Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2419) to provide for the continuation of agricultural programs through fiscal year 2012, and for other purposes.

Madam Chairman, today we have a bill before us that is known as the farm bill, but this bill is much more than about farms. It is about the food we eat, the clothes we wear, and, increasingly, the fuel that we will use.

The farm bill assures that we will have a safe, strong food supply now and for years to come. It funds nutrition programs and ensures that working families have enough to eat. It provides conservation programs to protect the environment. It funds rural development programs in support of our rural communities nationwide. You can see that this farm bill is certainly about more than just farms.

In addition to these important priorities, this farm bill also provides the safety net that allows our Nation's farmers and ranchers to continue to provide the food, fiber, and fuel that meet the needs of Americans and people around the world.

America is still the world's breadbasket, and that is something we should be proud of. Over the past year, my colleagues and I have traveled across the country from New York to Alabama, to my neck of the woods in Minnesota, and all the way to California. We heard from folks who are out there every day working the land, producing a diverse range of agriculture products.

The farm bill is a product of agreements that we have reached by consulting everyone interested in this process. In addition to hearings across the country, we have worked with nutrition advocates, conservation and environmental organizations, renewable energy groups, and representatives from all parts of the fruit and vegetable industry, in addition to the farm groups traditionally involved in the farm bill.

At the end of that process, we now have more than 100 organizations representing conservation, nutrition, rural development, renewable energy, labor and farm groups that have signed on in support of this bill. I think that this unprecedented support is a direct result of our efforts to be inclusive in this farm bill process.

There are very few issues that the National Farmers Union and the American Farm Bureau Federation can agree on, but at the end of the day, they both support this bill.

The members of these groups who support our farm bill are the real experts on farm policy because it is a reality that they live each day of their lives. They are the ones on the land planting the crops, managing the livestock and taking the risk inherent in the industry of farming. They are the ones who represent the people using the farm bill's nutrition programs. They are the ones working to implement good conservation practices in the communities across this country. If they support our bill, then I know that we're doing the right thing.

This farm bill also includes significant reforms. Of course, some people think we went too far. Others think we didn't go far enough. But everybody seems to agree that they never thought that we could get an agreement that went as far as it has. That is what this farm bill is about. We got the different groups into the room and produced an agreement that everyone feels like they've been part of the process, even if they didn't get exactly what they wanted.

This bill does make significant changes, including a hard cap on subsidies for the first time ever. We've taken the $2.5 million adjusted gross income cap down to $500,000. And we have put a hard cap on of $1 million so that anybody over $1 million of adjusted gross income will not receive farm payments after this bill passes.

We have also cut the soft cap that I mentioned on adjusted gross income to $500,000. We also, in this bill, required direct attribution for the first time of farm program payments so that people won't be able to get around the payment limits by receiving payments through different business entities. These are not insignificant by any means, and these changes will affect thousands of farmers nationwide.

In the area of conservation, too, we have made significant changes as well as new investments. One thing we've done, we have included the same kind of payment limits on conservation programs that we have had for farm programs. That way, there's more money available to more farmers to participate in these popular programs.

The bill also includes $3.8 billion in new spending for conservation programs over the next 5 years. These programs help farmers protect the environment with programs that reduce erosion, enhance water supply, improve water quality, increase wildlife habitat, and reduce damage caused by floods and other natural disasters.

This farm bill provides new resources to protect and preserve the Chesapeake Bay and other high-priority areas, and it encourages private land owners to provide public access for hunting, fishing and other recreational activities.

In the area of renewable energy, this farm bill invests in programs that will help encourage the development of cellulosic ethanol in this country. In my opinion, this represents the future for American agriculture. Once we can establish the first facilities that can make ethanol from agricultural waste and other biomass products, we will take a huge step in a new direction for agriculture and for rural America.

Many of the best feedstocks for cellulosic ethanol will also provide benefits for wildlife and for the environment. Renewable fuels have brought new investment and new jobs for rural America, and this is one of the most exciting things that's happened in my life and in American agriculture.

We have also proposed increases in the farm bill's nutrition title. This has been a source of some controversy this week, but not because people disagree with the idea that we should be increasing these benefits which have been stagnant for many years and making sure that benefits keep pace with inflation,

Instead, the controversy has involved the proposal that the Ways and Means Committee has proposed to offset the cost of these changes. I hope that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will recognize that there is a difference between closing a loophole in current tax law and increasing taxes. This proposal won't raise taxes, but it will hold some foreign companies who should be paying taxes accountable for what they owe.

The Agriculture Committee agreed, on a bipartisan basis, that these changes in the nutrition program were important to help working Americans access these nutrition programs, and we have found a reasonable, fiscally responsible way to do this.

Another area where this farm bill makes great strides is in funding for programs that strengthen the fruit and vegetable industry. We have worked with this industry and have included $1.5 billion in new mandatory money for them in this farm bill. That's the first time that we've done this.

The Specialty Crop Alliance, United Fresh, and many other fruit and vegetable groups strongly support this bill as passed by the Agriculture Committee.

We also worked with several caucuses in crafting this bill, including the Congressional Black Caucus, the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, the Congressional Native American Caucus. With the Congressional Black Caucus, we have worked to address important issues, including a program in the manager's amendment that will help black farmers who did not get their day in court due to inadequate notice and an arbitrary deadline established after the Pigford case was settled. This provision will allow farmers who filed their claims after the national deadline to have their cases heard.

We have also included other provisions to make USDA programs more accessible to minority, socially disadvantaged and beginning farmers and ranchers. This includes provisions to expand access to land, credit, conservation and rural development programs.

One of the most important compromises reached in this farm bill was an agreement to finally, after a long delay, implement mandatory country of origin labeling. We put both sides in the room; we told them to come out with a compromise, and they delivered. As a result, with this farm bill, consumers in this country will finally be able to tell where their fruit and vegetables and meat products in their grocery stores are coming from, and we think it's about time.

We accomplished all of this under an open process where everyone was included. All members of our committee were engaged in this process, and I'm proud to say that some of our newest freshman Members, including colleagues that have been there for years, really brought a lot of constructive ideas and a spirit of bipartisan cooperation to the table and helped us come up with a bill that we are all very proud of.

There is something in this bill for everybody to like. There's probably something in this bill for everybody not to like. But it's a step in the right direction and has broad support, as I said, from many organizations. And I encourage my colleagues to support this farm bill which supports all of us with food, fiber and fuel.

Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

I'm now pleased to yield 2 minutes to my good friend, the distinguished chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Rangel from New York.

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

Madam Chairman, I am pleased to yield 6 minutes to the distinguished Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, my good friend Mr. Lantos from California.

Madam Chair, I yield myself 15 seconds to respond.

I just want people to remember what happened with the '95-'96 farm bill, which was a partisan farm bill. So, we've been down this road before.

I recognize the distinguished subcommittee chairman, my good friend, Mr. Holden from Pennsylvania, chairman of the Conservation Credit, Energy and Research Subcommittee and vice-chairman of the House Agriculture Committee, for 2 minutes.

I am now pleased to recognize another subcommittee chairman, the chairman of the Specialty Crops Subcommittee and my good friend from North Carolina (Mr. McIntyre) for 2 minutes.

Madam Chairman, I am now pleased to recognize the chairman of our General Farm Commodities Subcommittee, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Etheridge), for 2 minutes.

Madam Chair, may I inquire as to how much time is remaining on both sides?

Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the chairman of the Livestock, Dairy and Poultry Subcommittee, my friend, the distinguished gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Boswell).

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

Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Baca), another of our great subcommittee chairmen, the chairman of the Subcommittee on Department Operations, Oversight, Nutrition, and Forestry.

Madam Chairman, I yield for purposes of a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cardoza), the subcommittee chairman of the Subcommittee of Horticulture and Organic Agriculture, one of our outstanding Members, who has done a great job.

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

Madam Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Scott), one of our great committee members and a great friend of mine.

Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

I would say to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) we have enjoyed working with you and your Members, but I don't agree with you. I don't believe there is a tax increase in this bill. I have looked at it. I am a CPA, and I think you can say it either way, but I don't believe it is a tax increase.

The $60 billion did come out of baseline not because anybody cut it, but because the program worked the way it is supposed to. Prices are up and spending went down. We are missing the money, but it wasn't because anybody cut it.

We have a good bill, and I encourage all Members to support it.

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.

Madam Chairman, I yield myself 5\1/2\ minutes.

Madam Chairman, it's a sad day for American agriculture when the Democratic leadership pits America's farmers and ranchers against America's working class. The tax increases included in this bill stand to jeopardize millions of American jobs by raising taxes on companies that do business in the U.S. Not only does this provision cunningly added by the Democrat leadership after the bill left the control of the Agriculture Committee jeopardize American jobs, it stands to violate treaties with other nations and lead to significant ramifications for U.S. companies with operations in other countries. Worst of all, we're not even considering a tax bill; we're considering a farm bill, a farm bill that has been twisted into a partisan pawn.

At the beginning of the week, I stood beside the chairman of the Agriculture Committee to voice my support for this bill that we had worked in a bipartisan fashion to bring to the floor. I had only one caveat, that the offsets not be in the form of tax increases. Not 24 hours before we were to consider this bill on the floor, we were made aware of a tax increase provision that had been added to this language behind closed doors. Unfortunately, all of the good things contained in this bill have been overshadowed by very partisan elements of what should be a bipartisan bill. Today we should be debating the merits of this bill, a bill that was carefully crafted to meet the calls for reform and expand programs such as nutrition and fruits and vegetable programs. But the leadership has decided to take American agriculture out of the debate on the farm bill.

Heading into the reauthorization of the farm bill, Agriculture Committee Republicans anticipated problems with the budget, given the collapse of the baseline projections for the commodity programs. The lack of funding for the nutrition interests further compounded the problem. As the number of nonfarm interests in farm bill funding has grown and the availability of funding dwindled, farm programs have become particularly vulnerable, and the Democratic leadership and the Budget Committee refused to address the needs of a forward-looking farm bill.

From the start, the Agriculture Committee Republicans have made our concerns about funding for this bill very clear. When the chairman announced his projected farm bill time line on May 17, I urged him not to rush the process and find the offsets before promising the money in the farm bill language. Again and again, I, along with my subcommittee ranking members, have implored the committee to slow down, to wait until the money is available before moving ahead.

At the Conservation, Credit, Energy and Rural Development Subcommittee markup on May 22, both subcommittee ranking member Frank Lucas and I urged caution in rushing the process.

On May 24, at the Livestock, Dairy and Poultry markup, the message was the same. The subsequent markups on June 6, 7, 15 and 19, the message to the leadership of this committee was the same; slow down and find the money. We were consistently told the money would be made available, and we were consistently denied any further information.

It would be disingenuous for my Agriculture Committee Democrat colleagues to claim our objections are at all new or recently conceived. We have worked in a bipartisan fashion throughout this process and had the opportunity to take a bipartisan product of the committee to the floor. But our work has been undermined by the addition of tax increases without consultation, review or due process to cover the extra costs of the bill.

Despite repeated assurances that the $4 billion in offsets would not come from tax increases, here we are, looking at tax increases as a funding mechanism of choice employed by the Democratic leadership.

Moreover, to insinuate that Democrats were made to do anything by the Republicans' opposition to revisions that would directly impact U.S. jobs is preposterous. The Democrats and the Democrats alone are solely responsible for any modifications made to this bill after it left the Agriculture Committee.

Because the Democrat leadership won't invest in American agriculture, they're calling for increased taxes to pick up the tab to fund our domestic priorities by increasing taxes on companies that provide millions of Americans with good jobs and stimulate economic growth.

I anticipate this tax increase will likely be the first of many needed to fund the priorities that bulge between the majority's budgets.

Rural America is served best when we work together in a bipartisan fashion. With passage of this rule, partisanship invades rural America and destroys bipartisan support for the underlying legislation.

I want to be clear, I support the farm bill. I do not support the nonagriculture, non-Agriculture Committee approved tax increase that has been shamefully attached to this legislation.

Prior to the announcement of this tax increase, it was clear that the administration, which has opposed this bipartisan effort, it was clear that a veto threat was headed our way.

A bipartisan farm bill without this tax increase would have produced a veto-proof majority and would have sent this farm bill soaring into the negotiations with the Senate. Now this farm bill will not be an effective product to move American agriculture forward.

I urge my colleagues to reject this legislation.

Madam Chairman, I reserve my time.

Madam Chairman, I yield myself 10 seconds to say to the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee that neither I nor any other Republican on this committee that I know of ever went to him and asked for any, any funds whatsoever, certainly not from a tax increase.

Madam Chairman, at this time it is my pleasure to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Everett), the distinguished ranking member on the Agriculture Committee.

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

Madam Chairman, at this time it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma, another of our ranking members on the committee, Mr. Lucas.

Madam Chairman, at this time, it is my pleasure to yield 1 minute to the distinguished Member from California (Mrs. Bono).

Madam Chairman, at this time, it's my pleasure to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Colorado (Mrs. Musgrave), a very strong member of the committee.

Madam Chairman, at this time I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas, another of the subcommittee ranking members on the Agriculture Committee, Mr. Neugebauer.

Madam Chairman, at this time, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Boustany).

Madam Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Conaway), a member of the Agriculture Committee.

Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to a distinguished member of the Agriculture Committee, the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Fortenberry).

Madam Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. McCarthy), a new member of the committee who has distinguished himself.

Madam Chairman, I yield myself 20 seconds to say to the gentleman from Georgia that no one on this side of the aisle is turning their back on anybody. We are simply recognizing that increasing taxes in order to pay for what is in this farm bill is the wrong thing to do. To set businesses who have invested in this country and the American workers whose jobs depend on them against that is very, very wrong, and I would suggest to the gentleman that everyone I have talked to has called this a tax increase.

Madam Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Walberg), a distinguished member of the committee.

Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Washington (Mrs. McMorris Rodgers).

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King), a member of the committee whose work we appreciate.

Madam Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston), the distinguished ranking member on the House appropriations agriculture subcommittee.

Madam Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

I would just say, Madam Chairman, that we reach this point in a process that has been going on for about 2 years. It spanned both my chairmanship and the current chairman's chairmanship. It has encompassed a great deal of effort to write a bipartisan farm bill. We have listened to hundreds of farmers. We have received input from thousands of farmers and ranchers and others interested in this legislation.

We address the reform that has been requested in a farm bill. We have addressed the concerns about more funding for fruits and vegetables for nutrition and conservation and renewable fuels. And then to have this tax increase injected into this process after the bill has left the committee is why you have heard every single Member on this side of the aisle speak about how they feel betrayed by this process. It is unfortunate for us, but it is also unfortunate for this farm bill because what happens when it leaves the House, if it passes at all, will be very different than if it passed leaving this House with a veto-proof majority. That opportunity has been lost.

I would say to those on the other side of the aisle we can fix that if we would simply slow down and take a look at the appropriate way to pay for the additional funding that is due this committee because we took a $60 billion cut in the budget. The way to do that is to vote for the motion to recommit that we will offer later on that will say you can have this farm bill that we have all praised and send it back to the committee to look for an appropriate way to do this without pitting American agriculture against American industry by having a tax increase imposed to pay for the things that are in this bill.

That's the appropriate way to proceed here. That would restore the bipartisanship that is needed in this process, and that would restore a good future for this farm bill, which is very much endangered because of the injection of this partisan tax increase that has been laid at our doorstep, the most bipartisan committee in the House of Representatives that has worked so hard and so long. And to be faced with this at the end is wrong. I do not support this legislation.

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.

Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Madam Chairman, I ask unanimous consent for purposes of this debate that the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) be allowed to control 10 minutes of my 20 minutes.

Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Chairman, this farm bill is one of the most important pieces of legislation before this Congress in this session because it truly does affect us all.

It affects our family farmers. It affects consumers in America. It affects our wildlife and natural resources. It affects people who are hungry, both in this country and abroad, and it affects economic development opportunities in rural America but also in the developing world, and it affects my home State in Wisconsin, where agriculture is still the number one industry. I know, I have a 200-acre farm in western Wisconsin where we rotate corn and soybeans. I've got beef cattle on it from time to time.

But for too long farm policy has resulted in billions of dollars of subsidies going to a few, but very large and very wealthy entities who then gobble up family farms around them, drive up land values and make it virtually impossible for new beginning farmers to enter the business. These subsidies have distorted the marketplace, and they distort our trade policies. Too many farmers have planted for the government paycheck instead of the marketplace. This has got to change.

But instead of heeding the call for reasonable, justifiable reform in light of current market prices, the farm bill before us fails to even make token reforms under the Title I commodity programs. In fact, they still allow taxpayer-supported subsidies to go to individuals in this country with an adjusted gross income of $1 million. Over the next 5 years, there will be $26 billion in direct subsidy payments going out to commodity producers who are getting at or near record prices in the marketplace. And under these direct payments, the committee raises the cap from $40,000 to $60,000 and allows multiple entities on the same farm to collect the same type of subsidies. It also eliminates the cap with the loan deficiency program.

It's a missed opportunity. In fact, what we have before us today is a bipartisan, fair, reform amendment that takes light of the market conditions and offers reasonable and justifiable reforms under a very simple proposition: Let's give our family farmers help when they need it; let's not when they don't.

What we propose in our amendment would be phasing out these direct payments that were meant to be temporary in the 1996 farm bill, and now we're in the third farm bill, and they're increasing these subsidy payments and lifting the caps.

We also replace the current countercyclical program with a true safety net, a revenue-based safety net that even the corn growers have been working on as a replacement over the last few years.

We also place a tighter income limit at $250,000 adjusted gross, even slightly above the administration's own $200,000 limit that they recommend.

Plus, we call for long-overdue reform with the crop insurance program based on the good work that our friends Mr. Cooper and Mr. Waxman have been doing in this, and we all do this under justifiable market conditions, ending up with a farm bill at the end of the day that does not distort our market, nor our trade policies.

For too long family farmers have suffered due to the inequities of this farm bill, and with the savings that we use to reform the Title I programs, we make significant new investments in other priority areas. We have a $6 billion increase in funding under the nutrition title to deal with hunger in America.

We have a $3 billion increase of voluntary incentive conservation programs, when today three out of every four farmers applying for conservation funding assistance are turned away because of inadequacy of funds.

We have a $1.2 billion increase for specialty crops above what the committee did, and a healthy food program to combat the obesity epidemic which is ravishing our Nation.

We also have $1.1 billion in guaranteed funding out of the McGovern- Dole bill and $500 million for minority and disadvantaged farmers, $200 million increase for rural development to create economic job opportunities throughout rural America.

And at the end of the reform, we even have money for deficit reduction. How refreshing that we may have a bill coming out of this Congress that actually reforms enough to have some left over to reduce the massive budget deficits and prepare for the aging of our Nation.

What's really nice about this is it is all paid for. We don't have to go to the Ways and Means Committee or the Financial Services Committee to seek offsets in order to pay for these other priorities and still provide a safety net for our family farmers. This amendment gets us out of the box that my Republican friends find themselves in in not being able to support a tax increase to finance this farm bill.

And you guys are exactly right. If you had been pulling this on us while we were in the minority, we would be raising bloody hell as well, because if you lose the process in the place, you lose a sense of fairness, and if you don't have fairness at the end of the day, you can't get things done.

We're saying we don't have to go down that road. Let's make some commonsense reforms to find the offsets to deal with the other priorities while still maintaining a proper safety net so when the farmers are in trouble, if market prices plummet, there will be a safety net for them; but let's not do it when they don't need it, so we can go home and look the taxpayers in the eyes and justify exactly what we're doing here.

Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, may I inquire how much time I have remaining?

Madam Chairman, just to give you an indication of how effective the current safety net is, it was recently discovered there was $1.1 billion in subsidy payments that went out to farmers who had already passed away.

Now, I want to recognize for 2 minutes a champion of family farmers and an advocate for reasonable, justifiable reform, my friend from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).

Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to an advocate of much- overdue reform of the crop insurance program, the gentleman from Tennessee, my good friend, Mr. Cooper.

Madam Chairman, I yield myself the remainder of the time.

Madam Chairman, change in this place is very difficult. In fact, sometimes the toughest thing to accomplish is changing the status quo.

But the fundamental fact is that when you've got two-thirds of the subsidy program in this farm bill going to just 30 congressional districts who are well represented on the committee, I think it's unrealistic to expect that that committee's going to produce a policy statement that embraces reform and new ideas. I should know. I used to serve on the committee. And I'm not being critical. That's just a fact. They have their districts to represent as we have districts to represent as well.

My district takes a hit under this reform bill. But sometimes it takes a group of well-intentioned individuals to move the cause of reform forward, and that's what we're trying to do tonight.