Pollinator Protection Act of 2007

Mr. Chairman, I would first like to commend Chairman Peterson and the members of the Agriculture Committee for completing the difficult task of bringing this bill to the floor in a bipartisan fashion.

I supported the 2002 farm bill, which has served Michigan farmers well. The agricultural sector in this country is strong, and it is a good time to take a look at our farm support system and figure out how we can make it better for small farmers and specialty crop farmers.

We must recognize that farming is an inherently risky enterprise; producers are exposed to both production and price risks. Therefore, it is incumbent upon our government to be there for farmers when markets fail. We cannot afford to turn our back on America's farmers and our farm policy should be structured so that those who produce the safest and most abundant food supply in the world have an adequate safety net. We should also promote research to find new uses for the agricultural products grown in our fields and to promote these products in the global marketplace. However, it is not our responsibility to give cash payouts to millionaires, dead farmers or suburbanites who have no involvement in farming but just happened to purchase a house located on farmland.

In 2005, 92 percent of the total farm payments last year went to just five crops. Michigan has the second-most diverse agriculture base in the Nation and I am glad to see that for the first time, the farm legislation before us today guarantees a historic $1.5 billion in funding for fruit and vegetable programs, including the school fresh fruit and vegetable program, the farmer's market promotion program, specialty crop block grants and research and organic food programs--all of which provide valuable support for the fresh fruit and vegetable growers in Michigan.

The legislation before us today strengthens incentives for farmers to conserve valuable natural resources and protect the environment. Currently, three out of four farmers are turned away from conservation programs due to lack of funding. It is unacceptable for farmers who are trying to do the right thing for the environment to be rejected because we have not allocated enough resources to help them. H.R. 2419, the Farm, Nutrition, and Bioenergy Act of 2007, adds $4.3 billion more to preserve farm and ranchland, improve water quality and quantity, and enhance soil conservation, air quality, and wildlife habitat on working lands.

I support the Fairness amendment offered by my colleague Ron Kind not because I am dissatisfied with H.R. 2419 but because I believe that it goes one step farther towards curbing taxpayer subsidies by reforming our farm payment system to direct aid to those who need assistance. Make no mistake, the Fairness amendment does not dismantle the

safety net--it just modernizes the program so that it works better for family farms and 348 Congressional Districts, including Michigan's 15th District, which would gain $6 million under the Kind proposal.

The Fairness amendment does not weaken any of the commendable nutrition or conservation provisions in H.R. 2419--rather, it makes them better by adding $2 billion for nutrition programs and $3 billion for conservation programs. Moreover, it does all of this without requiring spending offsets or new taxes.

Mr. Chairman, H.R. 2419 contains no legislative text expressing a view on whether manure should be deemed a hazardous substance pursuant to the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, CERCLA, or the Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act, EPCRA. The absence of any such text is proper both for parliamentary and policy reasons.

The report that accompanies this legislation, however, references a ``sense of the committee'' amendment that farm animal manure should not be deemed a hazardous substance pursuant to CERCLA and EPCRA.

I strongly disagree with these sentiments, which would create a blanket exemption from important environmental laws for those large concentrated animal feeding operations that pollute public drinking water supplies with phosphorous and emit more than 100 pounds per day of ammonia and hydrogen sulfide into the air.

Manure is not at risk of being deemed a ``hazardous substance'' or ``hazardous waste.'' That is misinformation put forth by some. Phosphorous, however, is a ``hazardous substance'' under CERCLA and the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, has determined that both ammonia and hydrogen sulfide are ``extremely hazardous substances'' for the ``reportable quantity'' reporting requirements of EPCRA.

Congress clearly intended that the Superfund program deal with the improper and excessive application of fertilizer that pollutes drinking water supplies or damages natural resources. This is manifestly clear because Section 101 (22) of the Superfund statute creates an exemption from the definition of release for ``the normal application of fertilizer.'' If substances such as phosphorous that emanate from the excessive application of manure fertilizer are exempted, the only people being protected are the bad actors.

These large concentrated animal feeding operations produce huge amounts of animal waste. For example, an animal feeding operation with 2 million hogs produces a volume of manure equal to the solid waste stream of a U.S. city of about 2.7 million--a city similar in size to Chicago's 2.8 million population.

The Environmental Protection Agency has found that large-scale concentrated animal feeding operations present significant human health and environmental risks. Let me quote EPA's findings:

``Significant human health and environmental risks are generally associated with large-scale Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations, CAFOs. Improper handling of manure from feedlots, lagoons and improper land application can result in excessive nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorous); pathogens (i.e., fecal coli form); and other pollutants in the water. This pollution can kill fish, cause excessive algae growth, and contaminate drinking water. In addition, emissions of air pollutants from very large CAFOs may result in significant health effects for nearby residents.''

A blanket exemption from CERCLA for excessive application of manure fertilizer would also shift the costs onto community water systems and their ratepayers for additional treatment to make water potable. I attach the July 23, 2007, letter from the Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies that highlights the serious consequences that any such an exemption would have for the quality our Nation's drinking water supplies.

Mr. Chairman, the Farm Bill Extension Act also makes changes to the Rural Utilities Service broadband loan and loan guarantee program. While this program is in dire need of reform, I am concerned about several provisions in the measure as drafted.

The measure wisely limits loans and loan guarantees in areas where consumers already have broadband service available to them. I am deeply concerned, however, that it describes those areas where broadband is available too broadly, so that applications to provide broadband to large areas of a community that currently have no broadband service at all would be denied.

The bill also prohibits support in areas where more than 75 percent of households have access to broadband. National satellite broadband providers can in theory reach close to 100 percent of households. However, while satellite-delivered broadband is a rapidly-improving and valuable service, particularly in remote areas, today it is often not comparable to terrestrially-delivered broadband. It typically cannot reach the same speeds and is more expensive and subject to outages in heavy rainstorms and other severe weather. While I appreciate the bill's commitment to technological neutrality, if satellite-delivered broadband is not excluded from the 75-percent requirement, there may be few areas that would be eligible for loans.

When it comes to broadband service, speed is critical, and the measure could also be improved by giving priority to applications that, other things being equal, propose to offer higher broadband speeds to consumers.

I also strongly disagree with creating within the Department of Agriculture a National Center for Rural Telecommunications Assessment to increase broadband penetration and develop assessments of broadband availability in rural areas. These are matters that fall squarely within the expertise of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and should be left to that agency's expertise. Likewise, any report describing a comprehensive rural broadband strategy should be developed by the FCC rather than by the Department of Agriculture. I applaud the goal of working toward universal broadband availability and urge my colleagues to ensure that we attain that goal by allowing the FCC, the agency with the most expertise, to spearhead that effort.

Association of

Metropolitan Water Agencies,

Washington, DC, July 23, 2007.

Subject: Oppose CERCLA Animal Waste Exemption in Farm Bill.

Dear Representatives: As the House of Representatives

prepares this week to consider legislation to reauthorize the

Farm Bill, we urge you to reject language that would exempt

components of animal waste from designation as a hazardous

substance pursuant to the Comprehensive Environmental

Response Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA). Enactment

of such an exemption would bring about serious consequences

for the quality of America's drinking water supplies.

During last week's markup of the legislation, the

Agriculture Committee adopted an amendment expressing the

``sense of the committee that farm animal manure should not

be considered as hazardous substance'' under CERCLA. This

follows the introduction earlier this year of legislation in

the House and Senate that would specifically exempt animal

waste and its components from the law.

As representatives of community drinking water systems, we

believe it is important to note that animal manure itself is

not currently considered a hazardous substance, pollutant or

contaminant under CERCLA. Moreover, the law already contains

an exemption for the normal application of fertilizer that

includes manure.

However, phosphorus and other CERCLA-regulated hazardous

substances that are known to compromise the quality of

drinking water are commonly present in animal manure. If

Congress were to provide a blanket CERCLA exemption for

animal waste, consolidated animal feeding operations (CAFOs)

would be free to discharge manure containing such hazardous

substances into the environment without regard to its impact

or liability for its damages. As a result, the costs of

additional treatment to make water potable would be forced

upon community water systems and their ratepayers, unfairly

shifting the burden of cleanup away from polluters.

Later this year, Congress will celebrate the 35th

anniversary ofthe Clean Water Act, landmark legislation

modeled on the belief that all Americans must share the

responsibility of maintaining the health of our nation's

water supply. Exempting CAFOs from their fair share of this

duty not only threatens to reverse the water quality gains

that have been realized over the recent decades, but would

also set a dangerous precedent encouraging other polluters to

seek waivers from our environmental laws.

Again, we urge you to oppose a blanket exemption for animal

waste and its components from the important requirements of

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 2419, the Farm, Nutrition, and Bioenergy Act, because I recognize its value to rural America and the promise it brings for renewing our national commitment to agriculture, nutritional research and food safety, and alternative energy and conservation.

I recognize that this legislation has been carefully crafted by a committee chaired by our highly respected colleague, the gentleman from Minnesota, Mr. Peterson. I commend him for his leadership. This legislation sets Federal farm policy and will be the basis for agricultural governance over the next 5 years. Importantly, it takes into account in several respects, the needs and priorities of farmers and ranchers residing in the territories.

The bill earns my support because it provides a reliable safety net for commodity crops, buttresses, in many respects, core conservation programs, and will now strengthen important domestic and international food nutrition programs.

Within this bill is a renewed and increased commitment to specialty crops. Specialty crops are important to the farmers and ranchers and consumers in the territories. Mr. Chairman, in the territories, we live and share the experiences of everyday life in rural America. We have much in common with our fellow Americans living and working in the small States and in the heartland of the U.S. mainland. We are economically challenged and strong Federal-local partnerships are the backbone of our ability to grow and diversify our economies.

Conservation in the islands is achieved through such partnerships. This bill presents a means through which such partnerships can be continued and strengthened. Historically, the Government of Guam has sought and utilized loans and programs under the Rural Development umbrella of the United States Department of Agriculture, USDA, to build its public works and infrastructure. Our utilities have largely and historically been constructed with Rural Development support. The continuation of authority for the range of Rural Development programs administered by USDA through Title VI of H.R. 2419 is one reason why I lend my support to this bill. These programs will be relied upon as a means to help our community of Guam meet additional and projected needs associated with the rebasing of Marines from Okinawa to Guam and realignment of defense forces in the Pacific Rim.

The bill carries other provisions of unique interest to me and to my colleagues from the territories. In particular, I am grateful for the accommodations made and the support received from Chairman Peterson and the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Goodlatte, for two specific provisions.

First, now within the research title of the bill, as a result of the amendment I sponsored with the gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands, Mrs. Christensen, the gentleman from American Samoa, Mr. Faleomavaega, and the gentleman from Puerto Rico, Mr. Fortuno, that was packaged into the en bloc amendment offered by Chairman Peterson, USDA will have authority to award grants to the land grant institutions in the territories for facilities improvements, construction, and equipment acquisition and repair.

Congress designated the University of Guam and the University of the Virgin Islands as land grant institutions by an Act passed in 1972. That Act was amended by Congress in 1980 to designate American Samoa Community College, the Northern Marianas College, and the College of Micronesia, as land grant institutions.

The land grants colleges and universities in the territories are a unique set of institutions with special needs and challenges within the national land grant college and university family. Our institutions are known informally as the 1972 community, and like the 1890 and 1994 communities, are an underserved set of institutions that USDA has authority to support in key areas.

The new authority under this bill for a grants program in support of facilities improvements and equipment acquisition will strengthen the institutional capacity at the land grant institutions in the territories to sponsor research and execute extension activities of national value. This is a $40 million authorization across 5 years. We have requested that this authority be included within the bill to complement USDA resources to support research and extension and instruction capacity building in the territories. Our land grant institutions are vital to our success in the islands--economically,

agriculturally, scientifically, and environmentally. Our institutions have limited resources, but these institutions and the territorial governments meet the matching requirements under the Hatch Act each year because these programs are so important to our communities.

The bill also extends the authorization for two grants programs authorized by the 2002 farm bill. These are the resident instruction and distance education grants programs for the territories.

Second, is an amendment that we proposed and that was placed into the bill to amend the definition of ``State'' in the Specialty Crops Competitiveness Act of 2004 to include American Samoa, Guam, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and the Virgin Islands of the United States, as eligible recipients of block grant funding that stands to be reauthorized by this bill. The inclusion of this provision is a significant victory for the territories. I am grateful for the support received from the gentleman from California, Mr. Cardoza, for its inclusion in the bill.

Our farmers have invested in harvesting many traditional and tropical fruits, nuts, and horticultural specialties. Avocados, bananas, beans, betel nuts, breadfruits, coconuts, cucumbers, grapefruit, guavas, limes and lemons, mangoes, oranges, papayas, peppers, pineapples, squash, sweetsops, tangerines, tomatoes, and watermelons, are, for example, several of the specialty crops harvested in the territories whose market competitiveness stands to be improved now as a result of this bill.

The inclusion of the territories in this block grant funding will help our local Departments of Agriculture increase the capacity of our farmers to competitively farm and sell specialty crops. On Guam alone, the market value of specialty crops sold was estimated in 2002 by the National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) at $3.4 million. We hope this new funding will result in increased production of fresh vegetables and local fruits and make Guam's market prices competitive.

It is for these reasons, and others, that I support H.R. 2419. As the Chairwoman of the Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife and Oceans, I recognize the value the bill presents for conservation. I support it because of its conservation provisions. I look forward to working with the leadership to protect the provisions important to the territories and to national conservation by the conference committee.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I have to oppose the gentleman's amendment. Not that I don't support the Grassland Reserve Program, but the provisions of the commodity title were worked out by the committee very carefully in an effort to balance all of the various commodities' needs in that process. We don't think that it is fair to single out one commodity for changes even though it is for a worthwhile purpose. Cotton has already seen major changes with the bill's termination of the storage payments and also major reforms in payment limitations.

Additionally, the bill provides 1,340,000 acres to be enrolled in GRP, a substantial increase. I know that the gentleman from Colorado has been a leader in the coalition that has been advocating this program, and I appreciate his efforts and leadership in this area. Unfortunately, targeting any single commodity, in this case, cotton, for further reductions in their safety net is unwarranted and unfair. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment.

I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Neugebauer).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the chairman of the General Farm Commodity Subcommittee that deals with this issue, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Etheridge).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Conaway).

Mr. Chairman, I think that the other gentlemen have eloquently stated the case, and I want to reiterate that this is not a fair process to single out one commodity.

I want to take the balance of my time to recognize the tremendous efforts of the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Berry) in working with us on this farm bill. And also, if he were here, he would be speaking out very strongly on this amendment as well. We oppose this amendment and encourage our colleagues to support us in that regard.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, we had a debate similar to this not too long ago, and I'll say it again, that while we've added several billion dollars to the conservation baseline, we still have backlogs in most of those programs.

And the question to me is the same: if large farms shouldn't be eligible for title I payments, why should they be eligible for title II payments? If these operations are diversified enough to have problems with farm income exemption, same question, do they really need Federal payments?

So I'd like to hear the arguments against because, to me, a strong title I is necessary to even carry out our conservation programs. If the farmers don't have a strong safety net, that work on conservation is going to be the first thing that's sacrificed. So with limited Federal funds for conservation, we need to make priorities, and providing funds for larger producers and folks with lots of off-the- farm income is a tough choice; but it's a choice we have to make.

I'd just like to say that one of the most important reforms that people have pointed to in this bill is that we have finally put a hard cap on adjusted gross income, and this has caused a lot of pain for a lot of people. So it just is not right to have a hard cap on the commodity title and not have a hard cap on conservation.

So I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment.

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

I guess we have no further speakers, so I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I submit the following information for the Record.

U.S. House of Representatives,

Committee on Agriculture,

Washington, DC, July 26, 2007.

Hon. Charles B. Rangel,

Chairman, Committee on Ways and Means, Longworth House Office

Building, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Rangel: Thank you for your letter regarding

the Committee on Ways and Means' jurisdictional interest in

H.R. 2419, the Farm, Nutrition, and Bioenergy Act 2007.

I appreciate your willingness to expedite this legislation

for floor consideration, with the understanding that it does

not prejudice your Committee's jurisdictional prerogatives on

this or similar legislation.

I will submit a copy of your letter and this response as

part of the Congressional Record during consideration of the

legislation on the House floor. Thank you for your support of

H.R. 2419 and your cooperation as we work towards enactment

of this important legislation.

Sincerely,

Collin C. Peterson,

Chairman.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion.

Mr. Speaker, I recognize the distinguished chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Rangel, for such time as he may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York for that statement. I want to alert the Members of the body that this motion to recommit has the word ``promptly'' in it. What that means is if this goes back to the committee, this kills this bill. It kills the reform that we have done in this bill. It kills the additional nutrition that has been put into this bill, the energy, all the other hard work of this committee.

Now, I am a CPA, and I used to do taxes for a living. I agree with the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee: this is not a tax increase. This is doing what is right for this country.

What we ought to be looking into is why we are having the taxpayers of this country fund people in the Treasury Department and fund people in the State Department to go out and make treaties with other countries so we can have foreign corporations come to this country and avoid taxes.

That is what this is about. If you have a straight-up deal between the United States and Germany, this does not affect you. It only affects you if you set up a corporation in another country that doesn't have a tax rate and go through that process.

Mr. Speaker, you can call this whatever you want. But the truth of the matter is that if you send the bill back to the Agriculture Committee, we do not have the offsets in the Agriculture Committee to do what is in this bill. So you are, in effect, killing this bill. I just want everybody to understand that.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, everyone should be able to support the upcoming Cooper amendment, whether you're for or against the farm bill. It really doesn't make any difference because my amendment doesn't affect 99 percent of what's in the farm bill, but it does affect 1 percent.

And what is that? It's called the crop insurance industry, a little known curious part of the insurance world that is completely dominated by 16 fabulously rich companies. These companies, at taxpayer expense, made $2.8 billion in profits, underwriting gains, in the last 5 years. I don't begrudge anyone big profits out in the real world; but when it's at taxpayer subsidy expense, I get a little worried.

So what my amendment would do is two things. Number one, it would reform that industry and reform it in the way that the U.S. Department of Agriculture has recommended, and I'm proud that they strongly support my amendment.

But it also does something else, and we only found this out yesterday, and this is very important because it could well not only save the bill, it could save the reputation of many of our colleagues in the House because there is a provision in the bill today that I'm sure was unintended. I have no idea how it got in there, how it found a place on page 668 of the bill. It just happens to enrich forever these 16 crop insurance companies.

Now, what does that little slender provision do which the Bush administration has already said allows them to collude to raise prices for consumers and the government? That little provision allows them an antitrust exemption, an antitrust exemption that, of course, was never referred to the Judiciary Committee. No one on the Judiciary Committee knows about it. I haven't found anybody on the Agriculture Committee who knew about it, but it's a long-sought goal of the crop insurance industry so that they can collude to price-fix, to bid-rig in their negotiations with the government so they can get even more subsidies, because apparently $2.8 billion in profits in the last 5 years was not enough.

So my amendment is the only way to cut out that provision. Unless some of our colleagues are not attuned to antitrust laws, these antitrust obligations are not just wrong. Talking in contract negotiations is supposed to be an open-bidding process, a real free market competition. This sort of behavior is not just wrong; it is criminal, criminal.

So unintentionally and apparently unbeknownst to most folks on the committee, we are giving them a license to conduct what would otherwise be criminal antitrust behavior. This is wrong. This is so wrong it should not be part of any of this bill, and I am sure that no one intended it, although it just happens to benefit these 16 companies.

Now, these are not bad people who work for these companies; but it's a rotten system, and it doesn't need to be destroyed, but it does need to be reformed; and we need to follow the guidelines of the Bush administration in reforming it because I haven't found anybody else who's willing to take on this task.

But surely this can bring us together in a bipartisan fashion to cure this flaw in the bill.

Modification to Amendment No. 27 Offered by Mr. Cooper

Mr. Chairman, in order to discourage this illegal criminal behavior, I ask unanimous consent for a modification of my amendment so that it can be handled properly according to parliamentary fashion.

Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. Chairman, the gentleman who just spoke knows that we discussed this precise matter at dinner last night. He was not caught unawares at all. We discussed it at some length at dinner.

Second, it is the prerogative of any Member of this House to defend the honor of this institution. I am personally extremely disappointed that our provision allowing what would otherwise be antitrust violation, wrongful, possibly criminal behavior, would be allowed to be inserted in this bill, apparently without the knowledge of anyone on the committee, certainly not of anyone on the Judiciary Committee.

I regret his objection. But my intention is clear. We need to reform crop insurance in America. I only found out about this issue, as the gentleman said correctly, because I am fortunate enough to be a member of the Government Reform Committee.

Under the hearings led by Henry Waxman, we did more to uncover abuse in this area than the Agriculture Committee ever did. In fact, when I attended the agriculture hearing, only four members of that committee were present to hear the government witnesses to describe the ongoing abuse in the crop insurance industry, witnesses from the GAO and USDA

Will the gentleman yield?

I have the highest respect for the gentleman and for all the members of the Agriculture Committee. I am sure this was not intentional. That's why I am trying to correct the problem.

When I looked into it, 84 percent of the savings that are in the agriculture bill from crop insurance happened only in year 5. Nothing happens in year 1, 2, 3, 4. Year 5 is the year in which the next agriculture bill will be drafted. It's very unlikely that those cuts will ever occur, when 84 percent of them are back-loaded in year 5. So that was my concern about those cuts.

But the larger provision, allowing these collusive discussions and negotiations with the government, surely the gentleman is disturbed by those.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, the committee bill makes significant reforms to the Crop Insurance Program. The bill reduced the statutory loss ratio to an actuarially sound 1.0. By doing this, we were able to include a provision by Mr. Neugebauer that makes additional crop insurance available, which has to be paid for, which will lessen need for disaster assistance.

Mr. Neugebauer's provision is similar in many respects to the administration's crop insurance plan. The committee bill increases premiums for the catastrophic level of coverage.

We authorize the USDA to renegotiate the standard reinsurance agreement every 5 years. The committee bill specifically authorizes data mining to ensure compliance with rules of the program. The committee bill also reduces the reimbursement rate by 2 percentage points. These are significant changes that make the program more actuarially sound and make the program more responsible with taxpayer dollars.

Additionally, the committee-passed bill authorized an additional 1 million acres in the GRP land to protect sensitive grasslands in this country. While we all would like more money for many programs, this is a carefully balanced approach. I think we have done a good job of balancing the needs of both commodity producers and those that would like to preserve native grasslands.

I strongly oppose this amendment.

I would be happy to yield.

Reclaiming my time from the gentleman, let me just say that these changes are real, they are legitimate, they will be put into effect. The chairman has committed to holding additional hearings and investigation into the matter. We will do that.

But to pull the safety net out from under American farmers and ranchers by doing something in a precipitous fashion is not a good idea.

Therefore, I oppose the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

Yes, in its current form.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the chairman of the Agriculture Committee, the members of the Agriculture Committee on both sides of the aisle, and the staff of the Agriculture Committee for working in a bipartisan fashion to write a good farm bill.

This farm bill has a lot of things in it I don't like, a lot of things I do. I think the chairman would say the same thing about the bill. But, Mr. Speaker, I cannot support this legislation because of what happened after this bill left the Agriculture Committee and came to this floor with a tax increase added in the middle of the night with no hearings in the Ways and Means Committee and no markup in the Ways and Means Committee.

This is the wrong way to maintain bipartisan comity in this House, and to force the American people and the Members of this House to choose between tax increases and the farm bill that America's farmers and ranchers need.

I yield to the ranking member of the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. McCrery.

Reclaiming my time, this motion to recommit is very straightforward. It takes out the tax increases in this bill, sends it back to the Agriculture Committee. And we would be delighted to work with the leadership that did not work with us before to find a pay-for that works for this.

We went to the Budget Committee at the start of this process in a bipartisan fashion and pointed out that the reforms in this bill cost money, and asked for that money to be forthcoming. It was not.

Now, based upon previous experience, I would not be at all surprised to see a cameo appearance in a moment from the majority leader saying that, because this bill is sent back to committee to report back promptly, that we're killing the bill. We are doing no such time thing. We are doing what is necessary to make sure that this bill is treated in a bipartisan fashion and that the bill is paid for in a way that adjusts our budget fairly to make sure that agriculture and America's farmers and rangers got treated the way they should have been treated at the outset of this process when $60 billion was lost because of the baseline in agriculture.

And then we're asked to make reforms, many of which I support, but this, mark my words, is a tax increase that is not fair to the American people. It puts pressure on companies investing in this country. It will increase taxes on those workers. It will also call into question the credibility of the United States for future investment in this country if we violate treaties, 58 treaties that we have negotiated. And finally, it will cause retaliation against American investment overseas as well.

So I urge my colleagues to vote for this motion to recommit. Send it back. Do the right thing. Do not put America's workers against America's farmers and ranchers. Support this motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, in my time remaining, I would point out that this is a tax increase because the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, when he came to the floor last night, said it was a tax increase. The tax experts I've spoken to say it's a tax increase. Not withstanding what anybody says, it's a tax increase. Don't support it.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.