Farm, Nutrition, and Bioenergy Act of 2007

FARM, NUTRITION, AND BIOENERGY ACT OF 2007 -- (House of Representatives - July 27, 2007)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. HOYER. I thank my distinguished friend, Mr. Etheridge, chairman of one of our subcommittees on the Ag Committee.

I rise to congratulate Mr. Peterson; indeed, I rise to congratulate Mr. Goodlatte as well, who did work together. In fact, as late as Monday, we were together coming back from New York and talked about this bill. He indicated he thought it was a good bill. He did express then, quite honestly, he wanted to look at the pay-fors. That was obviously fair. He has decided that because of them, he cannot support the bill. I regret that.

I want to thank the chairman of the committee, Congressman Peterson of Minnesota, for his hard work on this important legislation and his efforts in crafting a bipartisan reform bill. I think he has a bipartisan reform bill. I understand the pay-fors may preclude some, hopefully not all, from voting for this.

I would say to my friends on the other side of the aisle, you were very good at spending money and not very good at paying for things. You are consistent to that extent today. You went from a $5.6 trillion surplus to a $3 trillion deficit because we did not pay for what we bought. This bill does that.

It is a testament to the hard work of Mr. Peterson and others on the committee that this farm bill reauthorization passed out of the Agriculture Committee on a voice vote, that is, with unanimous bipartisan support.

I also appreciate the work of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind) who cares deeply and thoughtfully about agriculture and our rural communities. His effort, with respect to this bill, was a very positive one. He has made important contributions on this issue, and I congratulate Mr. Kind, one of the finest Members of this body.

I believe that this farm bill deserves to pass today with strong bipartisan support. And I note that the ranking member of the committee, as I have said, even expressed on the House floor yesterday, Mr. Goodlatte said he would support this bill were it not for the inclusion of a pay-for.

About that provision, let us be clear. At literally the 11th hour, as this farm bill was about to be considered on this floor, the White House issued a veto threat and amazingly complained that we are actually trying to pay for this legislation, in part, by closing a corporate tax loophole. Now, when you close a loophole, does it mean that somebody is paying taxes that they otherwise would not pay? That's the definition of a loophole. Not just any corporate tax loophole, mind you, but a corporate tax loophole that the Bush administration itself recommended closing in 2002 and which Bill Thomas, the Republican chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, agreed with.

Let me quote Ken Dam, then-Deputy Treasury Secretary, and I quote, ``Opportunities for earning stripping through artificial deductions and income shifting may exploit the network of tax treaties the United States maintains around the world.'' That's what we're dealing with. That's what Assistant Secretary Dam was talking about.

In 2002, the Treasury Department concluded, 2002, Republican Treasury Department concluded, ``The prevalent use of foreign related-party debt in inversion transactions is evidence that these rules should be revisited.'' That is what we're doing.

So we're asking those who make good money in America to pay their fair share of the taxes in America. I believe the overwhelming majority of Americans agree with that proposition. Yes, Democrats would make it harder for overseas companies to use tax havens to avoid taxes on U.S. profits from hardworking Americans who buy their products and expect them to pay a fair share, a position formerly held, as I said, by the Bush administration, and even Bill Thomas.

The provision is not only good tax policy, but also a clear manifestation of this new Democratic majority's commitment to abide by the new pay-as-you-go budget rules that will help us restore fiscal discipline.

Those rules were adopted in a bipartisan fashion in 1990, reiterated in 1997 in an agreement which I voted for, President Clinton supported, and it was not until 2002 that those were abandoned by the Republicans because you could not pay for your tax cuts. That's why you abandoned PAYGO. And that's why the $3 trillion debt occurred from a $5.6 trillion surplus.

Now, as to the substance of this farm bill, Chairman Peterson has written a bill that focuses on getting vital benefits to family farmers, investing in America's producer, stimulating rural economies, and securing renewable energy sources.

I, too, want to join in congratulating Stephanie Herseth Sandlin on the role that she has played in terms of the rural focus of this bill.

This bill imposes real payment limitations that will begin to reduce subsidies, moving in a new and right direction. It makes historic investments in programs to support food and vegetable producers, an important element for not only California and the northeast, the middle Atlantic, but other areas as well.

It improves funding and access to conservation programs. It imposes payment limits that prevent millionaires from receiving farm subsidy benefits and makes payments transparent. Could we go lower? We could. Should we in the future? Yes. But we have made, in my opinion, a very significant start.

It invests in nutrition programs that help families in need. In the richest country on the face of the Earth, we ought to make sure that no child in America goes to sleep at night or wakes up in the morning hungry. We're trying to move towards that. I see the gentleman from California (Mr. Baca) who has been very involved in these programs as well.

And it encourages the expansion of renewable fuel production, providing loan guarantees for the development of refineries that produce renewable fuels. Energy independence is a critical objective, and this bill moves us towards that objective.

Mr. Chairman, I am particularly pleased that this legislation includes more than $175 million in direct assistance to help our farmers in their ongoing efforts to be good stewards of the Chesapeake Bay. We have made some strides to restore this magnificent estuary, but much more work needs to be done.

I want to thank my friend Tim Holden from Pennsylvania and Nona Darrell, his chief staffer, who helped work on this effort.

To move us forward in this regard, the bill will implement an innovative strategy targeting individual river watersheds, including the Patuxent and the Potomac, to help our producers prevent shoreline erosion, control sediments, reduce nitrogen loads, and establish a long-term monitoring program.

Again, my colleagues, I want to congratulate Chairman Peterson on this bill. I also want to congratulate Mr. Goodlatte. I wish he was supporting this bill at this point in time, but I know that he worked to get much of the bill, which but for the pay-fors it's my understanding he would support. But the pay-fors are critical if America is going to pay its bills and not simply pass them along to future generations, whether they be farm children, suburban children, or rural children.

This bill is a responsible, important step forward in farm policy and energy policy and nutritional policy and in conservation policy. I congratulate the members of the committee on their product, and I urge my colleagues to enthusiastically support this product.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source