PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2419, FARM, NUTRITION, AND BIOENERGY ACT OF 2007 -- (House of Representatives - July 26, 2007)
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. DOGGETT. New York Times, June 18, 2002. ``There would be no effect on legitimate multinational corporations like DaimlerChrysler that have not used a haven to avoid American taxes.''
Yesterday, 2:41 p.m., letter from Unilever Global Affairs vice president. He says that his company, which owns Ben and Jerry's, would not be affected by this bill.
What we've heard is nonsense. It's not evidence. Claims, not evidence.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, farm and ranch families deserve a safety net, and fiscal responsibility demands that we pay for it. We pay for this farm bill, every penny of it, and some of it is done by stopping one group of multinational corporations from dodging their United States tax liability. For too long they have enjoyed a free ride from these Republicans, at the expense of other American taxpayers. It is wrong, and we are putting a stop to it.
Our target is very narrow: No company headquartered in the United States of America will have its taxes go up one penny, nor will it have any significant impact on any foreign corporation with whom we have a tax treaty, as we do with most developed countries. Indeed, 90 percent of the revenue, according to the nonpartisan staff of the Joint Tax Committee, comes from companies that have tax hideaways with these countries down in the Caribbean that have no tax treaty and no corporate taxes or little taxes. And the remaining 10 percent of revenue from their proposal, most of it is going to be simply a matter of shifting taxes between countries in tax credits.
I have listened to these Republicans identify one company after another that they cried big crocodile tears about, and I haven't heard them identify a single company that is likely to have an increase in its taxes as a result of this proposal.
There are others hiding in the shadows that know they have no justified case. And they have some of their friends out front, including one company that I read an e-mail from yesterday saying they don't like my bill, but it doesn't affect them a penny. That is the people that own Ben and Jerry's.
Well, today the Administration may be teaming up with those willing to kill this farm bill by defending these foreign tax evaders, but that is not the tune they were singing 5 years ago when in this Treasury report they said ``an appropriate, immediate response, an immediate response, should address the U.S. tax advantages that are available to foreign-based companies because of their ability to reduce the U.S. corporate tax on income from their American operations.''
Mr. Brady says Treasury did something about it? They sat on their rear and didn't do anything about it. And if you need any proof of that, gentleman, turn to the President's budget 5 months ago. He turned to this same source of revenue and all this job-killing tax proposal you are talking about. How many jobs did his $2 billion proposal that he put out here 5 months ago in February kill? Well, you haven't suggested there are any, because even this President, President Bush, admits there is a problem here that needs to be fixed, and this committee gets about fixing it.
You talk about jeopardizing 5 million jobs. What a lot of nonsense. That is all the jobs of all the foreign subsidiaries in the United States, the vast majority of which are corporations that are not touched by this proposal.
Your problem isn't jobs. Your problem is you never met a tax loophole you didn't like. You never met a tax dodger you didn't want to help. You have done a good job of doing it, and it is time we fix that.
I don't know why it is that a farm and ranch family in High Hill, Texas, or a drugstore on the main street of Bastrop, Texas, ought to have to pay higher relative taxes on their earnings than some multinational with a fancy CPA and a law firm and a hideaway in Bermuda.
It is wrong, and each of us must stand to choose between the two.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT