[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.

                          ____________________