To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to prevent corporations from exploiting tax treaties to evade taxation of United States income.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Cardoza) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

(Mr. HASTINGS of Washington asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, the largest overall industry in my State is agriculture and food processing. I represent the central part of Washington State where a wide variety of agriculture products are produced, including apples, cherries, pears, wheat, dairy hops, wine grapes and potatoes, just to name a few. In addition, our farmers and ranchers are stewards of the land, and many of them participate in conservation programs that fall under the farm bill. For these reasons, my constituents have a lot at stake when it comes to farm policy.

The Committee on Agriculture has historically worked in a bipartisan manner, especially on such important issues as the farm bill. Just over a year ago, I was pleased that the Agriculture Committee came to my district and held a farm bill hearing in Yakima, in my district. Mr. Cardoza, now Chairman Peterson and Ranking Member Goodlatte were all there. I appreciate their having traveled to my corner of the country to hear directly from the farmers in central Washington.

They heard firsthand the importance of specialty crops, fruits and vegetables to the overall ag economy. I'm pleased that the underlying bill, the Farm, Nutrition and Bioenergy Act, as approved by the committee, recognizes the needs of specialty crop producers by increasing investments in the Market Access Program, the Specialty Crop Block Grant Program, the Fruit and Vegetable Snack Program, and establishes a much needed National Clean Plant Network. These are all important steps in the right direction.

Unfortunately, all of the good things in this bill and the spirit of bipartisan cooperation were completely overturned by a last-minute addition of a multi-billion dollar tax increase. This surprise offset is totally unacceptable because it will cost American jobs, and it has completely bypassed the public process of discussions and hearings in the respective committees of jurisdiction, and it has disrupted the tradition of bipartisan cooperation on farm policies.

I have many speakers, Mr. Speaker, on my side who will be discussing the impact of these surprise tax increases, again, that were not subject to hearings or markups by the appropriate committees. The full scope of these tax hikes and fees just appeared at the Rules Committee this morning at 8 a.m., with no one willing to testify about them or disclose the full impact of these measures on our economy. And we are talking about multi-billion dollar increases.

Mr. Speaker, I also want to take this opportunity to express my disappointment that a bipartisan amendment I submitted to the Rules Committee with the support of Mr. McNerney from California, Mr. Hoekstra of Michigan, was not made in order to help American asparagus growers. Under the Andean Trade Preferences Act of 1991, the Congress gave Peru duty-free access to the U.S. market on a unilateral basis. This was done in the hope that it would encourage the Peruvians to develop alternatives to growing narcotic-producing crops.

Unfortunately, it led to a flood of Peruvian asparagus imports, which has devastated the asparagus growers and processors in my home State of Washington, Michigan and in California. The U.S. International Trade Commission has repeatedly cited U.S. asparagus as the one farm commodity substantially harmed by the Andean Trade Preferences Act.

My amendment would have simply given the Secretary of Agriculture the option of providing transition payments to these growers. After all, American asparagus growers were not harmed by their own actions, but rather by government's antidrug policies. They should not have to pay the full brunt of the price.

Unfortunately, the leadership of this House has decided that these growers don't deserve a place at the table. We are poised to give billions away under this bill, but the House leadership can't find time to help these small farmers who were harmed by their own government.

Mr. Speaker, the rule denies Members the opportunity to represent their constituents by coming to the floor and offering amendments to this bill. It prohibits a separate vote on whether or not to include billions of dollars in tax increases, and it denies open debate on those issues. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to vote against this restrictive rule.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the ranking member of the Rules Committee, Mr. Dreier of California.

(Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the ranking member of the Budget Committee and a member of the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Ryan of Wisconsin.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.

I have a letter in front of me from a number of companies that are subsidiaries of companies that are based abroad, and they say in this letter to oppose the tax increase and vote against the rule on H.R. 2419. And one of the signatories of this letter is Ben and Jerry's Homemade from my friend's home State of Vermont.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the ranking member on the Committee on Agriculture, Mr. Goodlatte.

(Mr. GOODLATTE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to a classmate of mine, a member of the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Weller from Illinois.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas, a member of the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Brady.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia, a member of the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Linder.

Mr. Speaker, I inquire of my friend from California, we have a number of requests for time, and I'm not sure that I have enough time. I wonder if the gentleman would entertain a chance to expand our time on both sides.

If the gentleman would, I would like to ask unanimous consent that each side get an additional 10 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I would just communicate with my friend to at least keep his options open, if he wouldn't mind, later on and maybe we can revisit this.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan, a member of the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Camp.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to insert into the Record a letter that I referenced earlier in which the signature to this letter is Ben and Jerry's Homemade, Inc.

Dear Member of Congress: As U.S. subsidiaries of companies

based abroad, we are writing to express our strong opposition

to including Rep. Lloyd Doggett's bill, H.R. 3160 in the farm

bill. This measure is a discriminatory tax targeted

specifically at companies insourcing jobs into the U.S. We

urge you to vote against the Rule on H.R. 2419 to demonstrate

that you oppose targeting companies with significant

employment in the United States.

Companies like ours play an important role in the growth

and vitality of the U.S. economy, provide high-paying jobs

for five million Americans and account for almost one-fifth

of all U.S. exports. Discriminatory measures, like the

Doggett legislation, send a hostile signal to our companies

and other international investors. This bill will certainly

dissuade companies like ours from choosing the United States

as a location for job creating investment.

The provision under consideration would violate many of our

bilateral tax treaties and could lead to retaliatory actions

by other countries or withdrawal by our treaty partners from

exiting treaties, harshly affecting U.S.-based businesses.

Congress has not held any hearings on this issue. There is

no evidence that existing safeguards in current treaties are

not effective. Further, if material tax abuses were evident;

Treasury Secretary Paulson would not have strongly opposed

this proposal.

We urge you to vote against the Rule on H.R. 2419 and to

demonstrate your opposition to discriminatory tax increases

on companies that support employment in the United States.

AEGON USA, Inc, Akzo Nobel, Alcatel-Lucent, Alcon

Holdings, Inc, Allianz of America, BASF, Ben & Jerry's

Homemade, Inc., Honda North America, Inc, ING Americas,

Inc, Panasonic Corporation of North America, Suez

Energy North America, Swiss Re, Thomson Corporation,

Unilever.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo).

Mr. Speaker, I want to once again inquire of my friend from California if we can have extended time on this. I would ask unanimous consent for 5 additional minutes on both sides.

Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed that that happened, because we have seen the passion on this side of people talking about tax policy that has not had a hearing in the committees of jurisdiction in both cases, and we are restricted to only 1 hour to talk about that, without any extension at all.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 1 minute to my friend from Texas, a member of the Agriculture Committee, Mr. Conaway.

Mr. Speaker, I certainly associate myself with my friend from Oregon's remarks.

We have different issues. But I think the issue is exactly the same.

With that, I yield 1 minute to my friend from Louisiana (Mr. Boustany).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Walberg).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to a former member of the Rules Committee, the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Pryce).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to a member of the Agriculture Committee, the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Smith).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. McCrery), the ranking member of the Ways and Means Committee.

I have more speakers than I have time, and I would like to inquire of my friend if he would like to entertain the proposition I offered a moment ago.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent for 5 additional minutes for each side.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce), a member of one of the committees that was denied any opportunity to talk about the tax provisions.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey), a former member of the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Kentucky, a classmate of mine, Mr. Whitfield.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 574 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.

I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 574.

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 574 provides for consideration of H.R. 2419, the Farm, Nutrition, and Bioenergy Act of 2007 under a structured rule.

The rule provides for 1 hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Agriculture.

The rule waives all points of order against the bill and its consideration except for those arising under clause 9 or clause 10 of rule XXI.

The rule makes in order 31 amendments.

Finally, the rule provides one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

Mr. Speaker, as the subcommittee chairman on the House Agriculture Committee, and as a member of the Rules Committee, I am pleased to offer this progressive Federal farm policy act for consideration today.

Over the past year, the Agriculture Committee members have traveled across this country, from north to south, from east to west, hearing directly from farmers and ranchers about the state of agriculture in our country. Across rural America we have heard from farmers and ranchers from all walks of life talking about the promise of American agriculture, the immeasurable innovation and success and commitment to sustainable farming.

The 2007 farm bill builds on past successes of Federal farm policy by providing a reliable safety net for commodity crops, expanding access to conservation programs, increasing participation in domestic nutrition programs, and, perhaps most of all, most near to my heart, this bill dwarfs any previous Federal investment in specialty crops, which account for nearly 50 percent of American agricultural production.

Chairman Peterson, Ranking Member Goodlatte, and the entire Agriculture Committee were able to craft an equitable, fiscally sound farm bill that preserved the farm safety net while including critical funding for important new programs.

Furthermore, the 2007 farm bill contains unprecedented reforms to payment limitations and crop insurance programs that will reduce waste, fraud, and abuse so often identified with the farm program.

More importantly, this bill is completely paid for. During the past election, Democrats promised to live within our means like every household in America is forced to do and stop writing blank checks with reckless abandon. We pledged to exercise spending restraint to stop shouldering our Nation's needs on the backs of our children and grandchildren. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to say that we were able to do exactly that.

You will hear a lot of talk from the other side of the aisle about this bill raising taxes, but this is simply a scare tactic in an attempt to score political points. This is completely untrue.

Let me set the record straight before we even begin. This bill does not raise taxes. The 2007 farm bill closes tax loopholes that just 5 years ago the Bush administration and its own Treasury Department identified as tax abuse. In a policy paper issued by the Office of Tax Policy in May of 2002, the Bush administration identified how corporations headquartered in tax havens use this loophole, and a June 18, 2002, New York Times article stated that Republicans in Congress also thought that this tax loophole needed to be fixed. These are the facts.

Lastly, Mr. Speaker, I must take a moment to thank Chairman Peterson, Speaker Pelosi, Leader Hoyer, and the entire leadership team for their tenacity and sincerity in creating a farm bill that we can all be proud of and stand behind.

Not everyone got everything they wanted, and, frankly, they shouldn't. The farm bill should never be a place to line up at the trough and recklessly suck up needed resources. In the end, while people didn't get everything they wanted, everyone got what they needed. That speaks volumes about the quality of this bill and tells me we ended up in exactly the right place.

I have never been more proud of a piece of legislation, Mr. Speaker, and I look forward to telling my constituents in the 18th District of California that the United States Congress has

accomplished what was thought to be an impossible feat. I urge my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).

Mr. Speaker, a short response.

I'd just like to say that if these folks were complying with Federal and State law, why are they sending their receipts through Caribbean islands?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui).

I would suggest that the other side knows a lot about Enron accounting, Mr. Speaker. But we also made three substantive commodity cut amendments in order: the Kind amendment, the Udall amendment, and the Davis amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to at this time yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch).

Mr. Speaker, I would like to set the record straight. The gentleman would like to say that this is the first time we have had a structured rule. That is absolutely not the case.

In 1996, the farm bill that year, when the Republicans were in charge, allowed 16 amendments. It was a structured rule. This rule allows 31 amendments.

Further, Mr. Ryan accused us of busting the budget because of timing shifts. Let me just point out that the 2002 farm bill had $2.6 billion in timing shifts, and the 2006 budget resolution had $1.5 billion in shifts, with a total of $4.1 billion in timing shifts on their watch.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the chairwoman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies, the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy).

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time we have remaining?

Would the gentleman like to take some of his time at this point?

I respect the gentleman from Washington, but we will have a significant amount of time in the discussion of the bill in chief.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Scott).

We object, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kagen).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett), a member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. Speaker, how much time remains?

Does the gentleman from Washington have any remaining speakers?

Mr. Speaker, I object to the request to extend debate. As the gentleman from Washington knows, there will be another hour of debate on the bill and then 31 amendments. There is ample time to debate this bill, so I would have to object.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, this is a sad day for this Congress. Farm bills are written in a bipartisan fashion. And I appreciate the comments of the gentleman from California and others, the gentleman from Vermont, about the hard work that the House Agriculture Committee put into creating a bipartisan farm bill. There is a lot to like in it; there are things to dislike in it.

But this rule turns that bipartisan process on its head. It has poisoned the well in terms of bringing this to fruition. It has made this farm bill, no matter its fate here today, unlikely to have any future beyond this House of Representatives because of the tax increase that has been placed in this legislation, because of the fact that Members who are accustomed to seeing an open rule when dealing with the farm bill.

Historically no one can recall a farm bill process as closed as this one, Members denied the opportunity to deal with provisions brought into this legislation like labor provisions and so on, not allowed to offer an amendment to take out Davis-Bacon provisions that have no business being in farm bill legislation. And it is, in my opinion, very disappointing.

Now, some have said that this is not a tax increase, this is closing tax loopholes. Businesses all across America are speaking up and pointing out that this is sweeping tax reform that has received no hearing. Here we are with an Agriculture Committee bill dealing with something that should have been dealt with in the Ways and Means Committee, but was simply handed out and said, here, take this. Take this tax increase as the pay-for for a substantial cut in agricultural programs that the Budget Committee did not address properly.

We have been trying for months to get fair treatment on the promise that we would be given an appropriate offset. We reported the bill out of the committee, and now we find what we are going to do is put American jobs up against American farmers. What kind of an outrage is that?

This rule should be voted down. It is totally unfair to American farmers and ranchers to see a good, bipartisan farm bill put at risk over a tax increase that will have a dramatic impact not only on the businesses that are subsidiaries of foreign-owned corporations providing millions of jobs here in the United States, but also on the trustworthiness of investment in the United States when we begin violating 58 different treaties that we have negotiated with other countries, and then, the ultimate, when those countries start retaliating against us, saying, if you violate a treaty, we certainly can, too, and affecting American investment abroad.

This is a very bad tax increase. It is a tax increase, not a ``closing the loophole.'' It is a very, very harmful one and should be the basis for Members to oppose this bill and bring the bill back appropriately.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my opposition to this rule. Apparently, the Speaker and the Chairwoman of the Rules Committee have decided to dispense with the annoying procedures of the committee process and serious floor debate. The rule before the House begins by limiting amendments to a select few, denying Members the right to offer amendments. In living memory, there has never been a rule this restrictive on a farm bill which is traditionally considered under an open rule.

As a result, the provision requiring Davis-Bacon wage rates on the new loan guarantee program for the next generation ethanol plants that would effectively eliminate the program in many rural States will go unchallenged. Also immune from floor action, is a provision that prohibits States from contracting private concerns to help deliver food stamps or upgrade their delivery systems to provide better service for recipients. The result is that State employee unions will be protected at the expense of State taxpayers and those who need the program. These are only examples of issue after issue that Members will be denied the right to address.

But then we come to the self-enacting portions of this rule. There is a 75-page amendment from the chairman of the Agriculture Committee that moves hundreds of millions of dollars around, cuts programs passed by the committee without consultation and adds new programs from other jurisdictions that spend huge sums of money. If you vote for this rule, that becomes a part of the bill without amendment.

Another self-enacting provision sweeps in billions of dollars in offsets by raising fees and royalties on off-shore oil production. Yet another spends nearly $1 billion for a mandatory international feeding program. Finally, a more than $7 billion tax increase is automatically made a part of the bill. This tax increase comes to the floor as if by magic. ``It was not considered in ways & means where it would have been noted that the provision violates up to 50 Senate-ratified international tax treaties that are the basis of international tax treatment for all trade.

In fact, this tax increase idea has been bumping around for over a decade without receiving any appreciable support. Now the

Democrats are trying to attach this bad idea to a popular bill in an unamendable form. Members should be very careful not to rush to accept this rule. The fate of thousands of companies in our districts and more than 5 million U.S. workers will be jeopardized if we thoughtlessly support this rule.

I have worked on the Agriculture Committee since I first came to Congress and I have enjoyed being part of a committee that always prided itself on a bipartisan legislative process. In all those years, I have never witnessed or experienced a situation that discarded the committee product to this extent or that precluded the members of the committee and the general Membership of the House from legislating on major portions of the bill.

Mr. Speaker, this rule puts in jeopardy every Member's right to legislate and every Member's ability to rely on the careful deliberations of the committee process to produce fully vetted legislation for floor consideration. When that process is violated, we end up with a rule like this one that was cobbled together in the dead of night and contains tax increases that put at risk millions of American jobs. There is only one response possible to a rule like this and that is to join me in voting this rule down.

New York Times, June 18, 2002. ``There would be no effect on legitimate multinational corporations like DaimlerChrysler that have not used a haven to avoid American taxes.''

Yesterday, 2:41 p.m., letter from Unilever Global Affairs vice president. He says that his company, which owns Ben and Jerry's, would not be affected by this bill.

What we've heard is nonsense. It's not evidence. Claims, not evidence.

Mr. Speaker, farm and ranch families deserve a safety net, and fiscal responsibility demands that we pay for it. We pay for this farm bill, every penny of it, and some of it is done by stopping one group of multinational corporations from dodging their United States tax liability. For too long they have enjoyed a free ride from these Republicans, at the expense of other American taxpayers. It is wrong, and we are putting a stop to it.

Our target is very narrow: No company headquartered in the United States of America will have its taxes go up one penny, nor will it have any significant impact on any foreign corporation with whom we have a tax treaty, as we do with most developed countries. Indeed, 90 percent of the revenue, according to the nonpartisan staff of the Joint Tax Committee, comes from companies that have tax hideaways with these countries down in the Caribbean that have no tax treaty and no corporate taxes or little taxes. And the remaining 10 percent of revenue from their proposal, most of it is going to be simply a matter of shifting taxes between countries in tax credits.

I have listened to these Republicans identify one company after another that they cried big crocodile tears about, and I haven't heard them identify a single company that is likely to have an increase in its taxes as a result of this proposal.

There are others hiding in the shadows that know they have no justified case. And they have some of their friends out front, including one company that I read an e-mail from yesterday saying they don't like my bill, but it doesn't affect them a penny. That is the people that own Ben and Jerry's.

Well, today the Administration may be teaming up with those willing to kill this farm bill by defending these foreign tax evaders, but that is not the tune they were singing 5 years ago when in this Treasury report they said ``an appropriate, immediate response, an immediate response, should address the U.S. tax advantages that are available to foreign-based companies because of their ability to reduce the U.S. corporate tax on income from their American operations.''

Mr. Brady says Treasury did something about it? They sat on their rear and didn't do anything about it. And if you need any proof of that, gentleman, turn to the President's budget 5 months ago. He turned to this same source of revenue and all this job-killing tax proposal you are talking about. How many jobs did his $2 billion proposal that he put out here 5 months ago in February kill? Well, you haven't suggested there are any, because even this President, President Bush, admits there is a problem here that needs to be fixed, and this committee gets about fixing it.

You talk about jeopardizing 5 million jobs. What a lot of nonsense. That is all the jobs of all the foreign subsidiaries in the United States, the vast majority of which are corporations that are not touched by this proposal.

Your problem isn't jobs. Your problem is you never met a tax loophole you didn't like. You never met a tax dodger you didn't want to help. You have done a good job of doing it, and it is time we fix that.

I don't know why it is that a farm and ranch family in High Hill, Texas, or a drugstore on the main street of Bastrop, Texas, ought to have to pay higher relative taxes on their earnings than some multinational with a fancy CPA and a law firm and a hideaway in Bermuda.

It is wrong, and each of us must stand to choose between the two.

Point of Order

I thank my colleague from California for yielding me the time and for his work on this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule and in support of the underlying legislation.

My colleagues, tonight millions of people here in the United States and around the world, many of them children, will go to bed hungry. They may not be in this Chamber, but they must remain in our thoughts. This bill does not go as far as I would like in tackling hunger, but it represents real progress and real reform.

I want to commend Chairman Peterson and his colleagues on the committee for their hard work, but I also want to thank Speaker Pelosi and Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro, both of whom have worked personally and passionately with us over the last few days to make improvements to the nutrition programs in this bill.

The bill before us begins to reverse some of the terrible damage done to nutrition programs over the past several years. For too long, hungry people were an afterthought in this Congress. For too long, people on food stamps fell further and further behind as the Republican Congress searched high and low for more ways to cut taxes for rich people. Those days have come to an end, Mr. Speaker.

It has not been easy to find funding for these vital programs, and here's why. Unlike the Republicans, we are actually paying for the bills we pass. It would have been easy to put the cost of this bill on the national credit card. Instead, the increases to the nutrition program in this bill are paid for in this bill. That is an enormous and welcome development.

Further, the bill includes increased guaranteed funding for the George McGovern-Robert Dole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition program. McGovern-Dole has a proven track record of fighting hunger and promoting education by providing meals to chronically hungry school-age children in the world's poorest countries. Where the McGovern-Dole program is offered, enrollment and attendance rates increased significantly, especially for girls. Providing food at school is a simple but effective method to get children into school, improve literacy, and help break the cycle of poverty.

These programs demonstrate America's generosity and goodwill, and they reflect our deepest moral values. They promote our national security, and they offer an alternative to children who otherwise might be recruited by groups that provide meals in return for becoming child soldiers or for attendance at extremist schools that serve as a breeding ground for hatred and violence.

By making the funding guaranteed, we can stop the practice of beginning a school feeding program only to cut it off when Congress doesn't appropriate enough money, because the only thing more cruel than not feeding a hungry child is feeding a hungry child for a while and then stopping.

As I said, Mr. Speaker, the bill before us does not do as much as I would like. And I will keep fighting, through the amendment process and beyond, to increase funding for hunger and nutrition programs here at home and around the world. This is not the beginning of the end. It's the end of the beginning. This is a start.

Mr. Speaker, hunger is a political condition. We have the resources to

end hunger. What we need is the political will. Let us rededicate ourselves to helping those who need help the most.

I urge my colleagues to join me in support of this bill.