[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 121 (Thursday, July 26, 2007)]
[House]
[Pages H8676-H8684]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[[Page H8676]]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2419, FARM, NUTRITION, AND
BIOENERGY ACT OF 2007
Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 574 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 574
Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this
resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule
XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of
the bill (H.R. 2419) to provide for the continuation of
agricultural programs through fiscal year 2012, and for other
purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed
with. All points of order against consideration of the bill
are waived except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule
XXI. General debate shall be confined to the bill and the
amendments considered as adopted by this resolution and shall
not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the
chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on
Agriculture. After general debate the bill shall be
considered for amendment under the five-minute rule.
Sec. 2. (a) The amendment in the nature of a substitute
recommended by the Committee on Agriculture now printed in
the bill, modified by the amendments printed in part A of the
report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this
resolution, shall be considered as adopted in the House and
in the Committee of the Whole. The bill, as amended, shall be
considered as the original bill for the purpose of further
amendment under the five-minute rule and shall be considered
as read. All points of order against provisions in the bill,
as amended, are waived.
(b) Notwithstanding clause 11 of rule XVIII, no further
amendment to the bill, as amended, shall be in order except
those printed in part B of the report of the Committee on
Rules and amendments en bloc described in section 3 of this
resolution.
(c) Each further amendment printed in the report of the
Committee on Rules shall be considered only in the order
printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member
designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall
be debatable for the time specified in the report equally
divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent,
shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject
to a demand for division of the question in the House or in
the Committee of the Whole.
(d) All points of order against further amendments printed
in part B of the report of the Committee on Rules or
amendments en bloc described in section 3 of this resolution
are waived except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule
XXI.
Sec. 3. It shall be in order at any time for the chairman
of the Committee on Agriculture or his designee to offer
amendments en bloc consisting of amendments printed in part B
of the report of the Committee on Rules not earlier disposed
of or germane modifications of any such amendments.
Amendments en bloc offered pursuant to this section shall be
considered as read (except that modifications shall be
reported), shall be debatable for 20 minutes equally divided
and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of
the Committee on Agriculture or their designees, shall not be
subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand
for division of the question in the House or in the Committee
of the Whole. For the purpose of inclusion in such amendments
en bloc, an amendment printed in the form of a motion to
strike may be modified to the form of a germane perfecting
amendment to the text originally proposed to be stricken. The
original proponent of an amendment included in such
amendments en bloc may insert a statement in the
Congressional Record immediately before the disposition of
the amendments en bloc.
Sec. 4. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for
amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill, as
amended, to the House with such further amendments as may
have been adopted. The previous question shall be considered
as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final
passage without intervening motion except one motion to
recommit with or without instructions.
Sec. 5. During consideration in the House of H.R. 2419
pursuant to this resolution, notwithstanding the operation of
the previous question, the Chair may postpone further
consideration of the bill to such time as may be designated
by the Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Tierney). The gentleman from California
is recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings).
All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.
I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I ask unanimous
consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to
revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 574.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from California?
There was no objection.
Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 574 provides for
consideration of H.R. 2419, the Farm, Nutrition, and Bioenergy Act of
2007 under a structured rule.
The rule provides for 1 hour of general debate equally divided and
controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee
on Agriculture.
The rule waives all points of order against the bill and its
consideration except for those arising under clause 9 or clause 10 of
rule XXI.
The rule makes in order 31 amendments.
Finally, the rule provides one motion to recommit with or without
instructions.
Mr. Speaker, as the subcommittee chairman on the House Agriculture
Committee, and as a member of the Rules Committee, I am pleased to
offer this progressive Federal farm policy act for consideration today.
Over the past year, the Agriculture Committee members have traveled
across this country, from north to south, from east to west, hearing
directly from farmers and ranchers about the state of agriculture in
our country. Across rural America we have heard from farmers and
ranchers from all walks of life talking about the promise of American
agriculture, the immeasurable innovation and success and commitment to
sustainable farming.
The 2007 farm bill builds on past successes of Federal farm policy by
providing a reliable safety net for commodity crops, expanding access
to conservation programs, increasing participation in domestic
nutrition programs, and, perhaps most of all, most near to my heart,
this bill dwarfs any previous Federal investment in specialty crops,
which account for nearly 50 percent of American agricultural
production.
Chairman Peterson, Ranking Member Goodlatte, and the entire
Agriculture Committee were able to craft an equitable, fiscally sound
farm bill that preserved the farm safety net while including critical
funding for important new programs.
Furthermore, the 2007 farm bill contains unprecedented reforms to
payment limitations and crop insurance programs that will reduce waste,
fraud, and abuse so often identified with the farm program.
More importantly, this bill is completely paid for. During the past
election, Democrats promised to live within our means like every
household in America is forced to do and stop writing blank checks with
reckless abandon. We pledged to exercise spending restraint to stop
shouldering our Nation's needs on the backs of our children and
grandchildren. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to say that we were able to do
exactly that.
You will hear a lot of talk from the other side of the aisle about
this bill raising taxes, but this is simply a scare tactic in an
attempt to score political points. This is completely untrue.
Let me set the record straight before we even begin. This bill does
not raise taxes. The 2007 farm bill closes tax loopholes that just 5
years ago the Bush administration and its own Treasury Department
identified as tax abuse. In a policy paper issued by the Office of Tax
Policy in May of 2002, the Bush administration identified how
corporations headquartered in tax havens use this loophole, and a June
18, 2002, New York Times article stated that Republicans in Congress
also thought that this tax loophole needed to be fixed. These are the
facts.
Lastly, Mr. Speaker, I must take a moment to thank Chairman Peterson,
Speaker Pelosi, Leader Hoyer, and the entire leadership team for their
tenacity and sincerity in creating a farm bill that we can all be proud
of and stand behind.
Not everyone got everything they wanted, and, frankly, they
shouldn't. The farm bill should never be a place to line up at the
trough and recklessly suck up needed resources. In the end, while
people didn't get everything they wanted, everyone got what they
needed. That speaks volumes about the quality of this bill and tells me
we ended up in exactly the right place.
I have never been more proud of a piece of legislation, Mr. Speaker,
and I look forward to telling my constituents in the 18th District of
California that the United States Congress has
[[Page H8677]]
accomplished what was thought to be an impossible feat. I urge my
colleagues to support this rule and the underlying legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
{time} 1745
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the
gentleman from California (Mr. Cardoza) for yielding me the customary
30 minutes, and I yield myself as much time as I may consume.
(Mr. HASTINGS of Washington asked and was given permission to revise
and extend his remarks.)
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, the largest overall industry
in my State is agriculture and food processing. I represent the central
part of Washington State where a wide variety of agriculture products
are produced, including apples, cherries, pears, wheat, dairy hops,
wine grapes and potatoes, just to name a few. In addition, our farmers
and ranchers are stewards of the land, and many of them participate in
conservation programs that fall under the farm bill. For these reasons,
my constituents have a lot at stake when it comes to farm policy.
The Committee on Agriculture has historically worked in a bipartisan
manner, especially on such important issues as the farm bill. Just over
a year ago, I was pleased that the Agriculture Committee came to my
district and held a farm bill hearing in Yakima, in my district. Mr.
Cardoza, now Chairman Peterson and Ranking Member Goodlatte were all
there. I appreciate their having traveled to my corner of the country
to hear directly from the farmers in central Washington.
They heard firsthand the importance of specialty crops, fruits and
vegetables to the overall ag economy. I'm pleased that the underlying
bill, the Farm, Nutrition and Bioenergy Act, as approved by the
committee, recognizes the needs of specialty crop producers by
increasing investments in the Market Access Program, the Specialty Crop
Block Grant Program, the Fruit and Vegetable Snack Program, and
establishes a much needed National Clean Plant Network. These are all
important steps in the right direction.
Unfortunately, all of the good things in this bill and the spirit of
bipartisan cooperation were completely overturned by a last-minute
addition of a multi-billion dollar tax increase. This surprise offset
is totally unacceptable because it will cost American jobs, and it has
completely bypassed the public process of discussions and hearings in
the respective committees of jurisdiction, and it has disrupted the
tradition of bipartisan cooperation on farm policies.
I have many speakers, Mr. Speaker, on my side who will be discussing
the impact of these surprise tax increases, again, that were not
subject to hearings or markups by the appropriate committees. The full
scope of these tax hikes and fees just appeared at the Rules Committee
this morning at 8 a.m., with no one willing to testify about them or
disclose the full impact of these measures on our economy. And we are
talking about multi-billion dollar increases.
Mr. Speaker, I also want to take this opportunity to express my
disappointment that a bipartisan amendment I submitted to the Rules
Committee with the support of Mr. McNerney from California, Mr.
Hoekstra of Michigan, was not made in order to help American asparagus
growers. Under the Andean Trade Preferences Act of 1991, the Congress
gave Peru duty-free access to the U.S. market on a unilateral basis.
This was done in the hope that it would encourage the Peruvians to
develop alternatives to growing narcotic-producing crops.
Unfortunately, it led to a flood of Peruvian asparagus imports, which
has devastated the asparagus growers and processors in my home State of
Washington, Michigan and in California. The U.S. International Trade
Commission has repeatedly cited U.S. asparagus as the one farm
commodity substantially harmed by the Andean Trade Preferences Act.
My amendment would have simply given the Secretary of Agriculture the
option of providing transition payments to these growers. After all,
American asparagus growers were not harmed by their own actions, but
rather by government's antidrug policies. They should not have to pay
the full brunt of the price.
Unfortunately, the leadership of this House has decided that these
growers don't deserve a place at the table. We are poised to give
billions away under this bill, but the House leadership can't find time
to help these small farmers who were harmed by their own government.
Mr. Speaker, the rule denies Members the opportunity to represent
their constituents by coming to the floor and offering amendments to
this bill. It prohibits a separate vote on whether or not to include
billions of dollars in tax increases, and it denies open debate on
those issues. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to vote against this
restrictive rule.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).
Mr. McGOVERN. I thank my colleague from California for yielding me
the time and for his work on this legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule and in support of the
underlying legislation.
My colleagues, tonight millions of people here in the United States
and around the world, many of them children, will go to bed hungry.
They may not be in this Chamber, but they must remain in our thoughts.
This bill does not go as far as I would like in tackling hunger, but it
represents real progress and real reform.
I want to commend Chairman Peterson and his colleagues on the
committee for their hard work, but I also want to thank Speaker Pelosi
and Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro, both of whom have worked personally and
passionately with us over the last few days to make improvements to the
nutrition programs in this bill.
The bill before us begins to reverse some of the terrible damage done
to nutrition programs over the past several years. For too long, hungry
people were an afterthought in this Congress. For too long, people on
food stamps fell further and further behind as the Republican Congress
searched high and low for more ways to cut taxes for rich people. Those
days have come to an end, Mr. Speaker.
It has not been easy to find funding for these vital programs, and
here's why. Unlike the Republicans, we are actually paying for the
bills we pass. It would have been easy to put the cost of this bill on
the national credit card. Instead, the increases to the nutrition
program in this bill are paid for in this bill. That is an enormous and
welcome development.
Further, the bill includes increased guaranteed funding for the
George McGovern-Robert Dole International Food for Education and Child
Nutrition program. McGovern-Dole has a proven track record of fighting
hunger and promoting education by providing meals to chronically hungry
school-age children in the world's poorest countries. Where the
McGovern-Dole program is offered, enrollment and attendance rates
increased significantly, especially for girls. Providing food at school
is a simple but effective method to get children into school, improve
literacy, and help break the cycle of poverty.
These programs demonstrate America's generosity and goodwill, and
they reflect our deepest moral values. They promote our national
security, and they offer an alternative to children who otherwise might
be recruited by groups that provide meals in return for becoming child
soldiers or for attendance at extremist schools that serve as a
breeding ground for hatred and violence.
By making the funding guaranteed, we can stop the practice of
beginning a school feeding program only to cut it off when Congress
doesn't appropriate enough money, because the only thing more cruel
than not feeding a hungry child is feeding a hungry child for a while
and then stopping.
As I said, Mr. Speaker, the bill before us does not do as much as I
would like. And I will keep fighting, through the amendment process and
beyond, to increase funding for hunger and nutrition programs here at
home and around the world. This is not the beginning of the end. It's
the end of the beginning. This is a start.
Mr. Speaker, hunger is a political condition. We have the resources
to
[[Page H8678]]
end hunger. What we need is the political will. Let us rededicate
ourselves to helping those who need help the most.
I urge my colleagues to join me in support of this bill.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2
minutes to the ranking member of the Rules Committee, Mr. Dreier of
California.
(Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this rule and
to the previous question.
Let me just say that as I listened to my friend from California talk
about the fact that he looks forward, at the end of this debate when he
is successful, to telling his constituents in California that the
impossible has been achieved, I have to say that he may or may not be
right at that point.
But I will tell you something that has been achieved with this, Mr.
Speaker, and that is an end to bipartisanship when it has come to
dealing with this issue of our farm policy. And to me, that's a very,
very sad statement when you look at people who've been very committed
to this bill, like Bob Goodlatte, the former chairman of the committee,
now the ranking member who's going to be speaking in just a few
minutes, and you look at so many others who because of the way this
issue has been mishandled and because, in fact, there is in excess of a
$10 billion tax increase.
Now, my friend in his opening remarks said, don't be fooled, don't
let them claim that this is a tax increase. Well, I know that we are
dealing with so-called tax loopholes. That's the way it's described.
But the fact of the matter is, if you look at those, Mr. Speaker, who
are impacted by this, great tax ``cheats'' out there like Toyota,
Daimler Chrysler, Honda, the Bayer Corporation that makes the baby
aspirin that's provided, these are people who are ensuring that our
consumers have access to great products, and they obviously are
complying with the law. And now we somehow are demonizing all of these
people, calling it closing tax loopholes when, in fact, what we're
doing is we're putting into place a dramatic tax increase, not just to
deal with the farm issue, Mr. Speaker, but to deal with a wide range of
programs that are not related to farmers whatsoever.
In fact, one person gave me a figure that only 11 cents of every
dollar is actually being expended to help our farmers.
Vote ``no'' on the previous question and ``no'' on the rule.
Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Speaker, a short response.
I'd just like to say that if these folks were complying with Federal
and State law, why are they sending their receipts through Caribbean
islands?
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California
(Ms. Matsui).
Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the rule
we are considering today.
Mr. Speaker, the Farm, Nutrition, and Bioenergy Act of 2007 is an
important bill that outlines the funding for our country's agriculture
policy, its conservation approaches and its nutrition programs. These
initiatives touch each of us in some way, whether we're from rural,
suburban or urban districts. The farm bill impacts all of us.
I want to applaud Chairman Peterson, Ranking Member Goodlatte and
Speaker Pelosi for bringing forward this fine bill.
My district is in one of the fastest growing areas in California.
Sacramento is also at the bottom of one of the most farm-rich
watersheds in the country. We are at the confluence of two great
rivers, the American and, our namesake river, the Sacramento.
As our population grows and as our climate continues to change, our
natural resources are impacted first. Farmland is often the first to
feel the effects of changing weather and climate patterns, and in the
Sacramento watershed the farmers are the stewards of the land. I'm
ready to work with local landowners to develop voluntary comprehensive
conservation plans that address present and future needs.
I want to thank Chairman Peterson for working with me to designate
the Sacramento River watershed as a region of national priority in the
regional water enhancement program. This designation and the promise of
future funding will go a long way toward developing the Sacramento
River watershed over the next 40 years.
Building on this designation, I look forward to convening a
coordinating committee which will address the preservation of working
lands and water management within the watershed.
Our initial focus will be to build a strong consensus on conservation
and its value for our region. We have a truly unique opportunity to
shape the vision for the watershed from its inception. This will help
ensure that we build upon solid local input as we develop this vision.
Above the city of Sacramento, there are 500,000 acres of rice and
500,000 acres of specialty crops. My district is proof that the
distance between urban and rural communities gets smaller every single
day.
Our communities have different needs, but we share a common goal: to
protect, preserve and enhance our way of life. I believe that
preserving working lands can do just that. This should be an important
priority for our entire region.
Finally, I applaud the chairman's commitment in providing $1.6
billion to specialty crop producers. These funds are critical to the
producers' daily operations. They will foster progress in research,
conservation, pest and disease programs and nutrition.
I ask my colleagues to support this rule and final passage of the
Farm, Nutrition, and Bioenergy Act of 2007.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3
minutes to the ranking member of the Budget Committee and a member of
the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Ryan of Wisconsin.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I rise in opposition to this rule, Mr.
Speaker, for many reasons. Number one, this has become common practice
for the new majority. But the farm bill reauthorization calls for
massive new entitlement spending, no serious reform, and it makes a
complete mockery of the PAYGO process. Number one, this is not a fair
rule.
An amendment that I offered on a bipartisan basis with Mr. Blumenauer
from Oregon to cap farm payments, which was made an order in 2002,
which received 200 votes, was denied.
{time} 1800
So based on the lack of fairness on this rule, I urge that it goes
down.
But what about the substance of this bill? This bill extends farm
commodity programs with no real reforms. At a time of record-high
prices and prosperity for many farmers, this extends the commodity
programs at 5 years with no reform. The payment limit is a sham. It has
thin window-dressing payment limits on commodity programs while
actually removing the payment limits on the marketing loan program. It
has an anticompetitive tax increase in here which will raise taxes on
American businesses that are owned by foreign companies: Nestle, Case
New Holland, Chrysler. This will tax jobs out of America, and it
increases entitlement spending.
And the only reason this bill ends up adding up on paper is because
of a bogus $4.7 billion timing shift. CBO has already told us that this
bill will spend $5 billion more than it pretends to spend simply out of
the timing window within which it spends. What that means, Mr. Speaker,
is on paper they are showing savings. In reality and in real life, they
are spending over the limit, and they are breaking the budget by at
least $5 billion.
And what is worse, Mr. Speaker, is this engages in the worst form of
protectionism. This bill raises taxes on our taxpayers, raises prices
on consumers, and it does so at the expense of people in the developing
world. It hurts people in the developing world from lifting their own
lives up out of poverty and despair.
So while we had a chance to have a good, bipartisan farm bill that
had reform, that brought the market reform to bear, that could have
helped the family farmer, we are saying no.
The farm bill ought to be about helping the family farmer in tough
times, not giving million-dollar checks to big farmers, not giving
checks out at good times. Unfortunately, that is what this bill does in
addition to the phony PAYGO and shifting of $4.7 billion around like
Enron accounting.
With that I urge a ``no'' vote on this rule.
[[Page H8679]]
Mr. CARDOZA. I would suggest that the other side knows a lot about
Enron accounting, Mr. Speaker. But we also made three substantive
commodity cut amendments in order: the Kind amendment, the Udall
amendment, and the Davis amendment.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to at this time yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch).
Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from
California for his leadership on the Rules Committee and leadership on
the Agriculture Committee in helping us work through this.
I want to also thank the extraordinary generosity, personal and
political, with his time, Mr. Peterson, who was extremely responsive to
all the concerns of the Members, and Mr. Goodlatte for his excellent
work on this bill.
Mr. Speaker, I support this rule. First of all, two things: One, this
bill is a departure from the past farm bills, and I will just give a
few straight-out facts. One, commodity programs have been cut 43
percent compared to what they were in the 2002 farm bill. Two,
conservation spending has been increased 32 percent. Three, nutrition
has been increased 46 percent. So there is a clear change in emphasis.
Second, there is in this rule 33 amendments that have been allowed to
be in order, including amendments that will allow this Congress to take
further action, if it so chooses, on commodity reform. And that is done
with the consent and the approval of the Chair of the Agriculture
Committee.
So, Mr. Speaker, this bill clearly reflects the necessity for reform
and balance in the farm bill. And, number two, the rule clearly allows
this body to have this as a first step and to consider more dramatic
reform.
Finally, I want to address the MILC program, or the milk program,
that is of particular concern to dairy farmers in Vermont. Our farmers
in Vermont are hanging on by their fingernails. A year ago when milk
prices were at record lows, they also experienced horrible weather,
high energy prices, high grain prices, and the folks who hung on did so
against extraordinary odds. And how they did that I will never know.
But I can tell you this, and I believe what is true for us in Vermont
is true for every State across this Nation: Local agriculture not only
is essential to our economy, but it is essential to our environment. It
is essential to our definition of who we are. And what we must do in
this bill that Mr. Peterson in the committee and Mr. Goodlatte in his
work begin to do is put an emphasis on local agriculture. Is it a
beginning? It is just the beginning because we have to do more in the
commodity program, in all of the farm policies that recognize that it
is our family farmers who should be the intended folks that we are
trying to help.
We, in this farm bill, by preserving the MILC program, are at least
providing to the hardest-working family farmers a lifeline when,
through forces that are completely beyond their control, they need some
assistance to stay in business. And, Mr. Speaker, that is an important
component of this bill, and I thank the Chair for including it.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.
I have a letter in front of me from a number of companies that are
subsidiaries of companies that are based abroad, and they say in this
letter to oppose the tax increase and vote against the rule on H.R.
2419. And one of the signatories of this letter is Ben and Jerry's
Homemade from my friend's home State of Vermont.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the ranking member on the Committee
on Agriculture, Mr. Goodlatte.
(Mr. GOODLATTE asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, this is a sad day for this Congress. Farm bills are
written in a bipartisan fashion. And I appreciate the comments of the
gentleman from California and others, the gentleman from Vermont, about
the hard work that the House Agriculture Committee put into creating a
bipartisan farm bill. There is a lot to like in it; there are things to
dislike in it.
But this rule turns that bipartisan process on its head. It has
poisoned the well in terms of bringing this to fruition. It has made
this farm bill, no matter its fate here today, unlikely to have any
future beyond this House of Representatives because of the tax increase
that has been placed in this legislation, because of the fact that
Members who are accustomed to seeing an open rule when dealing with the
farm bill.
Historically no one can recall a farm bill process as closed as this
one, Members denied the opportunity to deal with provisions brought
into this legislation like labor provisions and so on, not allowed to
offer an amendment to take out Davis-Bacon provisions that have no
business being in farm bill legislation. And it is, in my opinion, very
disappointing.
Now, some have said that this is not a tax increase, this is closing
tax loopholes. Businesses all across America are speaking up and
pointing out that this is sweeping tax reform that has received no
hearing. Here we are with an Agriculture Committee bill dealing with
something that should have been dealt with in the Ways and Means
Committee, but was simply handed out and said, here, take this. Take
this tax increase as the pay-for for a substantial cut in agricultural
programs that the Budget Committee did not address properly.
We have been trying for months to get fair treatment on the promise
that we would be given an appropriate offset. We reported the bill out
of the committee, and now we find what we are going to do is put
American jobs up against American farmers. What kind of an outrage is
that?
This rule should be voted down. It is totally unfair to American
farmers and ranchers to see a good, bipartisan farm bill put at risk
over a tax increase that will have a dramatic impact not only on the
businesses that are subsidiaries of foreign-owned corporations
providing millions of jobs here in the United States, but also on the
trustworthiness of investment in the United States when we begin
violating 58 different treaties that we have negotiated with other
countries, and then, the ultimate, when those countries start
retaliating against us, saying, if you violate a treaty, we certainly
can, too, and affecting American investment abroad.
This is a very bad tax increase. It is a tax increase, not a
``closing the loophole.'' It is a very, very harmful one and should be
the basis for Members to oppose this bill and bring the bill back
appropriately.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my opposition to this rule.
Apparently, the Speaker and the Chairwoman of the Rules Committee have
decided to dispense with the annoying procedures of the committee
process and serious floor debate. The rule before the House begins by
limiting amendments to a select few, denying Members the right to offer
amendments. In living memory, there has never been a rule this
restrictive on a farm bill which is traditionally considered under an
open rule.
As a result, the provision requiring Davis-Bacon wage rates on the
new loan guarantee program for the next generation ethanol plants that
would effectively eliminate the program in many rural States will go
unchallenged. Also immune from floor action, is a provision that
prohibits States from contracting private concerns to help deliver food
stamps or upgrade their delivery systems to provide better service for
recipients. The result is that State employee unions will be protected
at the expense of State taxpayers and those who need the program. These
are only examples of issue after issue that Members will be denied the
right to address.
But then we come to the self-enacting portions of this rule. There is
a 75-page amendment from the chairman of the Agriculture Committee that
moves hundreds of millions of dollars around, cuts programs passed by
the committee without consultation and adds new programs from other
jurisdictions that spend huge sums of money. If you vote for this rule,
that becomes a part of the bill without amendment.
Another self-enacting provision sweeps in billions of dollars in
offsets by raising fees and royalties on off-shore oil production. Yet
another spends nearly $1 billion for a mandatory international feeding
program. Finally, a more than $7 billion tax increase is automatically
made a part of the bill. This tax increase comes to the floor as if by
magic. ``It was not considered in ways & means where it would have been
noted that the provision violates up to 50 Senate-ratified
international tax treaties that are the basis of international tax
treatment for all trade.
In fact, this tax increase idea has been bumping around for over a
decade without receiving any appreciable support. Now the
[[Page H8680]]
Democrats are trying to attach this bad idea to a popular bill in an
unamendable form. Members should be very careful not to rush to accept
this rule. The fate of thousands of companies in our districts and more
than 5 million U.S. workers will be jeopardized if we thoughtlessly
support this rule.
I have worked on the Agriculture Committee since I first came to
Congress and I have enjoyed being part of a committee that always
prided itself on a bipartisan legislative process. In all those years,
I have never witnessed or experienced a situation that discarded the
committee product to this extent or that precluded the members of the
committee and the general Membership of the House from legislating on
major portions of the bill.
Mr. Speaker, this rule puts in jeopardy every Member's right to
legislate and every Member's ability to rely on the careful
deliberations of the committee process to produce fully vetted
legislation for floor consideration. When that process is violated, we
end up with a rule like this one that was cobbled together in the dead
of night and contains tax increases that put at risk millions of
American jobs. There is only one response possible to a rule like this
and that is to join me in voting this rule down.
Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Speaker, I would like to set the record straight.
The gentleman would like to say that this is the first time we have had
a structured rule. That is absolutely not the case.
In 1996, the farm bill that year, when the Republicans were in
charge, allowed 16 amendments. It was a structured rule. This rule
allows 31 amendments.
Further, Mr. Ryan accused us of busting the budget because of timing
shifts. Let me just point out that the 2002 farm bill had $2.6 billion
in timing shifts, and the 2006 budget resolution had $1.5 billion in
shifts, with a total of $4.1 billion in timing shifts on their watch.
Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the
chairwoman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural
Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies, the
gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, this year we fought to make sure Americans
do not just get more of the same from this Congress for its agriculture
policy and the farm bill. And we should be proud of the results:
genuine reform-oriented legislation reflecting our new priorities. By
closing a loophole that even this administration labeled tax abuse, we
are stopping foreign-based tax dodgers and fulfilling some of this
bill's most important obligations.
By sponsoring a marker farm bill for the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic
States, I sought to highlight our regions and, I believe, serve the
entire country. We secured a major increase in conservation support for
programs like EQIP and the Farm and Ranch Land Protection Program, and
we made sure that there was a place in this bill for specialty crops.
What are specialty crops? Fruits and vegetables that are farmed in my
part of the country, in Middle Atlantic States, in California. This is
related to healthy diets in this Nation, crops that are so crucial
nationwide, from New England to California.
And with an agreement on the implementation of mandatory country of
origin labeling, this bill represents a victory for consumers and a
positive first step toward improving food safety in the United States.
Most importantly, we are addressing a top priority: nutrition. The
Food Stamp Program is one of the most effective programs to help low-
income Americans secure an adequate diet, to help children and families
to reach their full potential. This bill represents a real strategy to
stop the erosion of the food stamp benefits and actually take us in the
right direction, a long overdue improvement for our most vulnerable
populations.
Today food stamps are feeding 40 percent of all rural children, yet
the current benefit of approximately $1 per person per meal is
appallingly inadequate. This bill increases the minimum standard
deduction to $145 for 2008. It then indexes it to inflation. It
increases the maximum benefit. And we are taking steps to improve
benefits for working families with child care costs, indexing to
inflation the asset limit, which has effectively barred many poor
households with modest savings from receiving any benefits a all.
For many long years, we have failed to meet our obligations, failed
to act while too many Americans have gone without adequate healthful
food. Today in the Congress we should take pride in acting, finally, to
improve domestic nutrition.
Let's pass a responsible farm bill. I urge my colleagues to support
the bill.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1
minute to a classmate of mine, a member of the Ways and Means
Committee, Mr. Weller from Illinois.
Mr. WELLER of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I came to Washington this week
with plans to vote for a bipartisan farm bill, a good bill that came
out of committee. Lo and behold, I read that the Democrat leadership
demanded that the Ways and Means Committee come up with a tax increase
to pay for expansions beyond for food stamps and other programs.
Well, look what they brought to the floor: a tax increase on foreign-
owned U.S. manufacturers, foreign-owned U.S. companies that are
creating jobs in our districts. Mitsubishi's North America plant is in
my district. BASF, Pinkerton. And you know what is interesting is there
are 235,000 jobs in Illinois, my State, that are generated by foreign-
owned companies. And you know what? The Ways and Means Committee
abdicated its responsibilities on this provision. No hearings were
held. No markup was held. No one knows the consequences of this tax
increase. That is why this rule needs to be voted down.
It is one thing if you say there is a loophole that needs to be
changed, but I am amazed that members of my own committee are coming to
this floor defending a provision where they don't know the answers on
whether or not it is going to cost jobs in our districts.
Vote this rule down.
{time} 1815
Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy).
Mr. POMEROY. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I, frankly, find it astonishing that we're going to have people
representing farmers today that are going to be voting against a bill
so important to rural America, a bill that enjoys the support of the
farm bureau, the farmers union, the commodity groups, so many vital to
the food production of our country. And why? Because they're worried
about these companies based in places like Bermuda that want to take
their money earned in the United States, route it through places like
Switzerland, and park it in the bank back in those islands, those
beautiful Caribbean islands where they don't have taxes. They would
rather protect the tax cheaters in Bermuda than help the farmers in
this country. And man, I would hate to go home and try to sell that
one, because if that's not priorities tipped on their head, I don't
know what is.
It's time for this body to do what's right and pass a farm bill so
vital to rural America and the family farmers in our country.
Vote ``yes'' on this rule.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1
minute to the gentleman from Texas, a member of the Ways and Means
Committee, Mr. Brady.
Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, this tax increase, however called,
ripped from the headlines, ``Cayman Islands, tax cheats, tax dodgers,
Caribbean.'' The only thing they didn't work in was Paris Hilton and
Lindsay Lohan.
The fact of the matter is I had planned to vote for this farm bill
until this ``dark night'' tax increase. And here's the key. You hear
them talk about 2002. The Treasury Department said ``close the
loophole.'' There is a reason they're not talking about 2007, because
since then, in the 5 years, this Congress closed those loopholes. The
Treasury Department closed those loopholes. And that same Treasury
Department they cite today says this is a tax increase that jeopardizes
U.S. jobs, cuts investment to this country, violates tax treaties, and
keeps companies from creating jobs in the United States. And it also
punishes U.S. energy companies for exploring in our deep waters and for
honoring their Federal contracts.
This rule is a sham and deserves to be voted down.
Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time we have
remaining?
[[Page H8681]]
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California has 11\1/2\
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Washington has 15\1/4\ minutes
remaining.
Mr. CARDOZA. Would the gentleman like to take some of his time at
this point?
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1
minute to the gentleman from Georgia, a member of the Ways and Means
Committee, Mr. Linder.
Mr. LINDER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
In 1928, two gentlemen in Congress by the names of Smoot and Hawley
drafted a bill to reduce tariffs to broadly increase markets,
particularly for farmers. And after 4 years, it became not a tariff
reduction bill, but a tariff increase bill. And all our trading
partners responded in kind, leaving us a dust bowl in the ``Grapes of
Wrath.''
If you don't think they're going to respond in kind to this, you're
nuts. Toyota is not located in Barbados. Honda is not located in the
Caribbean islands. These companies pay huge American taxers and hire
millions and millions of our neighbors. They sell product in this
country, they sell product for dollars. And the only value that dollar
has for them is to spend it in a dollar-denominated economy, and they
spend in America and they buy companies.
If you don't believe that this 4 to $6 billion tax increase on
foreign capital is going to cause a response, you're simply not paying
attention to history.
Vote this tax increase down.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I inquire of my friend from
California, we have a number of requests for time, and I'm not sure
that I have enough time. I wonder if the gentleman would entertain a
chance to expand our time on both sides.
If the gentleman would, I would like to ask unanimous consent that
each side get an additional 10 minutes.
Mr. CARDOZA. I respect the gentleman from Washington, but we will
have a significant amount of time in the discussion of the bill in
chief.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I would just communicate
with my friend to at least keep his options open, if he wouldn't mind,
later on and maybe we can revisit this.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Michigan, a member of the Ways and Means Committee, Mr.
Camp.
Mr. CAMP of Michigan. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
This rule will raise $7.5 billion in taxes on U.S. employers. Higher
taxes are just one consequence of today's rule. It turns a blind eye to
the 58 tax treaties that have been negotiated by this Nation since the
1950s.
By ignoring those treaty obligations, that invites the retaliation
other speakers have talked about. These are our friends and neighbors
who work for these employers, over 5 million of them in the United
States. And these aren't necessarily obscure businesses you've never
heard about. The effect of this provision may be on companies like
DaimlerChrysler, Michelin Tires and Miller Brewing. And I say ``may''
because we don't really know. We've never had a hearing. We've never
had testimony. It is part of the American fabric that people have a
chance to speak about laws and provisions that may affect them. There
has been no voice given to the people that may be affected by these
rules, the 5 million employees.
So I think to unexpectedly change these rules for these employers
with zero debate is a dangerous precedent, and I will vote down the
rule.
Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 15 seconds to the
gentleman from Texas.
Mr. DOGGETT. New York Times, June 18, 2002. ``There would be no
effect on legitimate multinational corporations like DaimlerChrysler
that have not used a haven to avoid American taxes.''
Yesterday, 2:41 p.m., letter from Unilever Global Affairs vice
president. He says that his company, which owns Ben and Jerry's, would
not be affected by this bill.
What we've heard is nonsense. It's not evidence. Claims, not
evidence.
Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).
Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I rise to inform my colleagues of a Fair
reform amendment that I and others will offer later in this debate.
For too long, our farm programs have given billions of taxpayer
subsidies to a few, but very large and wealthy, entities. This has got
to change. Our Fair reform amendment will reform these commodity
programs so they act like a true safety net.
Simply put, let's help farmers when they need it. Let's not when they
don't. The committee bill before us, however, will continue to give
taxpayer subsidies to individuals with an adjusted gross income of $1
million. It will spend $26 million in subsidies to commodity producers
who are receiving at or near record commodity prices.
Our reform, however, will establish a real revenue-based safety net
in case prices collapse. But the savings we find in phasing out direct
subsidy payments we reinvest in rural America: $3 billion more for
voluntary conservation programs, $6 billion for nutrition programs to
combat hunger in this country, $2.6 billion for specialty crops and
healthy foods programs, $200 million for rural development programs,
$1.1 billion for McGovern-Dole, all of which is paid for in this
current farm bill.
The opportunity for reform has never been better, given the strong
market prices that exist today. Our reform amendment is fair and
completely justifiable.
I urge my colleagues to support real reform so we can help family
farmers when they need it, and so we can go home and justify it to the
American taxpayer.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to
insert into the Record a letter that I referenced earlier in which the
signature to this letter is Ben and Jerry's Homemade, Inc.
Dear Member of Congress: As U.S. subsidiaries of companies
based abroad, we are writing to express our strong opposition
to including Rep. Lloyd Doggett's bill, H.R. 3160 in the farm
bill. This measure is a discriminatory tax targeted
specifically at companies insourcing jobs into the U.S. We
urge you to vote against the Rule on H.R. 2419 to demonstrate
that you oppose targeting companies with significant
employment in the United States.
Companies like ours play an important role in the growth
and vitality of the U.S. economy, provide high-paying jobs
for five million Americans and account for almost one-fifth
of all U.S. exports. Discriminatory measures, like the
Doggett legislation, send a hostile signal to our companies
and other international investors. This bill will certainly
dissuade companies like ours from choosing the United States
as a location for job creating investment.
The provision under consideration would violate many of our
bilateral tax treaties and could lead to retaliatory actions
by other countries or withdrawal by our treaty partners from
exiting treaties, harshly affecting U.S.-based businesses.
Congress has not held any hearings on this issue. There is
no evidence that existing safeguards in current treaties are
not effective. Further, if material tax abuses were evident;
Treasury Secretary Paulson would not have strongly opposed
this proposal.
We urge you to vote against the Rule on H.R. 2419 and to
demonstrate your opposition to discriminatory tax increases
on companies that support employment in the United States.
AEGON USA, Inc, Akzo Nobel, Alcatel-Lucent, Alcon
Holdings, Inc, Allianz of America, BASF, Ben & Jerry's
Homemade, Inc., Honda North America, Inc, ING Americas,
Inc, Panasonic Corporation of North America, Suez
Energy North America, Swiss Re, Thomson Corporation,
Unilever.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Manzullo).
Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Rules Committee for
allowing debate on the Manzullo amendment to help the EQIP program.
However, I'm deeply concerned about the Democrats' attempt to pit
people who work for manufacturers against agriculture by a midnight tax
increase against manufacturing workers.
The offset to pay for part of the farm bill would strongly discourage
future foreign investment in the United States.
Nissan USA, owned by Nissan based in Japan, borrows money from their
finance unit based in the Netherlands. Under our current tax treaty
with the Netherlands, no tax is applied. However, under the Doggett
amendment, a new 10 percent tax would be applied to this transaction,
and the Netherlands would then most likely view this as an abrogation
of our tax treaty and seek renegotiation or outright annulment,
[[Page H8682]]
thus hurting our overall trade with the Netherlands.
In the northern Illinois district that I represent, the one which led
the Nation in unemployment in 1980 at 25 percent, 14,000 manufacturing
workers lost their jobs, 200 companies closed up. I just lost another
one yesterday. Nissan Forklift in Marengo, Illinois, would be hit with
a 10 percent increase. They're not based in Bermuda.
These are common American people, the ones who get up at the crack of
dawn. They represent the manufacturing people of this country, and the
Democrats are hurting them.
Don't hurt my workers. Don't raise taxes on a bill you have had no
hearings on because you don't know. You have to examine what it does to
the everyday worker. The Japanese, the English, the Italians, the
Swedes, the Germans have all saved manufacturing jobs in my
congressional district. I know what I'm talking about.
Vote against this rule. Vote against this bill. Vote for the American
worker, who is glad to have his job because somebody came in and
invested the money in American manufacturing.
Don't lay off American manufacturers because of a bill that you
haven't even researched.
Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Scott).
Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, if this House of Representatives
wants to stand up for the people of America, they will stand up and
vote for this rule and for this bill.
We spent many hours, way into the midnight hours, working and
bringing every party together. This is not a tax increase; the other
side knows it. Their leader said these words President Bush said in his
2008 budget: ``Some foreign companies are inappropriately avoiding
taxes that other American businesses pay by using this loophole.'' This
is what the Republican President said. This is not raising taxes; it is
closing a loophole. Vote for the rule.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I want to once again inquire
of my friend from California if we can have extended time on this. I
would ask unanimous consent for 5 additional minutes on both sides.
Mr. CARDOZA. We object, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed that that
happened, because we have seen the passion on this side of people
talking about tax policy that has not had a hearing in the committees
of jurisdiction in both cases, and we are restricted to only 1 hour to
talk about that, without any extension at all.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 1 minute to my friend
from Texas, a member of the Agriculture Committee, Mr. Conaway.
Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Speaker, for 18 months I've worked, along with my
Democrat colleagues, to try to craft a bipartisan bill that we could be
very proud of. Last week, it went through committee with some very hard
work on both sides, both sides gave a little, got a little, and we
thought left the committee with a great bipartisan bill, a bill which
would have Democrats and Republicans for it, and perhaps Democrats and
Republicans against it, but a bipartisan bill. We were assured on every
turn there would not be a tax increase.
I was a member of the bipartisan whip team on Tuesday and was told as
late as noon that there would be no tax increases to pay for the $4
billion. I was misled, and that's unfortunate.
All of the good bipartisan work accomplished by this committee has
been squandered by, I believe, the top leadership of the Democratic
Party in an attempt to strip Republican support for this bill away. We
were going to have a bipartisan bill that was going to pass this floor.
We're not going to have that now.
I vote against this rule. It's unfortunate that the other side has
seen fit to waste the good bipartisan work that we did. If we can't
trust what we tell each other, you cannot work in a bipartisan manner.
Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
Mr. BLUMENAUER. I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy and his hard
work.
I witnessed for several hours yesterday the great challenges the
Rules Committee faced, but I must confess that this rule puts a lot of
us in a very difficult position. I am disappointed, to say the least.
This is not just a farm bill; it's the most important rural economic
development bill, the most important trade bill, the most important
opportunity to broaden the benefits for family farmers and ranchers,
and the most important environmental bill that we will vote on this
year.
Sadly, I will say at least that leadership did allow the amendment
that I'm pleased to work with my friend, Mr. Kind, Mr. Flake and Mr.
Ryan, the Fair amendment, to at least be heard, but it's only going to
be heard for 20 minutes a side. They refused to allow debate on
specific areas of meaningful reform, like the legislation that I had
proposed to cap at $250,000 an absolute limit. I think it's a serious
miscalculation.
This bill deserves to be fully and fairly debated. Now, I almost said
I fear that minority voices would be shut out. But it's not the
minority of Americans who share the views and objectives that it's time
for meaningful reform. Because of the complexity, the misinformation
and the powerful special interests that are involved here, it means
that this shot that we have, our one shot for the next 5 years, is
critical.
Sadly, there is always an excuse to not do all that we can do.
Coddling cotton multimillionaires while talking big and delivering
modestly is a failure of political will.
I hope at least my colleagues will vote for the Fair amendment. And I
hope that the debate, as it proceeds, will be administered as fairly
and as openly as possible to allow as many voices to be heard as we can
ask.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I certainly associate myself
with my friend from Oregon's remarks.
{time} 1830
We have different issues. But I think the issue is exactly the same.
With that, I yield 1 minute to my friend from Louisiana (Mr.
Boustany).
Mr. BOUSTANY. Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to say, again, the
Agriculture Committee worked in good faith and in a bipartisan way to
come up with a good product, a good bill. We all patted ourselves on
the back. We thought we had accomplished that.
Now we see a tax provision that has been put into this at the last
moment, a tax provision that has never been vetted. It is a complex tax
provision that abrogates treaties. Furthermore, it is a tax provision
that is going to hurt the very companies that produce pesticides and
fertilizers that are helping our farmers.
My farmers are trying to recover from Hurricanes Rita and Katrina.
This provision is going to hurt them. This provision threatens this
bill. Frankly, I am offended that we are here at this point in time.
Furthermore, I had an amendment that would have addressed a problem
in the bill with the Food Stamp Program. The States need adequate
flexibility to create efficiency so that we can take care of our
neediest citizens. That amendment was not allowed to go forward in this
debate. It certainly deserves a full and open debate, as the previous
speaker said.
Our States need this flexibility. It is going to cost the State of
Indiana over $100 million. Other States need this flexibility as well.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Walberg).
Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this rule.
For several months, the House Agriculture Committee worked in a
bipartisan manner to pass a bill that would make historic investments
in conservation, nutrition and renewable energy, while maintaining
strong support for American farmers. The committee put aside partisan
differences and worked together on a bill that meets the needs of
American farmers, without raising taxes.
Today House leadership has brushed aside months of hard work by
Republicans and Democrats on the House Agriculture Committee and
decided to insert a 600 percent tax increase on manufacturers who
employ 5.1 million Americans workers and pay $325 billion in wages.
Additionally, the anticompetitive Davis-Bacon provision included in
this bill would drive up the
[[Page H8683]]
cost of building ethanol plants and discourage alternative energy
production.
Yet today, this rule does not allow Members a vote on striking these
provisions. Right now, governments throughout the world are cutting
taxes for job traders to attract investment. The Democratic proposal
will drive investment and jobs out of America and greatly diminish
America's competitiveness.
Mr. Speaker, for these reasons, I strongly oppose this rule.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to a former
member of the Rules Committee, the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Pryce).
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, just 2 days ago, the House was on
track to pass this year's farm bill with a bipartisan vote. Then, in
the eleventh hour, the Democratic leaders blindsided America with the
news of how they were going to pay for this bill: by putting 5.1
million American jobs at risk.
This bill imposes massive tax increases on businesses, violates trade
treaties, discourages investment in America and weakens U.S.
competitiveness internationally. It costs good manufacturing jobs.
For instance, in my district in Ohio, Honda employs more than 16,000
Ohioans and has invested more than $6 billion into my State. Its
suppliers employ an additional 40,000 Ohioans. Tax receipts from Honda
provide revenue for 53 Ohio cities and 43 school districts. Honda is by
no means alone in its contributions. U.S. subsidiaries in Ohio employ
more than 200,000 Ohioans.
Mr. Speaker, the Democrats have shown their true colors again. We
need not sacrifice American manufacturing jobs for a strong American
agricultural economy. They can and should coexist.
Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Kagen).
Mr. KAGEN. Mr. Speaker, this rule asks a very simple question of all
of us: Whose side are you on? Do you stand with overseas corporations
who exploit American tax loopholes, or do you stand with American farm
families who pay their fair share every day? Whose side are you on?
Let me point out where I and my Democratic colleagues stand: We stand
with American farm families who plant, who grow and who harvest
everything we eat. We stand with those most in need. We also support a
strong nutrition program. We stand with our Nation's children, and are
providing them with access to fresh fruits and vegetables. We stand
with local agricultural businesses connecting local farmers to their
communities to bring their products to market. And we stand for
responsible reforms to our Nation's agriculture policy.
The question is simple: Whose side are you on?
We do not sit in the boardrooms. We do not represent corporations who
take advantage of loopholes in our tax codes that even the Bush
administration and the Treasury Department have said need to be
plugged.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this rule.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to a member
of the Agriculture Committee, the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Smith).
Mr. SMITH of Nebraska. Mr. Speaker, I am on the side of those who
would like an open process. I am extremely disappointed with this tax
provision. It can be characterized however one might wish to
characterize it. But I am on the side of a process that is open, where
a tax provision has a hearing and gathers input from the general
population so that we can move forward with good policy.
As a representative of a heavily agricultural district, I hope that
we can pass a farm bill that is good, sustainable policy. We are well
on our way.
As a member of the Agriculture Committee, I was proud of the process.
It was very polite. Actually, the committee process was very open. Then
all of a sudden we are blindsided, Mr. Speaker, with this tax
provision.
It is extremely disappointing to me, Mr. Speaker, and I hope that we
can defeat this rule so that we can open up the process perhaps and
move forward with good policy and a good, open process.
Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Doggett), a member of the Ways and Means Committee.
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, farm and ranch families deserve a safety
net, and fiscal responsibility demands that we pay for it. We pay for
this farm bill, every penny of it, and some of it is done by stopping
one group of multinational corporations from dodging their United
States tax liability. For too long they have enjoyed a free ride from
these Republicans, at the expense of other American taxpayers. It is
wrong, and we are putting a stop to it.
Our target is very narrow: No company headquartered in the United
States of America will have its taxes go up one penny, nor will it have
any significant impact on any foreign corporation with whom we have a
tax treaty, as we do with most developed countries. Indeed, 90 percent
of the revenue, according to the nonpartisan staff of the Joint Tax
Committee, comes from companies that have tax hideaways with these
countries down in the Caribbean that have no tax treaty and no
corporate taxes or little taxes. And the remaining 10 percent of
revenue from their proposal, most of it is going to be simply a matter
of shifting taxes between countries in tax credits.
I have listened to these Republicans identify one company after
another that they cried big crocodile tears about, and I haven't heard
them identify a single company that is likely to have an increase in
its taxes as a result of this proposal.
There are others hiding in the shadows that know they have no
justified case. And they have some of their friends out front,
including one company that I read an e-mail from yesterday saying they
don't like my bill, but it doesn't affect them a penny. That is the
people that own Ben and Jerry's.
Well, today the Administration may be teaming up with those willing
to kill this farm bill by defending these foreign tax evaders, but that
is not the tune they were singing 5 years ago when in this Treasury
report they said ``an appropriate, immediate response, an immediate
response, should address the U.S. tax advantages that are available to
foreign-based companies because of their ability to reduce the U.S.
corporate tax on income from their American operations.''
Mr. Brady says Treasury did something about it? They sat on their
rear and didn't do anything about it. And if you need any proof of
that, gentleman, turn to the President's budget 5 months ago. He turned
to this same source of revenue and all this job-killing tax proposal
you are talking about. How many jobs did his $2 billion proposal that
he put out here 5 months ago in February kill? Well, you haven't
suggested there are any, because even this President, President Bush,
admits there is a problem here that needs to be fixed, and this
committee gets about fixing it.
You talk about jeopardizing 5 million jobs. What a lot of nonsense.
That is all the jobs of all the foreign subsidiaries in the United
States, the vast majority of which are corporations that are not
touched by this proposal.
Your problem isn't jobs. Your problem is you never met a tax loophole
you didn't like. You never met a tax dodger you didn't want to help.
You have done a good job of doing it, and it is time we fix that.
I don't know why it is that a farm and ranch family in High Hill,
Texas, or a drugstore on the main street of Bastrop, Texas, ought to
have to pay higher relative taxes on their earnings than some
multinational with a fancy CPA and a law firm and a hideaway in
Bermuda.
It is wrong, and each of us must stand to choose between the two.
Point of Order
Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Speaker, I have a point of order. Are we requested to
address our comments to the Chair?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman should seek recognition rather
than interjecting from his seat.
But the gentleman is correct that Members should address the Chair
when they are speaking, and not others in the second person.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3
minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. McCrery), the ranking
member of the Ways and Means Committee.
Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, the previous speaker, the gentleman from
Texas, talked about a memo from
[[Page H8684]]
Treasury 5 years ago. The fact is, since that memo was sent out, or
since that study was done, Treasury has undertaken a very aggressive
policy of amending tax treaties with countries to solve the problem
that was mentioned in that study. Also, in the jobs bill that we passed
just a couple of years ago, we legislatively attacked the problem that
was mentioned in that study. So steps have been taken, both
legislatively and regulatorily, to solve that problem.
The President's budget, the gentleman himself said it raises $2
billion, approximately. His provision raises twice that. So it is
apples and oranges, and obviously his provision is much broader than
what the President's budget contemplated.
But, you know, I was just sitting there listening to this debate, and
Americans out in the country watching this must be shaking their heads.
You have got Democrats who are saying one thing and Republicans who are
saying just the opposite. Republicans: It is a tax increase. Democrats:
It is not a tax increase, it is a loophole closure. It is like they
have been brainwashed by somebody and we have been brainwashed by
somebody.
Mr. Speaker, we could have avoided this, I believe, if the majority
had followed regular order; if they had allowed the Ways and Means
Committee, the committee of jurisdiction over the Tax Code, to hold a
hearing on this provision, to flesh it out, to hear experts on both
sides, or all sides, and then let us discuss it and ask questions,
probe.
Mr. Doggett is one of the smartest Members of our committee, and he
knows a lot about the Tax Code, and especially the treatment of
international companies doing business here in the United States, and I
give him that. But, dadgummit, we should have had a chance to honestly
debate this, and not have the majority just throw it in overnight on a
farm bill, without even sending it through the Ways and Means
Committee. That is wrong. That is a lousy way to legislate. It is
wrong.
That is why Members on both sides of the aisle should vote no on this
rule, to give this House the opportunity to act responsibly and to give
the Ways and Means Committee back some of its honor. It is getting
gutted by actions like this week after week after week. I am tired of
it, and I ask the House, not Republicans or Democrats, Members of this
proud House, to go back to doing things properly, and then maybe we
will figure out something in between that we can all support.
{time} 1845
Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Speaker, how much time remains?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Both sides have 3\1/4\ minutes remaining.
Mr. CARDOZA. Does the gentleman from Washington have any remaining
speakers?
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I have more speakers than I have time,
and I would like to inquire of my friend if he would like to entertain
the proposition I offered a moment ago.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent for 5 additional minutes for
each side.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Washington?
Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Speaker, I object to the request to extend debate.
As the gentleman from Washington knows, there will be another hour of
debate on the bill and then 31 amendments. There is ample time to
debate this bill, so I would have to object.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Objection is heard.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1
minute to the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce), a member of one
of the committees that was denied any opportunity to talk about the tax
provisions.
Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and it
is always imperative that we discuss issues that are brought forward.
Members of Congress often point to other countries who abridge
treaties, who abridge contracts of our companies working in those
countries, and they claim foul. Recently Hugo Chavez nationalized the
oil industry and the electricity and oil companies. Yet the people who
work for oil companies that are U.S. oil companies trying to push back
that takeover were told why shouldn't we do that, your own government
is doing it; we have the right.
They are referring to the language that is in this bill that affects
the offshore leases, the '98-'99 leases. The Washington Post described
the actions that were taken back on H.R. 6, which are very similar to
these actions, as ``heavy handed.'' The stability of contracts, this
heavy-handed approach, an attack on the stability of contracts would be
welcomed in Russia, Bolivia, and others have been criticized for
tearing up revenue-sharing agreements with private energy companies.
Mr. Speaker, we are doing things that affect oil companies and energy
prices to Americans. I oppose this rule because it violates the rule of
law.
Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey), a former member of the Rules
Committee.
Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, while I see good reforms and programs in
this farm bill, I also see onerous provisions such as a massive tax
increase on foreign companies who are providing good jobs here in the
United States, and Davis-Bacon restrictions on biofuel production
plants that drive up costs far beyond any included incentive grants.
In 2003, a constituent of Georgia's 11th District named Greg Hopkins
took a big risk and decided to construct and operate a biofuel
production plant called U.S. Biofuels in Rome, Georgia. He found a
market demand, and that is the reason for his plant. But in order to
make a profit, Greg has to minimize costs wherever possible. If the
United States is serious about moving our country to alternative fuels,
we don't need restrictions like Davis-Bacon prevailing wages.
It is clear to me that the Democratic leadership of the 110th
Congress is more interested in doing favors for deep-pocketed labor
union supporters than protecting domestic biofuel producers, and I must
oppose this rule and the underlying bill.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my
time to the gentleman from Kentucky, a classmate of mine, Mr.
Whitfield.
Mr. WHITFIELD. I want to commend all those for the hard work they
have done on this rule. I must say that the American people today, 14
percent of the American people only, approve of Congress as an
institution. I think there are many reasons for that.
For example, with this farm bill we have an opportunity once every 5
years to address major issues in the farm bill. Yesterday, the chairman
of the Natural Resources Committee, the Budget Committee, two other
Democrats and two Republicans offered an amendment to the Rules
Committee on an issue that has been on this House floor five separate
times and every time it passed overwhelmingly, but we needed this
amendment to finally bring this issue to a conclusion. And although
four people on the Rules Committee that spoke applauded our efforts and
were very complimentary of it, we were not given an opportunity to
bring this amendment to the floor.
In addition to that, the tax issues relating to the farm bill have
not been adequately explained, have not been adequately debated. In the
committee that I am on, the Energy and Commerce Committee, there is an
SCHIP program that provides $100 billion in cost over the next 5 years;
and to pay for that, we have not had any opportunity to debate that.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman's time has expired.
____________________