[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 154 (2008), Part 7]
[House]
[Pages 9050-9066]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 2419, FOOD, 
                  CONSERVATION, AND ENERGY ACT OF 2008

  Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 1189 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 1189

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to consider the conference report to accompany the 
     bill (H.R. 2419) to provide for the continuation of 
     agricultural programs through fiscal year 2012, and for other 
     purposes. All points of order against the conference report 
     and against its consideration are waived. The conference 
     report shall be considered as read. The previous question 
     shall be considered as ordered on the conference report 
     without intervening motion except (1) one hour of debate 
     equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking 
     minority member of the Committee on Agriculture and (2) one 
     motion to recommit.

                              {time}  1045


                    Unfunded Mandate Point of Order

  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, I raise a point of order against H. Res. 1189 
because the resolution violates section 426(a) of the Congressional 
Budget Act. The resolution contains a waiver of all points of order 
against consideration of the conference report which includes a waiver 
of section 425 of the Congressional Budget Act which causes a violation 
of section 426(a).
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Arizona makes a point of 
order that the resolution violates section 426(a) of the Congressional 
Budget Act of 1974.
  The gentleman has met the threshold burden to identify the specific 
language in the resolution on which the point of order is predicated. 
Such a point of order shall be disposed of by the question of 
consideration.
  The gentleman from Arizona and a Member opposed, the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Cardoza), each will control 10 minutes of debate on the 
question of consideration.
  After that debate, the Chair will put the question of consideration, 
to wit: ``Will the House now consider the resolution?''
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, I raise this point of order realizing that it 
is a bit of a stretch. The reason that we have this point of order in 
law is to guard against unfunded mandates being levied on the States. 
In this case, there are a lot of unfunded mandates being heaped upon 
taxpayers. I realize, as I said, this is a stretch. But I have to do 
this today because the rule that is before us does not allow anybody 
opposed to the bill to claim time in opposition to the bill.
  Now how is it that a bill of this import, a bill that will spend over 
the next 10 years about $300 billion, is not important enough to allow 
those who are opposed to the bill to claim time in opposition to it? 
Instead, the structured rule before us today allows time to be split 
between the majority and the minority. Now those who will be 
controlling that time are people who are in support of the bill. How is 
it that we can discuss a bill this large, this important, that spends 
this much money, and that heaps this kind of burden on the taxpayer, 
yet again, without having a real discussion?
  When we have a bill before the House, we have time called ``general 
debate.'' In this case, general debate is between those in the majority 
who support the bill and those in the minority who support the bill. 
Now how is that debate? Why is it that the Rules Committee can't see 
fit to actually allow people who are opposed to the bill to claim time 
in opposition to it?
  With that, I would love to hear an explanation from the Rules 
Committee why we have a structured rule that does this.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  This point of order is about whether or not to consider the rule and 
ultimately the underlying conference report. In my opinion, it is 
simply an effort to try to kill this bill without any debate, without 
an up-or-down vote on the conference report itself. It is nothing more 
than procedural roadblocks, something the other side has been using a 
fair amount recently. I don't believe it will work.
  The gentleman has talked about the fact that he is not able to speak 
in opposition. The gentleman had an hour's worth of debate the other 
day on a motion to recommit. It is also my understanding that the 
chairman is working with the opposition to allow them time to discuss 
the bill within the rules that were set up.
  This conference report is far too important, Mr. Speaker, to be 
blocked by a parliamentary tactic. We have worked on this bill for 
nearly 2 years and have accomplished what many of us thought was an 
impossible feat by bringing it to the floor.
  Make no mistake about it. The Republican obstruction will ensure that 
a farm bill will not pass during this Congress. So despite whatever 
roadblocks the other side tries to use to stop this bill, we will stand 
up for America's hardworking farmers, for the hungry and for the 
millions of other Americans who will benefit from this farm bill.
  We must consider this rule, and we must pass this important 
conference report without further delay.
  Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding I have the right to close. But in 
the end, I will urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' to consider this 
rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FLAKE. Again, I realize this bill has been in discussion for a 
couple of years. And I will come to that a little later as we talk 
about why earmarks had to be airdropped into the bill at the last 
minute. If we have been discussing this bill for 2 years, then couldn't 
we actually discuss these earmarks that were to be added to the bill 
instead of airdropping them into the conference report when nobody in 
the House or nobody in the Senate had even seen them? So it is hardly a 
defense to say that we have been discussing this for 2 years, nor is it 
a reason to deny those who are opposed to the bill an opportunity to 
actually claim time in opposition.
  Let me read from the House rules. If the floor manager for the 
majority and the floor manager for the minority both support the 
conference report or a motion, one-third of the time for debate thereon 
shall be allotted to a Member, Delegate or Resident Commissioner who 
opposes the conference report or motion on demand of that Member, 
Delegate or Resident Commissioner.
  We waived that. And we are not doing it. And let me tell you why I 
think that is the case. Now if I were supporting this bill, and I had 
been touting this bill as some big reform to our farm programs, I would 
flat be plumb embarrassed to bring this bill to the floor in its 
current form. I would be embarrassed.
  What has got most of the attention, the problem that we all note, 
that everybody across the country realizes, is how in the world can we 
have a situation where multimillionaire farmers are collecting 
subsidies courtesy of the taxpayer?
  And the real effort in here, what the President wanted, what others 
wanted, and what many of us here in the House argued for, was to put a 
cap on how much income you can have and still receive subsidies. The 
President suggested $200,000 adjusted gross income. Remember, adjusted 
gross income is your income minus expenses. All of us here collect a 
salary of about $169,000. By the time we deduct things for mortgage 
interest, medical expenses and charitable contribution, it brings that 
down by at least one-third, maybe even one-half. Under this 
legislation, a farm couple can have farm income and nonfarm income 
totaling $2.5 million and

[[Page 9051]]

still receive direct payments under this legislation.
  Now, if I were bringing a bill to the floor and had touted this bill 
as reforming, man, I would want to hide that as well. I would not want 
somebody to be able to stand up and say, how is it that a 
multimillionaire farm couple can still collect subsidies from the 
taxpayers? So I commend the Rules Committee and those who are in 
support of the bill for actually putting a rule together that minimizes 
opposition that can be raised and that the only way people can stand up 
and oppose and be guaranteed time in opposition is to use a maneuver 
like raising a point of order against the bill.
  I should mention there are other problems with this and other reasons 
why this rule should not go forward. We are waiving PAYGO rules. Now 
one thing the majority said when they came into power is we will not 
waive PAYGO. We are going to live by PAYGO. When we give money out, we 
have to make sure that that many money is in the Treasury or we won't 
do it.
  This waives PAYGO because there is simply no way you can be in 
compliance with PAYGO and pass a $300 billion farm bill. And in this 
case, the writers of the legislation did something very creative. They 
actually went baseline shopping. What PAYGO says is that you have to 
take the current baseline, the most current baseline of spending, and 
total up your spending in the bill based on that current baseline.
  Instead, what the authors of this legislation did was said, oh, let's 
go to last year's baseline because we spent less money then and it 
means we can spend more money in this legislation. Baseline shopping. 
It is as if I were to say, I don't want to pay so much in taxes this 
year. So I am going to use last year's wages that I was paid, and I am 
going to report that instead. Now if I did that, I would be thrown in 
jail. But we are allowed to do this here. We are allowed to say, we 
will take whatever baseline we want as long as it allows us to spend 
more money in the legislation. And then when the bill comes to the 
floor, we will just waive the rule that required us to be honest in 
terms of bringing legislation that complies with PAYGO.
  I would love an explanation from the Rules Committee as to why PAYGO 
was waived in this regard.
  And I would reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to respond to my friend from 
Arizona with regard to the PAYGO issue, even though that is going to be 
addressed in the rule and not in this motion that he has brought 
forward now.
  I didn't raise a point of order in your motion so you can have plenty 
of time to speak.
  Let me tell you also that the chairman and the ranking member have, 
in my understanding, provided 10 minutes to both the Republic and 
Democratic opposition to this bill out of their time today. So we will 
be complying with the rules of the House. It is my understanding there 
will be 20 minutes in opposition.
  With regard to PAYGO, the Senate and the House have adopted different 
rules. In the 1990s when the House and Senate had statutory PAYGO, both 
Chambers had the same rules with regard to PAYGO. The House rules talk 
about one issue with PAYGO. The Senate rules with another.
  In this rule, we have tried to reconcile, we started this bill and 
actually passed it in a conference report, or we passed it out in chief 
from the Agriculture Committee to this floor and to a conference 
committee in 2007. That work was not completed in 2007, and thus we 
have this bill on the floor today.
  There are many reasons why this bill didn't get finished in 2007. But 
because we have different rules in the House and Senate, we have 
decided that in order to make this bill work and achieve a conference 
report that we can bring to this floor that we will be discussing this 
further as we discussed the rule. But we have dealt with that in the 
rule.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FLAKE. May I inquire as to the time remaining.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Arizona has 3 minutes. 
The gentleman from California has 6\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. FLAKE. I will gladly yield to my colleague from California on the 
Rules Committee for a question.
  Did we waive the PAYGO rules in this rule?
  Mr. CARDOZA. We have accommodated the Senate PAYGO rules as we have 
moved forward. And it is my opinion that this is a technical situation 
because we started this bill and passed this bill off the floor in 
2007.
  Mr. FLAKE. Reading from the House rules after the beginning of a new 
calendar year----
  Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Speaker, I raise a point of order.
  I believe we are supposed to be talking about the unfunded mandates 
in this bill. If the gentleman would like to talk about the PAYGO 
rules, we should talk about this when we bring up the rule which that 
is germane to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman should confine his remarks to 
the question of order.
  Mr. FLAKE. I can well understand why the other side does not want to 
talk about PAYGO and why I should confine this debate to unfunded 
mandates because PAYGO was, in fact, waived here. PAYGO was waived. And 
were it not waived, it would be subject to a point of order, the same 
point of order that the gentleman is lodging against this debate right 
now. So I can understand that. And I guess we will have to go with the 
flow.
  There is another point of order that will be raised shortly with 
regard to the waiver of the earmark rules that we have in place as 
well.
  So let me get back. This is an unfunded mandate on the taxpayers, of 
course. According to the Environmental Working Group, the Federal 
Government handed out $13.4 billion in farm subsidies to 1.4 million 
recipients, $11.2 billion of which related to various commodity support 
programs, programs that the underlying bill simply does not change.
  The taxpayers have a huge unfunded mandate here that we are going to 
be paying off for a very, very long time.
  With that I will gladly yield the balance of my time to the gentleman 
from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Wisconsin is recognized 
for 1\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. KIND. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
  I thank my friend and colleague for yielding me a little bit of time 
to speak on his motion.
  There is one, I think, serious concern that many of us who have been 
advocating reform under the commodity title, the so-called commodity 
subsidy programs, and that is what was done with the two subsidy 
programs now where funding currently isn't going out. And the reason it 
is not going out under the loan deficiency program and the counter 
cyclical program is because market prices are high.

                              {time}  1100

  That's a good thing, because farm income is good, debt to asset ratio 
has never been better in farm country.
  But what this bill proposes to do, instead of holding those programs 
constant, they are actually increasing the loan rate under the loan 
deficiency program and the target price under the countercyclical 
program, which means that if things do turn south in farm country, if 
prices do drop--and we know how cyclical agriculture can be, and these 
are safety net programs--those programs will trigger much sooner and at 
a much greater expense than what I fear is being accounted for right 
now in this bill.
  That, I think, speaks to the unfunded mandate concern that the 
gentleman from Arizona and myself, and others included, have in regards 
to the so-called reforms that we are just not seeing under the 
commodity title, not when they go in the opposite direction with the 
LDP and the countercyclical programs by dialing up the loan rate and 
the target prices of those two programs and triggering them at a much 
earlier time and at a much greater expense for the taxpayers of this 
country. There is a whole lot of other reform that we felt were 
justifiable and reasonable under the commodity title.

[[Page 9052]]

  Quite frankly, we don't get there. In fact, if you look at the 
payment limitation caps that exist under the direct payments, it would 
only affect two-tenths of 1 percent of farmers in this country, hardly 
the type of reform we would like to see.
  Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that we will deal in 
the debate on the bill chiefly with regard to what the level of reforms 
is.
  I would just like to tell my colleagues and my friends from both 
Arizona and Wisconsin that there are, in fact, significant reforms. In 
fact, if you take the ratio when this bill was first brought up in 
2002, you have a situation where the nutrition part of this bill, 
versus commodities, was by a ratio of 2-1, $2 for nutrition for every 
dollar of commodity payments.
  In this particular act that we are going to be bringing to the floor 
later today, it is my understanding, and my work with regard to the 
reforms, that there have been so many reforms put into this bill that 
the nutrition title versus the commodity payments is actually a 5-1 
ratio at this point. I would say that indicates, as just one of many 
indicators, that you will see as we conduct this debate the significant 
reform that has happened in this bill.
  I believe this is good work. I am very proud to be a part of bringing 
this bill to the floor. I believe it complies with the House Rules, 
and, I, again, want to urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this 
motion to consider, so that we can pass this important piece of 
legislation today.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time and ask for an 
``aye'' vote.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is, Will the House now consider 
the resolution?
  The question of consideration was decided in the affirmative.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, I raise a point of order against H. Res. 1189 
under clause 9 of rule XXI, because the resolution contains a waiver of 
all points of order against the conference report and its 
consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Arizona makes a point of 
order that the resolution violates clause 9(b) of rule XXI.
  Under clause 9(b) of rule XXI, the gentleman from Arizona and the 
gentleman from California each will control 10 minutes of debate on the 
question of consideration.
  Following the debate, the Chair will put the question of 
consideration as follows: ``Will the House now consider the 
resolution?''
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, this second point of order, and I will be 
calling for a vote on this one, is raised because of earmarks that have 
been airdropped into the legislation.
  As the gentleman mentioned, this is not a new bill. This is not 
something that just popped up last week and that there was a need to 
add $1 million for the National Sheep and Goat Industry Improvement 
Center, but that was something that had to come up at midnight and be 
dropped in when nobody had seen it in either the House or the Senate.
  This bill has been under consideration for a long, long time, and 
yet, still, we have earmarks that have been airdropped into the 
legislation, a number of them. Now, the gentleman may say in defense, 
we have listed the earmarks that have been airdropped in.
  It is true that some have been listed. If all of them were listed, 
why would we waive all points of order against the bill? If the 
majority was confident enough that all earmarks have been listed, then 
we wouldn't have waived the points of order against it. I will speak 
specifically about a few of these earmarks.
  But let me just mention some of them that are in the bill. There is 
authorization language for a National Products Research Laboratory. 
Again, this was airdropped in at the last minute when it hadn't been in 
the House version of the bill, hadn't been in the Senate, it was 
airdropped into the conference report. There is authorization language 
for a Policy Research Center, authorization language for Housing 
Assistance Council.
  Now, what that has to do with the farm bill, I am not sure, and the 
problem is, we will never know until the bill was passed because it was 
airdropped in at the last minute.
  That's the problem that the majority party correctly identified when 
they took control of this body, that we have a problem with earmarks, 
and they are being dropped in at the last minute without notice.
  That's why decent rules were actually put in place to try to curb 
this abuse. The problem is, in this rule, we are waiving those rules. 
We are waiving those rules so the old practice can continue on just 
like it always has.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  As my colleague knows, this point of order is about whether or not to 
consider this rule and the underlying conference report for the farm 
bill. This point of order today is just another effort, in my opinion, 
by the other side of the aisle to block this critical legislation that 
we have worked on for nearly 2 years.
  They don't want to debate, and they don't want to vote on this 
conference report. They simply want to obstruct through a parliamentary 
tactic.
  I want to make it very clear that the farm bill fully complies with 
the earmark disclosure rules contained in clause 9 of rule XXI. I would 
suggest to those raising the point of order that they look in the 
statement of managers, and they will see a list of the earmarks. If 
they can't find that list, we will be happy to provide it for them.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' and to consider 
this important rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, I find it ironic that we are being accused on 
this side of trying to stifle debate on the bill, that we don't want 
debate on the bill when I am here to argue against a rule that waives 
these points of order and a rule that also does not allow opposition to 
claim time.
  Now, the majority will say, well, we will yield you time now. Now 
that we have been caught on this, we will yield you some time. That's 
not the same as controlling time.
  When I control time, I can yield time to my colleagues. If I am 
yielded time, I can't do that. I don't control time in opposition.
  Our House Rules say that if both the majority and the minority are in 
favor of the bill for the leadership, that somebody opposed to the bill 
has a right to claim time in opposition.
  That was not done here. With a bill this important, you wonder why 
that has happened.
  Back to the earmarks, the gentleman mentioned that there is a list of 
earmarks that was listed, it's right here, a number of them. Now why in 
the world we had to have more than a dozen earmarks airdropped into a 
bill that has been under consideration for the past 2 years, I simply 
don't know.
  But when you read some of them, you kind of wonder why, like I said, 
Housing Assistance Council, Sun Grant Insular Pacific Sub-Center, 
Desert Terminal Lakes, Nevada. This is all we know about them.
  If you dig into them, you might find something untoward, you might 
not, but the fact is we don't have time to do that. That's why we have 
earmark rules that give us time to actually vet them. Those rules are 
being waived here, and we should not be doing that.
  Let me mention also, the gentleman said they are all listed. They 
aren't. There is quite a controversial earmark in this legislation that 
does not show up on the list. It's a $250 million tax refund to the 
Plum Tree Timber Company. Now, this is an earmark that allows the 
Nature Conservancy to purchase that from the Plum Tree Timber Company.
  Now, the Plum Tree Timber Company, as I understand, is not mentioned 
in the legislation, it is simply described. It would be like saying I 
am going to give a subsidy to the gentleman who stands 6-feet tall, 
weighs 175 pounds, has blue eyes and his middle name is John, but we 
won't say the rest of it.

[[Page 9053]]

  That's exactly what we are doing here. In an effort to get around the 
scrutiny that might come if somebody actually said now why is a subsidy 
actually going to the Plum Tree Timber Company.
  It is no wonder that the rules have been waived here. If I had 
something like this in this bill, I would waive the rules too, because 
I wouldn't want anybody to talk about it. I would also not want anybody 
who is opposed to the bill to claim time in opposition to it.
  If I were sponsoring this legislation that I said reformed the farm 
subsidy program to make sure that multimillionaire farmers don't 
continue to get subsidies on behalf of the taxpayer, I would hide it as 
well. I would do exactly what the Rules Committee has done here and the 
supporters of the legislation have done.
  Because under this legislation, a farm couple earning as much as $2.5 
million in adjusted gross income, that's your income after expenses are 
taken out, can still receive direct payments under this legislation.
  Also, the other subsidy programs, rather than reform or to get rid of 
the loopholes that were allowing people to get extra subsidies, we 
simply waive the limits there. This is called reform?
  I mean, is it any wonder that the rules have been waived and debate 
has been stifled here on this critical legislation?
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
chairman of the committee, who I believe has done a fabulous job in 
bringing this bill to the floor, Collin Peterson of Minnesota.
  Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. Speaker, I haven't seen the entire list that's being talked about 
here, but a couple of the things that have been mentioned are not 
earmarks, and I don't know why the gentleman continues to characterize 
them as such.
  First of all, this is not an earmark, it does not define Plum Creek. 
What it says is that these bonds can be used for any habitat 
conservation plans that protect native fish or any forest land covered 
by these habitat conservation plans.
  We know of at least seven habitat conservation plans that would 
qualify under this provision. So, therefore, it's not an earmark. The 
Cedar River Watershed Habitat Conservation Plan in King County, 
Washington, the Plum Creek Timber plan, which is also in Washington, 
the Washington Department of Natural Resources Forest Practices Habitat 
Conservation Plan in Washington, the West Fork Timber plan in 
Washington, the Plum Creek Native Fish Habitat Conservation Plan in 
Montana and Idaho, Green Diamond and Pacific Lumber, both in 
California.
  So this is not an earmark, because any of these would qualify. There 
are probably more that we don't know about. Now, this was in the Senate 
bill, so I don't know what you are talking about airdropped.
  A couple of the others that I heard you mention were also in the 
Senate bill, and there is another one that you characterize as an 
earmark, which is not an earmark, and that's the salmon recovery 
disaster plan which was a plan that was actually first passed in the 
2006 Congress by the Republican majority, was implemented in 2006. 
Fifty million dollars at that time was put out to the people that were 
in the commercial fishing industry, primarily off the coast of 
California.
  At that time there was a partial shutdown of the salmon season. Now, 
this year, we have a complete shutdown of the salmon season all along 
the coast from California to Oregon to Washington State. So it's much 
broader, and it not only shut down the commercial fishing, it shut down 
the recreational fishing in those areas.
  What we are doing is replenishing this disaster fund with money that 
is exactly similar to what was done, what was in the statute and it was 
actually disbursed in 2006, because the disaster is much bigger this 
year than it was in 2006 because we had a partial shutdown. Now we have 
an entire shutdown of three States.
  So this is clearly not an earmark, this is in the disaster title of 
the farm bill that goes along with the other disaster provisions that 
are in the farm bill. You know, I don't know, I guess because 
apparently some people think that being against earmarks is popular 
and, whatever, they try to make this into an issue.
  But a number of the provisions that were raised by the gentleman are 
clearly not earmarks. The House bill that passed out of here had no 
earmarks.
  We had to deal with the other body, and we took some provisions from 
the other body, because that's how a conference works. You know, there 
is a lot worse stuff that was in that bill that we took out. I just 
want to clear the record that a number of things being talked about 
here are not earmarks, and I would encourage my colleagues not to 
support this point of order.

                              {time}  1115

  Mr. FLAKE. The gentleman mentioned the National Marine Fishery 
Service earmark. It was added at the last minute. It may have been in a 
2006 bill, but it wasn't in this bill until it was air dropped into the 
conference report. Now $170 million, that may well be a disaster there, 
but why in the world, if it is a disaster, why isn't it covered?
  Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Would the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FLAKE. I would.
  Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. The House bill didn't have a paid-for 
disaster provision in it, the Senate bill did. And so when we molded 
these together, we put these disaster provisions in, and we paid for 
them, the first time that we actually paid for a disaster with pay-as-
you-go money, and we included the California disaster in the process 
and paid for it.
  This is not a new program. As I said, it is not an earmark, and it 
was brought in because we were dealing with a disaster. This is clearly 
a disaster. Any place that you have a complete shutdown of a commercial 
fishery, they are going to be in asking for help from the Federal 
Government. That is appropriate. This was brought in, the permanent 
disaster program from the Senate, and funded when we molded them 
together.
  Mr. FLAKE. Reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman for the 
clarification. I still would point out we have a $3.8 billion permanent 
disaster title added to the bill; and still, in addition to that, we 
are funding these kinds of programs directly and specifically.
  The gentleman can argue that it is not an earmark. I think that a 
casual or a tortured reading of this would both say this is an earmark 
when you are naming a specific entity to receive a specific amount of 
money and when it wasn't in the House bill, that is an earmark. So 
there is a good reason for this point of order.
  The gentleman said, and let me go back to the PAYGO issue. The 
gentleman mentioned that this rule he thinks is in compliance with 
PAYGO. Let me read what this conference report says and see if anybody 
can decipher this.
  Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman raised a point of order with 
regard to earmarks, not with regard to the issue of PAYGO. That will be 
discussed in the rule itself. It will be germane to that later 
discussion.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. If the gentleman may confine his remarks to 
the question of order.
  Mr. FLAKE. If I might respond, the gentleman, after he raised his 
last point of order went on to talk about the reforms in the bill which 
clearly didn't have anything to do with the unfunded mandates language 
that I had raised or that I had talked about or that he had raised a 
point of order for. Clearly, I understand that they don't want to talk 
about this. I understand that. That's why the rules are waived. But to 
stand now and to raise a point of order against my point of order 
because I am not addressing specifically the question that they want to 
address or that they would rather dispose of is, I think, a little 
spurious.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Speaker, how much time is remaining on both sides?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California has 5 minutes

[[Page 9054]]

and the gentleman from Arizona has 1 minute.
  Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Speaker, when the gentleman says we talked about 
other issues in the last point of order, I was trying to be gracious 
with regard to the time and the discussion and allow the gentleman to 
speak. I raised an issue on the point of order on PAYGO because we are 
going to discuss that in the rules discussion, in the discussion of the 
rule.
  I would just remind the gentleman that in the time he has taken on 
these two points of order, he will probably have discussed this bill 
more than any other Member on the floor, even after we agreed to give 
him 20 minutes of debate on this topic. So I think that the gentleman 
thus protests too greatly, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FLAKE. I thank the other side. You notice the words used, that we 
have graciously agreed to give them. Under the rules, the House rules, 
those who are opposed to the bill are required to be given the chance 
to claim time in opposition, not to be at the whims and graciousness of 
those who support the legislation. That's why we have rules, and that's 
why in this case the rules have been waived.
  I understand completely if I had waived the PAYGO rules, when so many 
on that side of the aisle, bless their hearts, have been diligent 
sometimes on raising the issue of PAYGO and saying we shouldn't violate 
it, if I had violated PAYGO and waived it like this, I would want to 
waive every rule as well and stifle all the debate I could because it 
is embarrassing, frankly.
  I don't have time to yield.
  I would just say in my remaining 15 seconds, we have a bill that 
deserves a lot more debate than it is getting. This is important 
legislation. We are waiving PAYGO rules, and let me just say what this 
rule says: Therefore, while there is a technical violation of clause 10 
of rule XXI, the conference report complies with the rule. It says 
there is a technical violation, but we have complied. It simply doesn't 
make sense.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Speaker, I want to emphasize that this conference 
report fully complies with the earmark rule. In my opinion, it fully 
complies with the spirit of PAYGO.
  Mr. Speaker, I would now like to yield to the chairman who would like 
to respond on that question as well.
  Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. I thank the gentleman, and I wasn't going 
to prolong this, but just like I had to take issue with saying earmarks 
were there that aren't there, I take very much issue with your saying 
we are waiving PAYGO. We are not waiving PAYGO. We are not waiving 
PAYGO in this bill. We are meeting PAYGO requirements based on the 2007 
baseline which is what we started the bill under. This is what the 
rules are in the Senate.
  Let me explain my point first, and then I will be happy to yield.
  So the Senate has a rule that says under whatever baseline you start 
off with, that you continue under that baseline with the bill until a 
new budget resolution is passed by both the House and the Senate. For 
whatever reason, the House has a different rule when we adopted that, 
and it says once you file the Budget Committee report in the House, not 
when it is passed, if a new baseline comes along, you are supposed to 
use that. But clearly, we cannot write a bill of this magnitude and 
this scope having two different baselines. We can't have one baseline 
in the Senate and another baseline in the House. That is number one.
  Number two, the common practice around this place has always been to 
follow this rule, that we always use the baseline that we started off 
with. That is what we have done for years. So all we are doing is 
complying with what the Senate rule is because we have to do that and 
it makes sense. We are not trying to waive anything. We are not trying 
to get around anything. This bill, it meets PAYGO requirements and it 
meets it under the 2007 baseline which is what we started the bill 
under. And we are not waiving PAYGO.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Would the gentleman yield?
  Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. I would be happy to yield.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I appreciate the gentleman yielding, and 
I would just like to make this point. This rule provides for waivers of 
other rules. Last night when we were up in the Rules Committee----
  Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Speaker, I control the time under the remainder of 
my motion, and I believe the gentleman is discussing the rule.
  I don't yield, and if the gentleman from Washington would just 
suspend for a moment, I just would like to say that I do not yield 
because we are talking about a whole different topic here. I would like 
to make sure that we consider the point of order that has been raised 
directly by the gentleman from Arizona and not make this a wide-ranging 
debate with regard to the rule.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that 
each side receive an additional 2 minutes so we may discuss this issue.
  Mr. CARDOZA. I object.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Objection is heard.
  Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on 
consideration on this point of order, and I yield back the balance of 
my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is, Will the House now consider 
the resolution?
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 228, 
nays 189, not voting 16, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 309]

                               YEAS--228

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

                               NAYS--189

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner

[[Page 9055]]


     Boozman
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doggett
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Fallin
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gilchrest
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Hall (TX)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jordan
     Keller
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     Kuhl (NY)
     Lamborn
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy, Tim
     Musgrave
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Saxton
     Scalise
     Schmidt
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Tancredo
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Turner
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh (NY)
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield (KY)
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman (VA)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--16

     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Carney
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Cummings
     Gerlach
     Hinojosa
     Lewis (KY)
     Mack
     Myrick
     Rush
     Sali
     Sullivan
     Weller

                              {time}  1151

  Messrs. HELLER of Nevada, CULBERSON, ADERHOLT, McHENRY, DOGGETT and 
Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida changed their vote from ``yea'' to 
``nay.''
  So the question of consideration was decided in the affirmative.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan) is 
recognized.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Clause 10 of rule XXI, the so-called pay-as-
you-go point of order says that it is not in order to consider a bill 
if it increases the deficit if applied today over a period of fiscal 
years 2008 through 2013 and the period of fiscal years 2008 through 
2018. The effect on the deficit is determined by the Budget Committee 
relative to the most recent baseline supplied by the Congressional 
Budget Office ``used in considering a concurrent resolution on the 
budget.''
  Mr. Speaker, according to the Congressional Budget Office relative to 
its March 2008 baseline, the Farm Bill will increase the deficit by 
$2.9 billion over the period of fiscal years 2008 through 2018. But if 
using last year's outdated 2007 baseline, CBO states that it would 
decrease the deficit by about $100 million over that same period, 2008 
through 2017.
  Mr. Speaker, under clause 10 of rule XXI, which baseline provided by 
CBO is the most recent and should therefore be used by the Budget 
Committee in order to determine pay-as-you-go compliance, the March 
2007 baseline or the March 2008 baseline?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Whichever one is required under clause 10 
should be the one used by the Committee on the Budget.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, further parliamentary inquiry.
  Does the rule not state that it is the most recent CBO baseline?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Whichever one is required under the 
alternate branches of clause 10 shall be the one used by the Committee 
on the Budget.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, further parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Wisconsin is recognized.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, according to clause 10(a) of rule 
XXI, in advising the Chair, the Budget Committee must use ``the most 
recent baseline estimates supplied by the Congressional Budget Office . 
. . used in considering a concurrent resolution on the budget.''
  Mr. Speaker, has Congress considered the concurrent resolution on the 
budget this year?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The answer is ``yes.'' The House has 
considered a concurrent resolution on the budget.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Further parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
  Isn't it true that the concurrent budget resolution on the budget for 
fiscal year 2009 considered by the Budget Committee and considered and 
passed by the House uses the most recent baseline which is the March 
2008 baseline?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair is not aware of which baseline is 
current.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Further parliamentary inquiry.
  The rule providing for the consideration of the conference report to 
accompany the Food Conservation and Energy Act of 2008 includes a 
waiver of all points of order against consideration.
  Does that waiver include a waiver of clause 10 of rule XXI, the pay-
as-you-go point of order, and in addition, to all points of order under 
the Congressional Budget Act? And does this mean that a Member of 
Congress may not raise a point of order against consideration of the 
bill even if it is in violation of the PAYGO rule, Budget Act points of 
order, or the concurrent resolution on the budget?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. That calls for an advisory opinion. The 
pending resolution proposes to waive any point of order, so this is a 
matter for debate.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, further parliamentary inquiry.
  Does this waiver of these points of order mean that the PAYGO rule 
and the Budget Act points of order are also waived and therefore, a 
Member may not raise a point of order against consideration of the bill 
on those grounds?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. If the pending resolution were adopted, then 
any point of order would be waived.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, further parliamentary inquiry.
  The Rules Committee report accompanying the rule provided for 
consideration of the conference report contains an explanation of 
waivers and states: ``While there is a technical violation of clause 10 
of rule XXI, the PAYGO rule, the conference report complies with the 
rule.''
  Mr. Speaker, my inquiry is this: Is it possible to be in violation of 
the PAYGO rule yet comply with the rule at the same time?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman may engage his colleagues in 
debate on the pending resolution on that point.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. We plan on doing that, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California is recognized 
for 1 hour.
  Mr. CARDOZA. 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.


                             General Leave

  Mr. CARDOZA. I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 
legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on 
House Resolution 1189.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.

                              {time}  1200

  Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 1189 provides for consideration of H.R. 
2419, the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008, the continuation 
of the Farm, Nutrition and Bioenergy Act of

[[Page 9056]]

2007 which we passed off this floor in September of 2007.
  Mr. Speaker, the conference report rule waives all points of order 
against the conference report and against its consideration and 
provides that the conference report shall be considered as read.
  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, and it also provides one motion to recommit.
  It should also be noted that despite the blanket waiver, the 
conference report does not violate clause 9 of rule XXI.
  Furthermore, I want to point out that the conference report uses the 
CBO 2007 baseline, the year in which the bill passed both the House and 
the Senate, and under that baseline, CBO has determined that this 
conference report will not increase the deficit in either of the years 
2008 through 2012 or in the years 2008 through 2017 scoring window.
  Therefore, while there is a technical violation of clause 10 of rule 
XXI, this conference report complies with the rule by remaining budget 
neutral with no net increase in direct spending. In other words, Mr. 
Speaker, this bill does not increase the deficit and it is PAYGO 
compliant.
  Mr. Speaker, as chairman of a subcommittee on the House Agriculture 
Committee, and as a member of the Rules Committee, I'm pleased to offer 
the Farm, Conservation, and Energy Act conference report for 
consideration today. This bipartisan conference report represents the 
blood, sweat and tears of many Members of the House and Senate 
Agriculture Committees, including myself. I would be remiss if I did 
not single out a few individuals at this time.
  First, I must recognize Chairman Collin Peterson, without whom this 
farm bill would have never been completed. His unwavering dedication to 
seeing this bill through to completion should be an example to us all, 
and I am indeed grateful for his commitment, especially in the face of 
tremendous adversity.
  I also want to thank Ranking Member Goodlatte, Leader Hoyer, and 
certainly, not least, our Speaker of the House, Ms. Pelosi, for their 
steadfast commitment to creating a farm bill that we can all be proud 
of and to stand behind, and because of her leadership, there is, in 
fact, significant reform in this bill.
  It is hard to believe, but we actually started this process nearly 2 
years ago, starting with traveling to nearly every corner of this 
country to hear directly from farmers and ranchers from all walks of 
life about what they needed in a modern farm bill. We took these wide-
ranging comments to heart and crafted a fiscally responsible, equitable 
and unparalleled farm bill.
  I wish I could say that it was all a walk in the park. The House and 
the Senate passed their respective bills in 2007, and since January of 
this year, Members of the House and the Senate have been hammering out 
a compromise. There have been many battles, but in the end, this 
conference report is something I believe this House should be very 
proud of.
  While people didn't get everything they wanted, the country got what 
it needed. That speaks volumes about the quality of this bill and tells 
me we ended up in exactly the right place.
  The Farm, Conservation, and Energy Act builds upon the past successes 
of Federal farm policy by maintaining the farm bill's safety net, while 
at the same time providing for substantial increases in conservation, 
nutrition and energy.
  However, I'm most proud of the $2.3 billion in new Federal 
investments for specialty crops, an industry that has been uniformly 
neglected in previous farm bills despite comprising nearly 50 percent 
of total farm gate value.
  Furthermore, this farm bill contains unprecedented reforms to 
commodity programs by revising program eligibility and strengthening 
payment limitations.
  Through major changes to the crop insurance program, we have also 
increased government efficiency and reduced the waste, fraud and abuse 
identified in the current farm programs.
  More importantly, this bill is completely paid for. Through PAYGO, 
Democrats are fulfilling our promise to live within our means like 
every household in America is forced to do, and I believe the PAYGO 
rules, Mr. Speaker, made this a leaner, meaner and better bill, despite 
the complexities that the new rules presented at times.
  We pledged to stop writing blank checks with reckless abandon and 
shouldering our country's needs on the backs of our children and 
grandchildren. Make no mistake about it, Mr. Speaker, this legislation 
adheres to the spirit of PAYGO, proving that it can be done.
  Mr. Speaker, our farmers have the capacity for immeasurable 
innovation and success, and they deserve the Federal Government's 
commitment that's included in this bill by supporting this farm bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I look forward to telling my constituents of the 18th 
District of California that the United States Congress has accomplished 
what many thought was an impossible feat in coming to an agreement on a 
farm bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I strongly and wholeheartedly urge my colleagues to 
support this rule and the underlying legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend 
from California (Mr. Cardoza) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, 
and I yield myself as much time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, this rule provides for consideration of a final farm 
bill, a farm bill that is over 7 months late. It was supposed to be 
completed last September when the old farm bill law expired. It's long 
past time for Congress to be voting on a final farm bill, and the one 
the House will consider today is far from perfect.
  It spends billions more than it was supposed to. Mr. Speaker, in 
fact, despite this being called the farm bill, nearly 75 percent of the 
spending in this bill doesn't even go to agriculture or farming. It 
goes to pay for government food assistance programs. Mr. Speaker, let 
me repeat that. In fact, despite this being called a farm bill, nearly 
75 percent of the spending in this bill doesn't even go to agriculture 
or farming. It goes to pay for government food assistance programs. To 
me, that is very concerning.
  There's also considerable dissatisfaction with the income limitations 
being too high for farmers who may receive payments under this bill.
  There are also concerns that while commodity prices in the 
marketplace have risen since the last farm bill, the guarantees in this 
farm bill have also gone up.
  There are also special interest provisions that are unrelated to 
farming or food stamps that have been stuck on this bill.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, I agree that this farm bill is very far from 
perfect, but like many of my colleagues in the House, I must measure 
this bill by the impact on my constituents in my district.
  And as the representative of one of the most diverse and productive 
agricultural areas in this country, I will vote for the farm bill 
because it does more to support the specialty crops that are grown in 
my district than any other farm bill in history.
  I must point out that the assistance provided for the specialty crops 
grown in my district are not direct subsidy payments or handouts. What 
matters most to farmers and growers in central Washington are research 
dollars and help in opening up new markets abroad. Specifically, I'm 
pleased that the farm bill includes a new initiative to fund research 
projects for these specialty crops.
  The conference report also expands the successful fresh fruit and 
vegetable SNACK program to children in all 50 States. This worthwhile 
program provides fresh fruits and vegetables for schoolchildren.
  The Market Access Program is also very important in central 
Washington and something that I've worked very

[[Page 9057]]

hard on to support for many years. The Market Access Program, or MAP, 
assists our agriculture community in expanding access to markets 
overseas.
  For far too long, American farm products have had difficulty getting 
into foreign countries, and sometimes are unfairly blocked outright. 
Fair market access and fair trade agreements help our farmers compete, 
and the MAP program has proven this to be very successful.
  While I will vote to pass this farm bill, Mr. Speaker, I strongly 
oppose this unfair rule because it shuts down fair opportunities for 
debate and votes on the House floor and because, Mr. Speaker, it waives 
new anti-earmark and PAYGO rules written just last January, a year ago 
last January, by the Democrat majority.
  And already today, Mr. Speaker, we have had a great deal of 
discussion on PAYGO and the ramifications. We heard it says it complies 
with the spirit of PAYGO and so forth.
  Let me just make a point of what happened last night in the Rules 
Committee. In the Rules Committee, there is a provision in this rule 
that waives all points of order. We had discussion up there on PAYGO. 
So the ranking member of the Rules Committee, Mr. Dreier, offered an 
amendment to keep all the waivers, all the waivers in the farm bill 
with the exception of the PAYGO provision that was adopted just a year 
ago last January by the new majority. That amendment simply said if 
there's no problem with PAYGO, then why not keep that provision in 
there. It was voted down, Mr. Speaker, on a direct party-line vote.
  So it appears what has happened here in this instance--because I 
think the rules are very clear. I think Mr. Ryan from Wisconsin pointed 
out exactly where we are on this and what the procedures are. 
Apparently what we have done--and this to me I think is probably 
unprecedented--we have adopted Senate rules in the House for 
consideration of the farm bill. Maybe that's a pattern that we will see 
hopefully in other things that we'll debate, like, for example, maybe 
having more debate on issues because the Senate does have unlimited 
debate under their house rules. So, if we're going to start adopting 
Senate rules, maybe we ought to do that on the debate area.
  Mr. Speaker, a conscious decision has been made to break the PAYGO 
rules to increase spending by several billions of dollars.
  The farm bill, Mr. Speaker, is long overdue, and I'm disappointed 
that a bill that provides new levels of recognition to specialty crops, 
as I pointed out in my earlier remarks, from central Washington is 
coming before the House with so many other questionable provisions 
within the bill.
  And with that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Washington complains 
that nearly 75 percent of this bill goes to a nutrition program. I 
would submit to the House that if Republican policies with regard to 
the economy weren't what they were we wouldn't have to be increasing 
the nutritional support for our citizens.
  At this time, Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Matsui).
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from 
California for yielding me time.
  I rise today in strong support of the rule we are considering on the 
conference report to H.R. 2419, the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act.
  Mr. Speaker, this important conference agreement 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 a rural area, suburban or urban area, the farm bill 
has impact on every single one of us.
  As a farmer's daughter, I understand how the food we produce is truly 
the backbone of our country. I am proud of our Nation's commitment to a 
strong farm economy and a long-standing tradition of providing a safe 
and secure food supply, not only for our country but for the world.
  That is why I support this bill. From the $10 billion increase in 
nutrition programs to the $7.7 billion increase in conservation 
funding, this legislation provides for our entire country. I've spoken 
to our producers, and this legislation gives them the safety net they 
need to continue producing the food supply our Nation relies upon. I am 
pleased with the balance and vision in this bill, and that is why I 
will strongly support it.
  I'd like to thank Chairman Peterson and Ranking Member Goodlatte for 
all of their work on this bill. The chairman has shown exceptional 
leadership and patience through this process. This bill turns the page 
and helps start a new era of farm and nutrition policy.
  I also want to thank Chairman Peterson and the committee for their 
inclusion of provisions of the House-passed Regional Water Enhancement 
Program. By including the Sacramento River Watershed as a national 
priority in the conference report, my region will be able to preserve 
farmlands, as well as provide a comprehensive approach to ground and 
surface water.
  Our initial focus should be on building 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 the beginning. 
This will help ensure that we build upon solid, local input.
  Mr. Speaker, I am happy to be standing here today in support of this 
well-crafted bill. I ask my colleagues to support the rule and the 
final passage of the farm bill conference report.

                              {time}  1215

  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to yield as much 
time as he may consume to the ranking member of the Rules Committee, 
Mr. Dreier of California.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding. And I thank 
him for his very thoughtful statement, as always, in his management of 
the rule.
  I want to begin by extending congratulations to all of those who have 
worked long and hard on this important conference report, Mr. Cardoza, 
and I see Mr. Hastings here, I know are strong supporters of it. And I 
know that there is, in fact, some bipartisan support for this measure, 
but I will say that I personally am troubled with it and I am going to 
be voting ``no'' on the conference report when we get to that point for 
a number of reasons.
  I do feel very strongly that as we look at the international food 
crisis that exists with over a billion people on the face of the Earth 
facing either malnutrition or out-and-out starvation, it seems to me 
that we need to take very strong and bold steps to address that. I 
don't think that dramatically expanding the food programs and feeding 
is the solution to the problem of a billion people who are facing 
malnutrition and starvation. I happen to think there are a number of 
very important factors that unfortunately this farm bill doesn't 
address.
  First and foremost, it's key, as we look at the fact that developing 
nations in the world have failed to open up their markets so that they 
can get onto the first rung of the economic ladder, they are preventing 
us from having the opportunity to address that crisis of starvation and 
malnutrition. Similarly, we in the United States and the European Union 
have unfortunately provided two-thirds of the farm subsidies that exist 
in this world. And guess what? That creates a great distortion and 
further diminishes the opportunity for those developing nations to 
address this very important malnutrition and starvation crisis facing 
one billion human beings. And so I just don't believe in any way that 
this measure effectively addresses that.
  And I think, again, as a number of people have said, if we were to 
see the European Union diminish its level of subsidization, then we 
would do that. I was very happy in the Rules Committee last night that 
for the first time our good friend from Minnesota, the distinguished 
chairman of the Agriculture Committee, did indicate that he would 
ultimately support that. In the past he hasn't, as I know he has said 
publicly and in conversations that I've had with him privately on that.
  But nevertheless, it's imperative for us to show leadership on the 
issue of

[[Page 9058]]

dramatic taxpayer subsidization of the agriculture sector of our 
economy. It is just plain wrong. And I hope very much that my 
colleagues, based on that, if they sincerely want to address this 
starvation crisis facing a billion people, they will oppose this 
measure.
  Now, there was an interesting debate, Mr. Speaker, that took place 
earlier on and has been going on. And Mr. Hastings made a very, very 
compelling argument. Now, this is all inside baseball. I know our 
colleagues understand it, and there are maybe some outside of this 
Chamber who are following this debate. And it looks like it's very 
arcane. I mean, we've got copies of the rules manual and we're looking 
at this whole question of PAYGO and 2007 versus 2008. Well, this comes 
down to a very simple and easily understood issue, and let me put it 
this way:
  Yesterday we had a debate on whether or not we should, in fact, 
prevent 70,000 barrels a day of oil from going into the Strategic 
Petroleum Reserve. And the idea behind that was, of course, if we do 
increase the supply of energy, prices might come down. Well, guess 
what? The people whom I represent in southern California would very 
much like to be able to pay maybe $2.50, $2.75 a gallon. And you know 
what? If you go to last year, they were able to pay significantly less 
than $4 a gallon for gasoline.
  Well, how does that relate to the debate that we're having right 
here? Very simply. What is it that our colleagues in the majority are 
calling for? And that is, to use last year's numbers, to use last 
year's numbers, not this year's numbers, in this debate. So that's what 
it comes down to, Mr. Speaker. It is just plain wrong. I would like to 
pay 2007 prices when I go to the pump and fill up, and unfortunately I 
can't. And you know what? This majority should recognize their 
responsibility in the exact same way.
  Now, as Mr. Hastings said, last night in the Rules Committee I 
offered what I thought was a very thoughtful amendment to the rule. 
Everyone continued to say this is PAYGO-compliant, this complies with 
PAYGO. Well, in one single sentence in the report, Mr. Speaker, they, 
in fact, provide the most confusing explanation. It says, ``Therefore, 
while there is a technical violation of clause 10 of rule XXI, the 
conference report complies with the rule by remaining budget neutral 
with no net increase in direct spending.'' What does that mean? So it 
begins by saying there is a violation, and then it says there isn't. I 
mean, it is so confusing.
  Now, the amendment that I offered said, okay, if the majority is, in 
fact, complying with the PAYGO requirements, what they should do is 
they should say that they don't need to protect the item, clause 10 of 
rule XXI, which very clearly states that they must be using this year's 
numbers. And so, Mr. Speaker, as you said in your ruling--or your 
predecessor in the Chair said, Mr. Pastor, who was serving as acting 
Speaker at the time, we're having a debate on this. And it's obvious 
that it can be confusing. But I bring it right back to the issue of the 
desire that the people who we represent, that they would love to pay 
last year's gasoline prices, but it can't be done. And in the exact 
same way this is being mishandled. It is just wrong.
  And so procedurally we're bringing up a bad conference report. And so 
I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this rule, which, also, is a 
lockdown rule, I should say, and very, very unfair in its treatment of 
the rights of the minority--not that anyone cares about that. But 
procedurally and institutionally I think that there should be some 
concern about the fact that it's a lockdown rule, and if it does pass, 
it will allow us to bring up what I think is a bill that has some good 
things in it, but on an overall basis will not deal with the very 
important challenges that we face.
  So I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule and a ``no'' vote on the 
conference report.
  Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments of my colleague 
from California. I would just like to reiterate that this bill and this 
rule fully complies with the Senate PAYGO rules and it is totally in 
keeping with the spirit of PAYGO by complying with the 2007 PAYGO 
baselines as my Republican colleague, Mr. Neugebauer, said last night 
when he presented the rule to the committee as the Republican ranking 
member at that time, and his words were that this bill is fully PAYGO 
compliant.
  Mr. Speaker, at this time, I would like to yield 4 minutes to the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).
  Mr. McGOVERN. I thank the gentleman for yielding and for his work on 
this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, from my point of view the farm bill conference report is 
a mixed bag. There are many things in this farm bill that I don't like. 
I don't like what I consider to be an extravagant disaster assistance 
program. I don't like the minuscule cuts to direct payments, and I 
don't like the unnecessary subsidies. And I don't like the fact that 
this bill reduces the mandatory funding for the McGovern-Dole 
International Food for Education and Child Nutrition program by $756 
million.
  This is a program that is close to my heart, Mr. Speaker, a program 
that is proven to work. Named after George McGovern and Bob Dole, this 
program feeds hungry children around the world in a school setting. The 
only thing crueler than not feeding a hungry child is to feed that 
child for a while and then stop. And that's what has happened, 
unfortunately, in this process and it's flat wrong.
  I would like to insert a recently published Washington Post Op-Ed 
written by both Senators McGovern and Dole into the Congressional 
Record at the end of my statement.
  Let me be clear, this is not the end of our fight for funds for 
McGovern-Dole. And I look forward to working with the appropriators and 
the authorizers to ensure that there is proper funding for this program 
in the upcoming appropriations bill. I believe it is a moral 
imperative.
  Mr. Speaker, this is not the bill that I would have written. And, Mr. 
Speaker, I suppose that I could find enough reasons to justify a vote 
against this conference report. But when I look at the whole bill, I 
have concluded that a ``no'' vote is the wrong vote to take today. And 
let me explain why I will vote for this bill today.
  Thanks to the leadership of Speaker Pelosi and Congresswoman DeLauro 
and Chairman Peterson, this bill includes the most sweeping expansion 
in the domestic anti-hunger safety net ever. This bill will do more to 
fight hunger in America over the next 5 years than anything Congress 
has done in decades. Over $10 billion will go to improve the food stamp 
benefit, to provide fresh fruits and vegetables to children in schools 
around this country, and to invest in America's food banks.
  Over 73 percent of the spending in this bill will fund the anti-
hunger safety net. Damage that has been done over the years, the 
erosion of both the food stamp benefit and the emergency food 
assistance system, for example, is fixed in this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, the nutrition title of the farm bill is not perfect, but 
it is very, very good. I'm voting for this bill on the strength of 
these improvements, and I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle 
to do the same.
  These enhancements will improve the lives of real people around the 
country, people who desperately need help putting food on their tables 
in this time of spiking energy costs and rising food prices. This bill 
will help more than 10 million people afford an adequate diet, 
including over 200,000 people in my home State of Massachusetts. 
Unfortunately, though, it will not end hunger in America, and it won't 
end hunger around the world.
  Mr. Speaker, I believe strongly that hunger is a political condition. 
And I believe we can end hunger here at home and around the world if we 
find the political will to do so. But ending hunger will take 
leadership, leadership to stand up to the powerful special interests 
that don't care about ending hunger, leadership to stand up for the 
people whose interests aren't always represented here in the halls of 
Congress, leadership to simply do the right thing. And ending hunger is 
doing the right thing.

[[Page 9059]]

  The face of hunger here in America is not one of sunken eyes and 
swollen bellies. No, the hungry in America are our neighbors, our 
children's classmates, and the seniors we see every day. Some serve in 
the military, and others take their kids to soccer and baseball 
practice all over this country.
  The face of hunger is the face of too many in America, but that 
doesn't have to be the case any longer. This bill, the effort put forth 
by the anti-hunger community, that deserves such great credit, and by 
many Members of Congress is just a start. With a continued and 
dedicated effort, this can truly be the beginning of the end of hunger.
  This bill is a solid down payment on our efforts to end the scourge 
of hunger in America once and for all, and for that reason alone it 
deserves our support.

                [From the Washington Post, May 6, 2008]

                        A Slap at Schoolchildren

                   (By George McGovern and Bob Dole)

       How can the world's hungriest schoolchildren be denied 
     meals while the farm bill being debated in a House-Senate 
     conference provides millions in subsidies for wealthy 
     farmers? That's what Congress proposes. In all fairness, it 
     should not become law.
       We are puzzled that Congress wants to increase overall farm 
     bill spending by billions of dollars yet reduce by more than 
     90 percent the mandatory funding to feed hungry children. The 
     program at issue saves lives and has a proven ability to 
     break the cycle of poverty and hopelessness in poor 
     countries.
       We are not expressing disagreement because the program, 
     supported by Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, 
     bears our names. We believe, simply put, that a costly 
     humanitarian mistake would be made. Funding for the program 
     would go from $840 million over five years to $60 million 
     this coming year. After that, there would be no guarantee of 
     funding at all. The $840 million in funding represents less 
     than 1 percent of the proposed total spending in the farm 
     bill. At a time when increasingly high food prices are 
     pushing millions of families around the globe deeper into 
     poverty, we must step up, not reduce, our efforts to feed 
     hungry schoolchildren.
       For just a few cents a day per child, the McGovern-Dole 
     Program has made a critical difference in the lives of 
     children and communities worldwide, promoted American values 
     in the most positive terms, and helped achieve U.S. foreign 
     policy and national security goals. By providing meals to 
     children who attend school in the poorest countries, the 
     program increases attendance rates and student productivity 
     and gives hope to a new generation of impoverished children 
     around the world. The impact on young girls is particularly 
     important. As their school attendance increases, they marry 
     later and birthrates are reduced.
       During our careers in public service, we were honored to 
     assist U.S. efforts to reduce hunger at home and abroad. 
     Americans should be proud of the bipartisan progress our 
     country has made. As a nation, we must not retreat from the 
     compassion we've shown when the world's poorest children 
     needed us most. We respectfully ask farm bill conferees to 
     restore the $840 million in mandatory funding for the 
     McGovern-Dole Program. Our nation must not turn its back on 
     the world's poorest. On the contrary, we must demonstrate 
     again that the United States will continue to be a nation of 
     compassion.
       As former senators, we both know how difficult it is to put 
     together and pass sound farm legislation. We also know, as 
     does every member of Congress, how important it is to help 
     take care of the world's neediest and most vulnerable 
     children. We believe that a vast majority of the proposed 
     farm bill beneficiaries share our view. Americans care and 
     will respond positively if this needed change is made.
       George McGovern, a Democrat, was appointed a U.N. global 
     ambassador on world hunger in 2001. Bob Dole, a Republican, 
     is a former Senate majority leader.

  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased my friend from 
California said we are complying with Senate rules, but I believe this 
is the U.S. House of Representatives, and the fact is we have waived 
the House PAYGO rules.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Hensarling).
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this rule.
  I find it fascinating that our Speaker, when she became our Speaker, 
said that we were going to have the most open democratic Congress in 
the history of America, and yet we have a rule coming to the floor that 
doesn't even allow dissenting voices to speak in general debate.
  Our Speaker also at one time said the 110th Congress will commit 
itself to a higher standard, pay-as-you-go, no new deficit spending. 
But instead, we waive the PAYGO rule. And we baseline shop. I know 
that's inside baseball, but as the gentleman from California said, it's 
kind of like deciding you're going to pay last year's gasoline prices. 
Well, I wish we could do that.
  And now we have the whole question of earmarks. Our Speaker at one 
time said that she would just as soon do without earmarks. Instead what 
we have are airdropped earmarks, secret earmarks coming in in a 
conference report that nobody can challenge, including one, apparently, 
according to press reports, that was requested by none other than the 
Speaker of the House.
  And so for all of these reasons, Mr. Speaker, this rule ought to be 
defeated. This is too important of legislation to come before us to be 
treated in such a frivolous manner.
  Now, let's talk about the matter at hand, the actual substance of the 
bill. At a time when we're looking at some of the worst food inflation 
in the last two decades, what do we have coming before us, Mr. Speaker? 
A bill that will pay out billions of dollars of taxpayer subsidies to a 
select group of farmers. You know, it kind of begs the question, Mr. 
Speaker: Why do we have a farm subsidy program?
  You know, I'm thinking about all the people who are going to have to 
pay these billions of dollars in taxes to subsidize a select group of 
farmers. You know, I think about the auto mechanic in Mesquite, Texas; 
I think about the guy working at the grocery store in Mineola, Texas; I 
think about the school teacher or the factory worker in Garland; where 
is their government subsidy program? Why are we bestowing billions of 
dollars in subsidies on this one select group?

                              {time}  1230

  This is a relic of the New Deal. We are paying out money to 
millionaires. We are teaching more people to be reliant upon government 
programs. Now, Mr. Speaker, we need a farm program. We just don't need 
a farm subsidy program.
  Let me tell you what farmers in the Fifth Congressional District of 
Texas that I have the honor of representing need. They need some relief 
in their energy cost. The energy that it takes to run their tractors, 
their combines, their farm equipment, and the cost of diesel, they need 
some relief there.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Serrano). The gentleman's time has 
expired.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman 1 
additional minute.
  Mr. HENSARLING. And yet there is absolutely nothing that our friends 
do on the other side of the aisle to produce any American energy, to 
get us any more independent, to have independent American energy.
  Also, we benefit one set of farmers at the cost of another. This 
continues the ethanol mandates. It continues the tariff on imported 
ethanol. Now, if you've got a bunch of corn growers, it may be very 
good for them. I would say they're in high cotton, but I guess they're 
in high corn. But it's not too good for the cattle raisers, not too 
good for the poultry people. It's not too good for the hog farmers or 
the other livestock people who are all of a sudden seeing their feed 
prices almost triple. What are we doing for them?
  Then let's talk about trade. Ninety-six percent of the world's 
consumers live outside of America, and yet this is an anti-trade 
Congress under Democrat leadership. You had the Colombian Trade 
Agreement totally one way. Farmers and ranchers want to export, and 
they're being disallowed the opportunity to do that.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman's time has again expired.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman 
another 30 seconds.
  Mr. HENSARLING. So we need a farm bill that promotes trade, Mr. 
Speaker.
  Next, we need death tax relief for our farmers and ranchers. Somebody 
in the Fifth Congressional District worked his whole life building a 
farm and told me, ``Congressman, after the government takes theirs, 
there's just not

[[Page 9060]]

enough to go around.'' You shouldn't work your whole life building a 
family farm only to have Uncle Sam take 55 percent. We need income tax 
relief. That's what a farm bill needs to help the true agricultural 
producers. Not a subsidy program, an assistance program for those who 
work hard.
  Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Hastings).
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I thank my good friend from California for 
yielding time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in vigorous support of this rule. I would 
like to thank Chairman Peterson, Chairwoman DeLauro, Chairman Rangel, 
and Mr. Goodlatte, who I feel have crafted a sound bipartisan 
compromise bill for all of us to support, and they are to be 
complimented for their hard work during these fiscally challenging 
times.
  The underlying legislation makes important reforms that benefit 
farmers across our Nation and assist many industries which are the 
economic engine of the congressional district that I'm privileged to 
serve. The bill before us today is an important achievement for the 
State of Florida and for the constituents that I serve.
  As many of my colleagues know, I represent, along with my colleague 
from Florida (Mr. Mahoney), the second largest sugar-producing district 
in the country. The Florida sugar industry has a $3.1 billion economic 
impact on the State of Florida, and I thank the committees for 
including the provisions that assist this important industry.
  I also thank the committees for including the Pollinator Protection 
Act, which I authored and which was carried by Mr. Cardoza, who is 
carrying this rule and working with me. This act authorizes funding to 
conduct research on colony collapse disorder to prevent the continuing 
decline of the pollinator population. People, if there ain't no bees, 
there ain't no food.
  Finally, this bill addresses rising food prices here at home and 
overseas by substantially increasing funding for nutrition programs and 
food banks and promoting duty-free imports in the Caribbean, thanks to 
Mr. Rangel, and to Haiti, where citizens are forced now to eat mud 
cakes to survive.
  Having worked as a boy in farms, I understand firsthand how food gets 
to the table. I am proud to say that this bill serves our farmers well.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
  Mr. FLAKE. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, we've detailed many of the problems with this rule, one 
of the worst aspects of which is that, as has been mentioned, it allows 
a bit of time travel here for the purpose of going back and choosing 
another baseline that allows you to actually comply with PAYGO rules. 
That should not be allowed under the rule, and that's why the PAYGO 
rules are actually waived in this bill. For all the talk on the other 
side about PAYGO compliance, if this bill was PAYGO compliant, the 
PAYGO rule would not have been waived.
  The same goes with earmarks. More than a dozen earmarks were added, 
airdropped into the bill; yet we still have a waiver because we know 
there are likely other earmarks added in the bill as well. So we want 
to protect against that.
  Also, I mentioned about the rule. It stifles debate. I don't know of 
another example where a conference report has come to the floor, 
particularly one of this magnitude, where those who are opposed to the 
bill have not been given the opportunity to claim time in opposition. 
Instead, we have to rely on the good graces of those who support the 
bill to actually be yielded time to actually speak in opposition to the 
bill.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, we have a real problem in this country in terms 
of entitlements. We're going to have to reform Social Security and 
Medicare. Tell me how, tell me why anybody out there, outside of the 
beltway, should believe that we are capable of doing that kind of 
reform when we can't tell a farm couple making up to $2.5 million in 
adjusted gross income every year, that's income after expenses, if we 
can't tell them that the subsidy party is over? How are we ever going 
to reform entitlements? I asked that of my party; I ask that of the 
Democrats. How in the world can anybody take us seriously here if we 
can't have a farm bill that reforms the subsidy program?
  Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy), a member of the Ways and Means 
Committee, without which we could not have done this bill.
  Mr. POMEROY. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, the pride I want to express is, as being a member of the 
Agriculture Committee, which I also serve on, a day like today makes me 
especially proud of that membership because what is before us is a 
collaborative product, the majority, the minority, arm in arm, working 
this through to build the best farm bill we possibly could. A bill that 
attends to the nutrition needs of our country; a bill that provides the 
safety net for family farmers; and a bill that safeguards the highest 
quality, most affordable food supply in the Western world. This 
collaborative effort would not have been possible but for the 
leadership of Chairman Peterson, who, at every step of the way, wanted 
to be inclusive in his leadership style, having not just the majority 
but the minority fully involved in writing this bill.
  I also salute Bob Goodlatte, ranking member of the committee, because 
he could have walked away, could have said we're just going to do the 
partisan thing on this bill, but, no, instead played a very important 
role substantially improving the product of this bill, by virtue of Bob 
Goodlatte's contribution and the contribution of the members of his 
caucus on the Ways and Means Committee.
  Our farmers are putting into the ground the most expensive crop in 
the history of U.S. agriculture. I had a farmer tell me last week that 
running three tractors to get his crop in was running a $10,000-a-day 
fuel bill. They've got horrific exposure. They need the protection of 
this farm bill. Please adopt it.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am at this time pleased to 
yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus).
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to join my colleague in a 
little colloquy.
  I understand you're going to offer a previous question on this rule?
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. If the gentleman would yield, I am going 
to urge my colleagues to vote against the previous question so that we 
can amend the rule, not replace the rule, amend the rule so that we can 
discuss energy prices and legislation to bring the price of gasoline at 
the pump down.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. And I would assume a way in which we would do that would 
be to bring in more supply?
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. It would be based on supply and demand. 
The gentleman is exactly correct.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. I want to thank my colleague.
  Mr. Speaker, one of the best things we can do for the family farmer 
in this economy is to lower energy costs. And that's why I'm coming to 
the floor because I am excited about my colleague's previous question 
to bring on more supply.
  Now, I was pleased to see that my friends on the other side have 
accepted the supply debate, and we did that yesterday with great 
acclamation, saying that bringing in 70,000 barrels of crude oil onto 
the market would lower gasoline prices, your quote, not mine, between 5 
cents to 25 cents.
  Well, just imagine if we brought a million barrels of crude oil onto 
our market, a million barrels from U.S. territory. And I think that's 
what my colleague is going to bring in the previous question, because 
1\1/2\ years ago, the price of a barrel of crude oil was $58. Today the 
price of a barrel of crude oil is $125.09. I'm telling you the public 
is starting to wake up. I'm hearing it from soccer moms. I'm hearing it 
from labor individuals. They understand that the cost of energy is too 
high. The price of diesel has doubled.
  In an agricultural country, my farmers are trying to get their corn 
in. It's

[[Page 9061]]

been really wet. And it's diesel fuel. Diesel fuel has doubled. We've 
got small local truckers going on strike because they can't afford to 
fill up the tractor-trailers because diesel costs are too high. Why are 
diesel costs too high? Because we won't open up any supply.
  I think the previous question will be an opportunity to open up 
supply on U.S. soil, and maybe we will get a chance to talk about 
opening up supply on the Outer Continental Shelf.
  You all agreed to it. Supply will lower prices, based upon our vote 
yesterday. But that was 70,000 barrels. Our challenge is to bring a 
million barrels, locally produced crude oil and natural gas. Because we 
can't sustain these high prices. We can't sustain them in the family 
farm.
  And that's why I'm excited to be here today to continue to raise this 
debate on the price of a barrel of crude oil.
  Another thing we could do is take our locally produced coal----
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman's time has expired.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an 
additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. I want to thank my colleague for yielding.
  Because we want to highlight the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, a 
coastal plain the size of South Carolina, a drilling platform the size 
of Dulles Airport. We want to address the Outer Continental Shelf, both 
on the east coast and the western seaboard and the eastern gulf. We 
want to address coal-to-liquid technology, where we take coal 
underneath the soil or on our upper plain, build a refinery, U.S. jobs; 
operate a coal mine, U.S. jobs; build a pipeline, U.S. jobs; and lower 
the cost for jet fuel so that we can have U.S. jobs.
  Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), who absolutely has been an undying 
advocate on behalf of those who need it the most, those who are going 
hungry in our country.
  Ms. DeLAURO. I thank the gentleman from California for yielding, and 
I thank him for his perseverance in this effort as well.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the rule and the underlying bill, 
historic change that will meet the nutritional needs of all Americans.
  I want to thank the Speaker for her vision and clear priorities on 
this bill and Chairman Peterson for his tireless leadership and 
perseverance. Thank you for welcoming my input on something so critical 
as the nutrition title.
  Today, as the country faces rising food costs, food banks cannot 
handle the demand, and families struggle just to keep up. Today 35.5 
million Americans live in households where not everyone has had enough 
food in the United States of America.
  With this bill we are finally taking the right steps to provide 
people with a fighting chance, ending the erosion in food stamps by 
increasing the standard deduction and the minimum benefit, which has 
been frozen at $10 for the past 30 years, then indexing them to 
inflation. Commitments to help almost 11 million people, families with 
children, seniors, and people with disabilities.
  Yet the current administration is looking for ways to undermine the 
legislation. The administration has argued against expanding 
eligibility by excluding retirement, education savings, and combat pay 
when determining that eligibility.

                              {time}  1245

  What does it say when our soldiers who fight so bravely for our 
Nation abroad are forced to scrape and scrounge for food upon their 
return?
  And this bill does more. It increases funding for the Emergency Food 
Assistance Program, including an immediate infusion of $50 million to 
address supply shortages as more families than ever are relying on food 
banks, soup kitchens and food pantries for help. There is also a 
dramatic increase in funding for the fruits and vegetables snack 
program for our schools giving more children greater access to healthy 
fresh fruits and vegetables at school. And we are providing $84 million 
in funding for the McGovern-Dole program which helps reduce child 
hunger, promotes education and represents a powerful opportunity for 
our Nation to export goodwill around the world.
  I urge my colleagues to support this bill. For too long we have 
failed to meet our obligations as a Congress and as a Nation, failed to 
act while too many Americans have gone without adequate food, healthy 
food, and are facing hunger in our Nation today. Today, we can begin to 
do something about it.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, can I inquire again how much 
time remains on both sides.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Washington has 7 minutes 
remaining. The gentleman from California has 11 minutes remaining.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I will reserve my time to 
allow more equity in the time.
  Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Speaker, I was remiss when I introduced my 
colleague, Alcee Hastings from Florida, for his undying support and 
work with regard to specialty crops. He was joined in this effort by 
the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mahoney) who has been just a stalwart 
in helping me get the specialty crop title into this bill. And I would 
like to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Mahoney).
  Mr. MAHONEY of Florida. Thank you, Chairman Cardoza.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by thanking Chairman Peterson and 
thanking Chairman Cardoza for their tireless resolve to bring this 
historic legislation to a vote today. I also want to thank Commissioner 
Bronson and my good friends and colleagues, Allen Boyd and Adam Putnam, 
for their work in delivering to the ranchers, farmers and growers of 
Florida the best farm bill in history.
  This farm bill, in combination with the energy bill already signed 
into law, completes the foundation upon which Florida will build a 
biofuels industry that will power America's engines and make us more 
secure. It means more jobs for our State. It means our children will be 
able to stay in rural Florida and have jobs for the future. This farm 
bill, after more than 70 years, begins to give Florida's growers and 
farmers parity with commodity crops.
  In Florida, we grow over 270 different varieties of specialty crops. 
I welcome this $1.3 billion investment in new programs that supports 
research, pest management, trade promotion and nutrition for the 
industry.
  Finally, this bill makes an investment in our environment by making 
an additional $7.9 billion available for conservation programs. This 
bill brings farmers and environmentalists together to protect our land, 
our waters, and one of our Nation's greatest treasures, the Everglades.
  As a Blue Dog Democrat, I am especially proud that we have been able 
to accomplish all of the above without having to raise taxes or go into 
debt. We don't have to mortgage the farm to pay for this farm bill.
  Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
  Thank you, Chairman Cardoza, for all of your work on behalf of the 
farmers and growers of Florida.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Once again I will continue to reserve, 
Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from New Hampshire (Mr. Hodes).
  Mr. HODES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge my colleagues to support the rule 
on the farm bill. Chairman Peterson and Ranking Member Goodlatte have 
worked hard to put together this bipartisan bill that helps working 
class families struggling with the soaring cost of food. On balance it 
is a good bill for nutrition and for the small farmers of the 
Northeast.
  The bill will also help my home State of New Hampshire because it 
includes the Northern Border Regional Development Commission Act. I 
introduced this bill to help the struggling communities in the north 
country of New Hampshire and the region. The commission will help bring 
investment, leadership and focus to the north country's economic 
development efforts.

[[Page 9062]]

  Thirty-six counties in four States that would become part of this 
commission have poverty levels above the national average, median 
household income that is more than $6,500 below the national average, 
persistent unemployment fed by constant layoffs in traditional 
manufacturing industries, and a significant out-migration and loss of 
younger workers.
  The recent announcements of mill closures in Groveton, Gorham, Berlin 
and Littleton, New Hampshire, confirm a clear, persistent pattern of 
economic distress in this region and across the northern border.
  The people of the north country need a new start and more resources 
to rebuild their communities for a new economy. The northern border 
commission, coupled with other efforts, will help revitalize the region 
and rebuild communities which need our help.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge passage of this rule. The people of New 
Hampshire's north country, and the northeast northern border region are 
counting on us.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I will continue to reserve, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Speaker, I would now like to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to 
the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Space).
  Mr. SPACE. I thank the gentleman from California for yielding his 
time. I would like to thank our chairman, Collin Peterson, and Ranking 
Member Goodlatte for their hard work on this good, bipartisan piece of 
legislation that does a lot of good things.
  It enhances conservation. It provides a safety net that our farmers 
need to do the work that is so important to this country. It does some 
very exciting things with energy. And in the end, it allows these small 
family farms that make up most of southern and eastern Ohio to meet 
their margins in a very difficult profession. But it does something 
more than that. It helps meet the growing needs associated with 
poverty; rising food prices, a diminishing manufacturing base, rising 
costs of living.
  Seventy-five percent of this bill is devoted toward nutrition, being 
mindful of the fact that most of those who will be fed pursuant to the 
nutritional programs of this bill constitute the working poor. In my 
district many of the counties have poverty rates exceeding 20 percent 
and unemployment rates at 6 or 7 percent. This means that thousands of 
people in my district alone are working full-time but can't afford to 
feed their families. This bill will help mitigate that crisis.
  This bill is good for farmers. It helps diminish the effects of 
poverty and fight the ever-growing fight against poverty in this 
country and will allow for the farmers of this country to continue to 
provide the safest, cheapest and most abundant source of agriculture on 
the planet.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 
minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson).
  Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I rise to talk about the 
energy issue also. There are some good things in this bill for our 
farmers. I especially think the dairy provision was well done. Dairy is 
very important to Pennsylvania.
  I was in the food business 26 years of my life. I know how people 
struggle with their family budgets. But let me tell you, the farmers 
are reeling with fertilizer costs. Why are fertilizer costs doubling 
and tripling year after year? And why is 50 percent of our fertilizer 
now being imported? Because of natural gas costs. Ninety percent of the 
cost of ammonia fertilizer is natural gas, clean, green natural gas. 
This Congress refuses to produce natural gas in this country. There has 
never been a gas well that polluted a beach. Look at this chart. Off-
limits. Off-limits. Off-limits. There should be another one in the 
middle. There should be one up here in Alaska.
  We have said that we are not going to produce fossil fuel. Natural 
gas is a fossil fuel. We are not going to produce oil.
  Our farmers need relief. They need affordable energy to drive their 
tractors, to dry their grain after they harvest it, and to buy their 
fertilizer.
  Folks, this country's economic future, not just farming, but our 
ability to manufacture, our ability to heat our homes this winter--
right today, we are putting $11.50 natural gas in the ground for next 
winter's use. Last year at this time, it was $6.50 to $7. Do the math. 
That's a 40 to 50 percent increase in natural gas costs.
  We have lost half of the fertilizer factories in America. That's why 
our farmers are now using foreign fertilizer. That's why it is costing 
them 300, 400 and 500 percent more than it did just several years ago. 
Folks, we have to produce energy in America if we are going to farm and 
have affordable food, if we are going to manufacture products and if we 
are going to have an economy that competes in the global economy.
  We are not in a sole economy any more. We are in a global economy. We 
have to compete.
  In America, we pay $125 for oil. Everybody does. But we have had the 
highest natural gas prices in the world for 8 years. And the margin is 
increasing because we refuse to produce energy for America. All of 
these other debates are going to be academic. We won't have factories. 
We won't have successful farmers. We'll be buying foreign fertilizer to 
grow products in this country. We'll be buying foreign tractors to 
produce our farms. We'll be driving foreign cars because we won't have 
a manufacturing base left.
  Clean, green natural gas is the answer.
  And we need to open up. And we need to drill for oil, too. There has 
never been a natural gas well that has harmed us economically and 
environmentally. Clean, green natural gas.
  Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy.
  The committee has taken this bill as far as they can. There are some 
modest reforms, as they nibbled around the edges. But the fact is, with 
the passage of this bill, most farmers will still get no help. Most 
conservation needs will be unmet. And we are going to continue to give 
money to people who don't need it, up to $2.5 million of farm and 
unrelated farm income and as over the last 12 years, 75 percent of the 
direct payments went to just 10 percent of the largest farmers. We 
don't need to that.
  To add insult to injury, section 1619 will hide information under the 
Freedom of Information Act so the American public won't even know the 
facts. This is wrong. We can do better. We can stop giving assistance 
to the richest of farmers. We can redirect it to further strengthen 
nutrition and the environment.
  I strongly urge a rejection of the rule and the bill. And if the 
President has the fortitude to veto it, I hope people will join us in 
bipartisan support to sustain the veto.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I reserve my time.
  Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Speaker, I ask how much time is remaining on either 
side.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Washington has 4 minutes 
remaining. The gentleman from California has 5\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. CARDOZA. At this time I would like to yield 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).
  Ms. KAPTUR. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, despite a President that has been unwilling to negotiate 
in good faith, the Agriculture Committee, on both sides of the aisle, 
has produced a solid compromise. And for the first time, under Chairman 
Collin Peterson's leadership, this House has provided authority for the 
agricultural interests of this country to lead America forward into a 
new energy age.
  The committee also has provided $1 billion to secure specialty crop 
production in America for a change, to try to stunt foreign imports, 
while also providing critical increases for farmers markets to help 
empower local family farmers. And while there are some trade provisions 
that were airdropped into this bill, not by the Agriculture Committee 
that should have been considered in a different manner, the agriculture 
provisions of this bill are critical for transforming our economy into 
the 21st century.

[[Page 9063]]

  In a world of increasing trade deficits and economic instability, the 
production of food, fiber, forestry and now fuel, are all critical for 
protecting America's economic independence, and her food security.
  I want to congratulate Chairman Peterson for his incredible 
leadership. He is the right man at the right place at the right time. I 
urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule and on the base bill. I thank the 
gentleman for yielding me the time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I reserve my time.
  Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 2\1/2\ 
minutes to the gentleman without whose leadership on the bill we simply 
would not be bringing the bill to the floor today, the chairman of the 
Committee on Agriculture, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Peterson).

                              {time}  1300

  Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule and the underlying 
bill. This has been a long, drawn-out process. It has been a long time 
since last July when we first passed this bill out of the House.
  I want to first of all commend my ranking member and good friend and 
colleague, Mr. Goodlatte, for the tremendous work that he did on behalf 
of this bill and his caucus. As was said earlier, this bill is a much 
better bill because of the involvement of Mr. Goodlatte and the great 
work that he did. I very much thank him for sticking with us here to 
the end.
  We obviously would have preferred to have been here earlier, but this 
was a difficult bill to work out because of all the competing 
interests, and the fact that we started off with $58 billion less in 
baseline than we had back in the 2002 bill.
  In order to make all the accommodations for the different folks that 
were interested in improvements in this bill, we had to find additional 
resources outside of the Agriculture Committee, which caused additional 
problems. We had to deal with a much different bill in the Senate, 
where you had a lot of powerful committee chairmen that brought issues 
into the bill that were not in the House bill.
  We have worked through all of that, and we have produced a product 
here that I think it isn't perfect, but satisfies, in most cases, the 
different interests in this bill. We maintain a safety net for farmers 
along the lines of what we have had in the past.
  I, personally, would like the safety net to be stronger than it is, 
but it's what can be accomplished at this point. We have $10 billion of 
new spending above the baseline in this bill, and that $10 billion is--
I guess money is fungible, but the increase in this bill for nutrition 
is $10.3 billion. You could say that we have improved the nutrition 
funding to the amount of new money that's put in the bill. This is 
money going into the food shelves, food banks that right now are empty 
and very much needed. There is a new fresh food and vegetable snack 
program for kids in low-income schools, and there is improvement in 
food stamps.
  We have a good bill that has a lot of other components. I urge my 
colleagues to support the rule and support the underlying bill.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).
  Mr. KIND. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I realize how difficult it is to put a farm bill 
together in this place, but this truly represents a missed opportunity. 
The so-called reforms that are being advocated under the commodity 
subsidy title would only affect, at best, two-tenth's of 1 percent of 
farm entities throughout the country.
  With an adjusted gross income limit of $2.5 million, these income 
limits don't even apply to the loan deficiency program or the 
countercyclical program, two of the three subsidy programs that exist 
today. At the end of the day we should produce a farm bill that's less 
market and less trade distorting and more responsible to the American 
taxpayer.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 
minute to the ranking member of the Agriculture Committee, who, along 
with the chairman of the Agriculture Committee, their persistence was 
such to bring this product to the floor.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I just want to say to all of my colleagues that this has been, as the 
chairman described, a very long and arduous process that began more 
than 2\1/2\ years ago by listening to farmers and ranchers and other 
people all across the country and holding a multitude of hearings 
there, and here in Washington as well. It began under my chairmanship. 
I have never seen anybody who has pursued the passage of legislation as 
tenaciously and with such dedication, but also listening to so many 
different people, as the chairman of the committee has done.
  Mr. Speaker, as a result, this is not your father's farm bill, nor is 
it even the farm bill that passed out of this House last summer. This 
farm bill has more reform than any farm bill that the Congress has ever 
taken up. It imposes payment limitations on farmers and those who own 
land and have substantial nonfarm income alike and is well worth 
consideration in this body, and I urge its passage.
  Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance 
of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, this rule provides for a farm bill that is 7 months 
overdue, and I want to again commend Chairman Peterson and Ranking 
Member Goodlatte for their persistence in bringing this product to the 
floor.
  But there is another concern for farmers in our country that this 
Democrat Congress is totally neglecting, and that's addressing 
skyrocketing gasoline, diesel and energy costs. The cost of running a 
tractor, trucking products to market, and running a farm has risen 
dramatically since Democrats took control of Congress, and they have 
done nothing to help farmers, truckers or millions of Americans hurt by 
rising fuel costs.
  One of the principles of the farm bill is ensuring that America does 
not become dependent on foreign nations for our food supply. We, as a 
country, have fertile fields that can produce as much food as our 
country needs to eat and even export billions of dollars of foodstuffs 
overseas. But we, as a country, are not using our energy sources like 
farmers use our fields.
  For decades, our country has been handicapped by not tapping into our 
existing oil reserves. The effort to develop just a tiny portion of 
ANWR has been fought and blocked to the detriment of America's energy 
independence and with high prices that we are now paying at the pump.
  Today I urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question so this 
House can finally consider solutions to rising energy costs. By 
defeating the previous question, I will move to amend the rule, not 
rewrite it, just amend it, to allow for consideration of H.R. 5984, the 
Clean Energy Tax Stimulus Act of 2008, introduced by Mr. Bartlett of 
Maryland, as well as ``any amendment which the proponent asserts, if 
enacted, would have the effect of lowering the national average price 
per gallon of regular unleaded gasoline and diesel fuel by increasing 
the domestic supply of oil by permitting the extraction of oil in the 
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.''
  With diesel and gasoline prices going up and American farmers having 
to cope with these skyrocketing costs, it's time for Congress to act. 
The Democrat majority has refused time and again to act. We can act by 
defeating the previous question.
  Defeating the previous question will be simply to allow the House to 
debate rising energy prices. The farm bill will still be considered and 
voted upon.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have the text of the 
amendment and extraneous material inserted into the Record prior to the 
vote on the previous question.

[[Page 9064]]

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Washington?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to do 
something about rising fuel costs, and the way to do that is by voting 
to defeat the previous question.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will note that the gentleman from 
California has 90 seconds remaining.
  Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Speaker, this is a once-in-a-lifetime bill that will 
meet our country's needs. Every major group, commodities, specialty 
crops, nutrition groups, conservationists and others support this bill. 
A ``yes'' vote on this rule and the underlying bill is a vote for 
America's hungry, a vote for our environment, a vote for United States' 
energy independence, and a vote to deliver on our long-standing 
commitment to rural America.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask all of our colleagues to support this rule and to 
support the underlying bill. I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule and on 
the previous question.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Washington is 
as follows:

    Amendment to H. Res. 1189 Offered by Mr. Hastings of Washington

         At the end of the resolution, add the following:
         Sec. 2. That upon adoption of this resolution the Speaker 
     shall, 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. 5984) 
     to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide for the 
     limited continuation of clean energy production incentives 
     and incentives to improve energy efficiency in order to 
     prevent a downturn in these sectors that would result from a 
     lapse in the tax law. The first reading of the bill shall be 
     dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of 
     the bill are waived. General debate shall not exceed one hour 
     equally divided and contolled by the chairman and ranking 
     minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means. After 
     general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment 
     under the five-minute rule. All points of order against 
     provisions in the bill are waived. No amendment to the bill 
     shall be in order except any amendment which the proponent 
     asserts, if enacted, would have the effect of lowering the 
     national average price per gallon of regular unleaded 
     gasoline and diesel fuel by increasing the domestic supply of 
     oil by permitting the extraction of oil in the Arctic 
     National Wildlife Refuge. Such amendments shall be considered 
     as read, shall be debatable for thirty minutes 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. All points of order against such 
     amendments are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of 
     the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report 
     the bill to the House with such 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.
                                  ____

         (The information contained herein was provided by 
     Democratic Minority on multiple occasions throughout the 
     109th Congress.)

        The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

         This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous 
     question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote. 
     A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote 
     against the Democratic majority agenda and a vote to allow 
     the opposition, at least for the moment, to offer an 
     alternative plan. It is a vote about what the House should be 
     debating.
         Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of 
     Representatives, (VI, 308-311) describes the vote on the 
     previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or 
     control the consideration of the subject before the House 
     being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous 
     question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the 
     subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling 
     of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the 
     House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes 
     the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to 
     offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the 
     majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated 
     the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to 
     a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to 
     recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said: 
     ``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman 
     from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to 
     yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first 
     recognition.''
         Because the vote today may look bad for the Democratic 
     majority they will say ``the vote on the previous question is 
     simply a vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on 
     adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no substantive 
     legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' But that is 
     not what they have always said. Listen to the definition of 
     the previous question used in the Floor Procedures Manual 
     published by the Rules Committee in the 109th Congress, (page 
     56). Here's how the Rules Committee described the rule using 
     information from Congressional Quarterly's ``American 
     Congressional Dictionary'': ``If the previous question is 
     defeated, control of debate shifts to the leading opposition 
     member (usually the minority Floor Manager) who then manages 
     an hour of debate and may offer a germane amendment to the 
     pending business.''
         Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of 
     Representatives, the subchapter titled ``Amending Special 
     Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the previous question on 
     such a rule [a special rule reported from the Committee on 
     Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further 
     debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: 
     Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a 
     resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control 
     shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous 
     question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who 
     controls the time for debate thereon.''
         Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does 
     have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only 
     available tools for those who oppose the Democratic 
     majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the 
     opportunity to offer an alternative plan.

  Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas 
and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule 
XX, this 15-minute vote on ordering the previous question will be 
followed by 5-minute votes on adoption of H. Res. 1189; motion to 
suspend the rules on H. Res. 1134; and motion to suspend the rules on 
H. Res. 1176.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 232, 
nays 188, not voting 13, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 310]

                               YEAS--232

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson
     Castor
     Cazayoux
     Chandler
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Lincoln
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Foster
     Frank (MA)
     Giffords
     Gillibrand
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inglis (SC)
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Kirk
     Klein (FL)
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Mahoney (FL)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum (MN)
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne

[[Page 9065]]


     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reichert
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shays
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Space
     Speier
     Spratt
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Wexler
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--188

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

                             NOT VOTING--13

     Bono Mack
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Gerlach
     Lewis (KY)
     Mack
     McDermott
     Myrick
     Rush
     Schmidt
     Stark
     Weller

                              {time}  1335

  Messrs. LAMPSON and TIM MURPHY of Pennsylvania changed their vote 
from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Messrs. INGLIS of South Carolina, SHAYS and JOHNSON of Illinois 
changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 310, I missed the vote 
because I was talking to military officers from the U.S. Army War 
College. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas 
and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 228, 
nays 193, not voting 12, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 311]

                               YEAS--228

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

                               NAYS--193

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

[[Page 9066]]


     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman (VA)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Bono Mack
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Gerlach
     Lewis (KY)
     Mack
     Myrick
     Paul
     Rush
     Schmidt
     Weller


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Two minutes remain on this 
vote.

                              {time}  1345

  Mr. TIM MURPHY of Pennsylvania changed his vote from ``yea'' to 
``nay.''
  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________