworking farmers that deserve a better 
break, you explain it; we don't have to.

                              {time}  1330

  Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from 
New York for that statement. I want to alert the Members of the body 
that this motion to recommit has the word ``promptly'' in it. What that 
means is if this goes back to the committee, this kills this bill. It 
kills the reform that we have done in this bill. It kills the 
additional nutrition that has been put into this bill, the energy, all 
the other hard work of this committee.
  Now, I am a CPA, and I used to do taxes for a living. I agree with 
the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee: this is not a tax 
increase. This is doing what is right for this country.
  What we ought to be looking into is why we are having the taxpayers 
of this country fund people in the Treasury Department and fund people 
in the State Department to go out and make treaties with other 
countries so we can have foreign corporations come to this country and 
avoid taxes.
  That is what this is about. If you have a straight-up deal between 
the United States and Germany, this does not affect you. It only 
affects you if you set up a corporation in another country that doesn't 
have a tax rate and go through that process.
  Mr. Speaker, you can call this whatever you want. But the truth of 
the matter is that if you send the bill back to the Agriculture 
Committee, we do not have the offsets in the Agriculture Committee to 
do what is in this bill. So you are, in effect, killing this bill. I 
just want everybody to understand that.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Doggett).
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, it is noteworthy that throughout this 
debate not one company anywhere in America has come forward and said 
``if you pass this bill, you raise my taxes,'' because the vast 
majority of foreign companies and no American companies are impacted 
whatsoever.
  Today, we must choose who to stand with. We choose to stand with the 
farm and ranch families that need this assistance and the small 
American businesses that are paying their fair share of taxes. We 
reject the notion that the only way you can lure a foreign company to 
come to America is to tell the foreign company that they should pay 
less taxes than Americans. It is a clear choice.


                        Parliamentary Inquiries

  Mr. WESTMORELAND. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry, a 
point of clarification.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
inquiry.
  Mr. WESTMORELAND. Mr. Speaker, is it not true that if indeed this 
motion passed, that this bill could be reported back to the respective 
committee from which it was assigned and passed out, and that the bill 
could be reported back to the House tomorrow?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair cannot say what the Committee on 
Agriculture might do or speculate about possible proceedings anew in 
the committee. The pending motion proposes to take the pending bill 
from the floor without reaching the question of passage today.
  Mr. WESTMORELAND. Mr. Speaker, further parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
inquiry.
  Mr. WESTMORELAND. Mr. Speaker, I am trying to get a point of 
clarification from you. The parliamentary inquiry is, is it true that 
this bill could be reported back to the committee and reported back to 
this House on the next legislative day?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair cannot speculate.
  Mr. WESTMORELAND. Mr. Speaker, further parliamentary inquiry. Is 
there any rule that would preclude a bill going back to committee and 
the committee reporting it back the next legislative day?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair does not respond to hypothetical 
questions.
  Mr. WESTMORELAND. Further parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker. I am 
not talking about any bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
inquiry.
  Mr. WESTMORELAND. Mr. Speaker, is it true that this bill, this bill, 
if this motion passes to this bill and this bill is promptly reported 
back to the committee, is it possible under the rules of this House 
that this bill could be reported back to this House the next 
legislative day?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Once again, that would require an 
interpretation of the committee's rules. The Chair is not in a position 
to speculate.
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I have a 
parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
inquiry.
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, are there any 
parliamentary impediments to this bill being reported back on the next 
legislative day after being promptly reported to the committee of 
jurisdiction?

[[Page 21125]]

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman may need to review the rules 
of the Committee on Agriculture.
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. No, Mr. Speaker. I am asking, 
under the rules of the House, are there any parliamentary impediments?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is not stating a parliamentary 
inquiry. The Chair has responded to the gentleman's parliamentary 
inquiry.
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I believe you 
misunderstood my parliamentary inquiry. My parliamentary inquiry was, 
under the rules of the House, are there any parliamentary impediments 
to having this bill considered on the next legislative day if it is 
promptly reported to the committee of jurisdiction?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Repeatedly the Chair has said, and says 
again, that the Chair cannot speculate.
  Without objection, the previous question is ordered on the motion to 
recommit.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair 
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on 
the question of passage.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 198, 
noes 223, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 755]

                               AYES--198

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

                               NOES--223

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

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Clarke
     Cubin
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Emanuel
     Frank (MA)
     Hastert
     Issa
     Kucinich
     LaHood
     Sali
     Waters


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

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

                              {time}  1354

  So the motion to recommit was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Mr. SALI. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 755. I was inadvertently 
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 231, 
noes 191, not voting 10, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 756]

                               AYES--231

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Buchanan
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson
     Castor
     Chandler
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Lincoln
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Emerson
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Giffords
     Gilchrest
     Gillibrand
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Graves
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hayes
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)

[[Page 21126]]


     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jindal
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Klein (FL)
     Kuhl (NY)
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Mahoney (FL)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum (MN)
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Rehberg
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NE)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Souder
     Space
     Spratt
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--191

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bean
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capuano
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Cooper
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Fallin
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Hall (TX)
     Hastings (WA)
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hunter
     Inglis (SC)
     Inslee
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Keller
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     Lamborn
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Mitchell
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy, Tim
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Sali
     Saxton
     Schmidt
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Stark
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Turner
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh (NY)
     Wamp
     Waxman
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Wicker
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Clarke
     Cubin
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Emanuel
     Frank (MA)
     Hastert
     Issa
     Kucinich
     LaHood
     Tancredo


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

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

                              {time}  1402

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

                          ____________________