[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 56 (Wednesday, April 9, 2008)]
[House]
[Pages H2119-H2121]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
MOTION TO GO TO CONFERENCE ON H.R. 2419, FOOD AND ENERGY SECURITY ACT
OF 2007
Mr. HOLDEN. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on
Agriculture, I move to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R.
2419) to provide for the continuation of agricultural programs through
fiscal year 2012, and for other purposes, with a Senate amendment
thereto, disagree to the Senate amendment, and agree to the conference
asked by the Senate.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The motion was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Motion to Instruct Offered by Mr. Goodlatte
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to instruct conferees.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Goodlatte moves that the managers on the part of the
House at the conference on the disagreeing votes on the two
Houses on the Senate amendment to the bill H.R. 2419 be
instructed, within the scope of the conference, to--
Disagree to any provision which will result in an increase
in taxes.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Florida). Pursuant to clause
7 of rule XXII, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) and the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Holden) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, I offer this motion to instruct conferees to make clear
that tax increases do not belong in a farm bill. While there are still
some funding issues that need to be worked out and many policy
decisions to be negotiated, these instructions are very clear in
stating that tax increases cannot be used to fund the remaining
elements of the farm bill.
Again I will read the actual language of the motion, which is that
the managers on the part of the House at the conference on the
disagreeing votes on the two Houses on the Senate amendment to the bill
H.R. 2419 be instructed within the scope of the conference to disagree
to any provision which will result in an increase in taxes.
These instructions are very clear in stating that tax increases
cannot be used to fund the remaining elements of the farm bill. Farm
bills have long enjoyed bipartisan support in this body, and it would
be devastating to American agriculture to add a divisive element such
as tax increases to this bill.
This conference has been a long time coming, and we are ready to put
together a reform-minded farm bill that addresses a variety of issues,
including conservation, nutrition, energy, rural development, fruits
and vegetables, and forestry, while maintaining a strong safety net for
America's farmers and ranchers so that they can continue to meet the
growing demand for their products in the global market.
{time} 1815
This motion is very important. I expect that there will be strong
bipartisan support for this motion, and it's important because we have
been down this road of attempting to pass a farm bill for quite some
time.
When the bill came out of the House Agriculture Committee last
summer, many of the Members on this side of the aisle expected that the
amount of money that was added outside of the committee's jurisdiction
would not constitute tax increases. We are very disappointed to find
that it did include tax increases, and that has definitely bogged down
this process for the many, many, many months since.
We have now had some very good discussions with members of other
committees that are involved in making sure that we have the ability to
move forward and to pay for measures that exceed the amount of money
within the jurisdiction of the Agriculture Committee, and those do not
include tax increases.
This is, I think, an important statement to be made here and in the
other body that we can complete this work without tax increases. We do
not need to repeat the mistakes that were made earlier in that regard.
I also think it's very clear that the President of the United States
has been very strong in his statement that this bill would be vetoed if
it included tax increases. While we continue to work with the
administration on a number of other issues, we are making progress
there as well.
Again, this would reaffirm, I think, the kind of bipartisan support
that it takes to pass a farm bill and get it signed into law.
I urge my colleagues to support this motion to instruct.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HOLDEN. I want to commend the ranking member of the committee for
the hard work that he has done with the chairman of the committee, who
is now in a meeting with leadership, as we are trying to iron out the
final details of a long process where a lot of people, particularly
Chairman Peterson and Ranking Member Goodlatte, have put a lot of time
and effort to get to this spot in the process where we are. We are
hoping that we can meet our deadline of next Friday to see that we can
have this conference report completed.
The ranking member has correctly evaluated the process that we have
gone through as we try to get to this process, and we are in agreement.
We believe that we can pass this farm bill without any tax increases.
Before I yield back the balance of my time, Mr. Speaker, I yield 2
minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).
Mr. KIND. I thank my friend from Pennsylvania for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Speaker, we need a farm bill, and we need it soon. Planting
season is
[[Page H2120]]
starting throughout the country, but I would hope that at the end of
the process we get a good farm bill rather than a bad farm bill, one
that recognizes current market prices and the conditions that farmers
are experiencing out there. It was a little more bold on reform,
especially under those title I commodity programs.
The President has made it clear that he won't find a farm bill
acceptable that does call for an increase in taxes in order to pay for
it. I and others who have been a part of a reform effort, especially
with the commodity subsidy programs, believe that we are capable of
producing a farm bill that maintains an important safety net for family
farmers, but also protects the important priorities that are also a
part of the farm bill.
It's based on the philosophy of let's help family farmers when they
need it, let's not when they don't. Clearly with commodity prices at or
near record highs in the marketplace today, part of it driven by the
biofuels portion in this country, a large part of it due to the
increased global demand, many of us are suspecting that these prices
are going to continue. That's been great for the rural economy, and
it's been great for farm income.
But let us also take this opportunity then of starting to move
forward on some commonsense reasonable reforms of these commodity
programs, while still maintaining a safety net in the farm bill, but
without jeopardizing the conservation title or nutrition or specialty
crops, rural economic development programs and renewable fuel
investment.
I would hope that my colleagues support this motion to instruct. I
think it's the right thing to do. I think at the end of the day, if we
are going to have a bipartisan bill that the President feels
comfortable in doing, one of the goals that we have to strive for is a
bill that does not call for an increase in taxes in light of record
high market prices.
I commend the gentleman for offering this motion and encourage
support on the vote.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I would just say to the gentleman from Pennsylvania that I very much
appreciate his kind words. We have worked in a very bipartisan fashion.
The chairman of the committee has been very dedicated to working with
us, and we very much appreciate that, as have the other members of the
committee.
We now look forward to going to conference and have the opportunity
to work together as we work with the other body to try to work out what
are still many, many hurdles. A lot of the people have been excited
that we are going to conference, and we need to make sure they
understand that we are not done with this, but we do have some good
ideas that we are going to be able to move forward with. I think that's
very encouraging.
I would also say to the gentleman from Wisconsin that I too share his
desire for reform. This farm bill will contain a lot of reform, and it
will result in substantial savings to the taxpayers of the country,
because, in fact, that has already occurred.
The current farm bill, if it were to be perpetuated, which I do not
support, but if it were to be perpetuated, would cost $58 billion less
for the next 5 years than it cost for the last 5. So the fact of the
matter is there is already substantial savings being achieved.
There are, nonetheless, additional reforms that I and many others
support as we move to conference with this legislation, and I think the
outcome will be one that maintains the safety net for America's farmers
and ranchers, but makes a number of very important reforms in a number
of different areas and enhances those new areas that I know the
gentleman has championed and others, like conservation, which I very
much join him in supporting and making sure that the nutritional needs
of many in this country are met, and other purposes. We can do that
without tax increases, and, as a result, I think this is a very
appropriate motion to instruct to adopt today.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. HOLDEN. I would just like to thank the ranking member for his
comments and also to say to my friend from Wisconsin, who served on the
committee, that he understands that we are fortunate to serve on one of
the most bipartisan committees in the Congress. We do not have Democrat
and Republican disagreements on agriculture, but we do have regional
ones.
I believe that the final product will reflect those regional
differences and also will have a significant amount of reform that all
of us are going to be able to go home and talk about that we did
something positive in this farm bill.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is
ordered on the motion to instruct.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to instruct.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not
present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, this 15-minute vote on the motion to
instruct will be followed by 5-minute votes on motions to suspend the
rules with respect to H.R. 5489 and H.R. 5472.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 400,
nays 11, not voting 19, as follows:
[Roll No. 175]
YEAS--400
Ackerman
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Allen
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Bachmann
Baird
Baldwin
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boozman
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boustany
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Braley (IA)
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson
Carter
Castle
Castor
Chabot
Chandler
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Cohen
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cubin
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Davis, Lincoln
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly
Doolittle
Doyle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
English (PA)
Eshoo
Etheridge
Everett
Fallin
Farr
Fattah
Feeney
Filner
Flake
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foster
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gilchrest
Gillibrand
Gingrey
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Graves
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hall (TX)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hobson
Hodes
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Inslee
Israel
Issa
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Jordan
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Keller
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Klein (FL)
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kucinich
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Lamborn
Lampson
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Mack
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Manzullo
Marchant
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (CA)
McCarthy (NY)
McCaul (TX)
McCollum (MN)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Mica
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murphy, Tim
Murtha
Musgrave
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Neugebauer
[[Page H2121]]
Nunes
Oberstar
Obey
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Richardson
Rodriguez
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Sali
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schmidt
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Sestak
Shadegg
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Souder
Space
Spratt
Stupak
Sullivan
Sutton
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tierney
Towns
Tsongas
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Walz (MN)
Wamp
Wasserman Schultz
Watson
Watt
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Westmoreland
Wexler
Whitfield (KY)
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (OH)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman (VA)
Wolf
Wu
Wynn
Yarmuth
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NAYS--11
Blumenauer
Capuano
DeFazio
Ellison
Frank (MA)
McDermott
McGovern
Olver
Payne
Waters
Woolsey
NOT VOTING--19
Abercrombie
Bachus
Buyer
Edwards
Ferguson
Giffords
Granger
Hooley
Larson (CT)
Myrick
Peterson (PA)
Rangel
Rush
Salazar
Shays
Sires
Stark
Stearns
Waxman
{time} 1847
Ms. WOOLSEY and Messrs. DeFAZIO and PAYNE changed their vote from
``yea'' to ``nay.''
Messrs. NADLER and CLYBURN changed their vote from ``nay'' to
``yea.''
So the motion to instruct was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated for:
Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 175, I was unavoidably
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''
____________________