[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 126 (Thursday, August 2, 2007)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1690-E1691]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




               FARM, NUTRITION, AND BIOENERGY ACT OF 2007

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                            HON. TODD TIAHRT

                               of kansas

                    in the house of representatives

                         Friday, July 27, 2007

       The House in Committee of the Whole House on the State of 
     the Union had under consideration the bill (H.R. 2419) to 
     provide for the continuation of agricultural programs through 
     fiscal year 2012, and for other purposes:

  Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I rise today with great reluctance that I 
am not able to support the Farm, Nutrition, and Bioenergy Act of 2007, 
H.R. 2419. The Agriculture Committee worked for many months in a 
bipartisan manner to craft an omnibus farm bill that would have 
achieved broad support in the House. H.R. 2419 was not a perfect bill, 
but it was a compromise that I would have supported in hopes that an 
even better package could be produced during conference negotiations 
with the Senate.
  Unfortunately, Democrat leadership decided to insert a last-minute 
tax increase into the farm bill after the bill had left the House 
Committee on Agriculture. The tax provision represents a $7.5 billion 
increase in taxes on companies that supply high-quality, high-paying 
jobs for American workers. These are often union jobs held by hard-
working men and women trying to earn a living for their families. 
Instead of producing a farm bill that meets the needs of America's 
farmers, ranchers, landowners and those who rely on nutrition programs, 
the Democrats have instead resorted to a tax-and-spend policy instead 
of an invest-and-create-jobs policy.
  The $7.5 billion tax increase on foreign-owned American businesses 
inserted in H.R. 2419 could result in more jobs being sent overseas. In 
a time when the United States should be encouraging investment in our 
country and in American jobs, this kind of tax policy takes our economy 
a step backward. The last-minute Democrat tax increase will make it 
less attractive for foreign companies that employ American workers to 
initiate or expand operations in the United States. And that means bad 
news for American workers.
  The United States has negotiated 58 tax treaties with 66 different 
countries. The Democrat tax proposal applies a tax increase on 
companies located in countries with which we have a tax treaty. This 
calls into serious question the United States' upholding our end of the 
treaties, which could invite retaliation.
  Aside from the damage H.R. 2419 would do to American jobs, the 
Democrat's farm bill would cut a total of $3 billion from the crop 
insurance program compared to the 2002 farm bill. Most troubling, is 
that $1 billion of these

[[Page E1691]]

cuts were made without consideration by the full Agriculture Committee 
to determine how this will effect risk-management services farmers in 
Kansas rely upon. With nearly every county in Kansas being declared as 
a federal disaster area in 2007, we should think long and hard about 
cuts to the federal crop insurance program. It is disappointing that 
Democrat leadership chose to make this cut without first considering 
what it will mean for America's farmers.

  Another harmful provision included last-minute in the farm bill would 
apply Davis-Bacon act wages to new ethanol plants being built if those 
plants utilize loans or grants from the USDA. This provision negates 
any positive benefit that would have been provided by the USDA's loan 
guarantee program. By artificially dictating what wages have to be paid 
to workers constructing a new ethanol plant, the farm bill will result 
in increased ethanol costs. This translates to higher costs at the pump 
for consumers of ethanol-blended gasoline. Instead of allowing price 
competition for newly constructed ethanol plants that access USDA loans 
or grants, this artificial wage provision is another example of 
unnecessary federal manipulation in a private-market matter.
  I am also disappointed the bill included a prohibition on States 
being able to use private contractors to perform administrative 
functions for the food stamp program. States that choose to enact 
reforms within their systems to provide better food-stamp services at a 
savings to taxpayers are denied that ability under H.R. 2419. Rather 
than defer to States and allow some common-sense savings for taxpayers, 
the Democrats have drafted a farm bill that restricts certain reforms 
at the State level.
  The commodity title of H.R. 2419 proposes a commodity spending cut of 
42 percent compared with the 2002 farm bill. The 2007 farm bill 
proposes $42 billion in baseline spending on commodities, representing 
just 14 percent of the entire farm bill. I think Kansas farmers deserve 
better.
  As a State that is renowned for being the breadbasket of the world, 
Kansas and its farmers deserve a farm bill that provides a solid safety 
net while remaining fiscally responsible to taxpayers. I do not believe 
this $297 billion farm bill meets this standard. And as my colleague 
from Kansas, Mr. Moran, has pointed out, this farm bill fails to fully 
implement a revenue counter-cyclical program that would better respond 
to Kansas farmers in times when they need support the most.
  I urge my colleagues to join me today in voting against H.R. 2419. 
The American farmer, the American taxpayer and the American worker 
deserve a better farm bill. I can only hope negotiations with the 
Senate will address this bill's shortcomings and that the House will 
have another opportunity to vote on comprehensive farm policy that is 
good for all Americans.

                          ____________________