Supporting the goals and ideals of National Train Day.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1189 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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. 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.

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. 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.

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.

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. 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. 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.

Mr. Speaker, how much time is remaining on both sides?

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. 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. 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.

I object.

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.

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

I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 1189.

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 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. 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).

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. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings).

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. 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.

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. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Hodes).

Mr. Speaker, I would now like to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Space).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. Speaker, I ask how much time is remaining on either side.

At this time I would like to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).

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).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).

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.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

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).

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.

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 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.

May I inquire as to the time remaining.

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?

Reading from the House rules after the beginning of a new calendar year----

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).

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.

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. 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.

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.

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?

I would.

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.

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.

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. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

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?

Would the gentleman yield?

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. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that each side receive an additional 2 minutes so we may discuss this issue.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman another 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).

Mr. Speaker, I am at this time pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus).

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

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.

It would be based on supply and demand. The gentleman is exactly correct.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, can I inquire again how much time remains on both sides.

Mr. Speaker, I will reserve my time to allow more equity in the time.

Once again I will continue to reserve, Mr. Speaker.

I will continue to reserve, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson).

Mr. Speaker, I reserve my time.

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

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. 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.

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.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

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.

Would the gentleman yield?

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.

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.

I would be happy to yield.

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.

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.

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.