Doc Hastings

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes. Madam Speaker, I am disappointed my friend from Massachusetts would not respond to my asking him to yield when he spoke just a moment ago, and I am not discounting at all how important the provisions in this agriculture bill, how important they are, notwithstanding some of the problems that I have. But this issue that we are talking about, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA, is very important and it is timely right now. Right now. Let me explain how this process works, because this does not slow down. And I shouldn't say it doesn't slow it down; it slows it down for one hour. Can't we take 1 hour to debate this issue? If the previous question is defeated, and I will call for it to be defeated on the floor. If it is defeated, then the rule will be amended to take up the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act amendments for one hour to debate up or down. This issue is very, very important and it is timely that it gets acted on before Congress leaves for the August district work period. So this does not slow down agriculture. It is not saying anything disparaging about agriculture. And, frankly, Madam Speaker, I should know. I live in an agriculture- based economy. All of my neighbors are involved, in one way or the other, in agriculture. So I should know the importance of it. But I also know the importance of taking up this issue regarding FISA and doing it right now, doing it this week, doing it today, by defeating the previous question. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Rogers), a member of the Intelligence Committee.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I want to thank my good friend the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes. Madam Speaker, this Agricultural, Rural Development, and Food and Drug Administration appropriations bill provides more than $18.8 billion in discretionary spending for the next fiscal year. This bill represents an increase in spending by nearly 6 percent over last year's bill and continues the trend of the Democrat majority choosing to provide spending increases well above the rate of inflation and putting each taxpayer in the country on a path towards an average $3,000 increase in their Federal tax bill. Madam Speaker, this is too great a burden for the American taxpayer to pay. As many of my colleagues know, I represent one of the premier agriculture districts in the country. Central Washington is rightfully famous for its apples, cherries, wine and many other farm and ranch products. The programs funded under this bill are of great importance to the communities I represent, and there are some provisions in the bill that I do indeed support. For example, I am pleased that funding is maintained for rural development, which provides critical financial help to rural communities across the country. This bill also fully funds the Natural Resources Conservation Service, which provides on-the-ground technical assistance to farmers and ranchers dealing with soil and water management issues. I also note that this bill maintains a provision that I have long supported which allows Americans to be able to purchase drugs in other countries at lower prices and bring them back to the United States lawfully. However, Madam Speaker, I am very disappointed that this bill cuts Agriculture Research Service funding by over $50 million compared to last year. I represent three Agriculture Research Service labs, two of which are collocated with Washington State University research facilities. Federally sponsored agriculture research not only improves crop productivity, it also helps farmers and ranchers find solutions to environmental and marketing challenges. Many agriculture research initiatives were already facing the prospect of cutting essential research programs and researchers. Surely, Madam Speaker, with such a big increase over last year's spending level, we could have found room to at least protect the level of research being conducted today. I am concerned about the potential impacts of these cuts and what it would mean for facilities in my district, in particular the Agriculture Research Service lab in Prosser. I intend to continue to work with my colleagues from Washington to ensure that we provide the funding necessary to maintain the important agriculture research activities already underway at these facilities. I am also disappointed that this bill provides only $10 million for the Specialty Crops Block Grant program. This program provides grants distributed by the State departments of agriculture to assist the development, production and marketing of fruits and vegetables. Earlier this year, I joined a bipartisan group of my colleagues in asking that this program be fully funded at the $44.5 million level. This bill falls far short on this account. Madam Speaker, if we pass this rule today, the House will begin consideration of the Agriculture, Rural Development, and Food and Drug Administration appropriations bill. While this must be accomplished in a timely manner, the Senate in fact will not begin consideration of this bill until September and there is, frankly, a more pressing issue facing our Nation today. Watching the news and reading the newspapers, Americans are reminded each day that the United States remains vulnerable to another terrorist attack. It is vital that our laws keep us one step ahead of the terrorists, but currently, Madam Speaker, we lag behind. Right now, Federal law ties the hands of our intelligence community, causing them to miss significant portions of intelligence, all because technological advances have outpaced Federal law. We cannot wait to respond only after another attack. We must act today. Therefore, Madam Speaker, I will be calling on my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question. By defeating the previous question, we will give Members the ability to vote today on the merits of changing current law to ensure our intelligence community has the tools they need to protect our Nation from a potentially imminent terrorist attack. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. HASTINGS of Washington asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5\1/ 2\ minutes to the ranking member of the Ag appropriations committee, Mr. Kingston of Georgia.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt).

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt), a member of the Appropriations Committee.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

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

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

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. 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.

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