Bob Goodlatte

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, where are the jobs? They're certainly not in the so-called ``stimulus package'' that passed this Congress and that hasn't created any jobs. In fact, we've lost millions of jobs since that package passed. They are certainly not in the cap-and-tax legislation that passed this Congress 6 weeks ago. That legislation will cost millions of American jobs. Mr. Speaker, they most certainly are not in this so-called ``health care bill'' that the Democrats are offering today, which will cost an estimated 4.7 million jobs as employers find they can't pay the taxes being imposed upon them and as we see those jobs going overseas to countries where they can afford to do business. This is not the right way to preserve the choice for the American people in their health care. This is not the right way to make sure that our health care in this country is available to the many, many hundreds of millions of people who receive it today. We need to reform our health care system with legislation that deals with medical malpractice reform, with association health plans, with things that cut down on the cost before we address this massive tax increase.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Well, I thank the gentleman from Tennessee, my good friend, for yielding me this time and for organizing this excellent discussion about what we need to do about America's energy policy and about creating those jobs because we know we have the ideas. We have been talking about them for well over a year now in terms of the American Energy Act and things that we have been doing to try to bring this Congress in the right direction on the creation of new jobs by creating an America that is not dependent upon foreign sources of energy. I have had the privilege of traveling to the gentleman's district in Tennessee to talk about one of those areas. We held a conference down there, talking about renewable fuels, particularly fuels generated by switchgrass and other forms of agricultural production other than corn, which has been such a problem in our country today. That is right there, and that is something that we can do. We all support developing other forms of new technology. We want to find a cheaper way to build solar cells. We want to find a less expensive way to generate electricity from wind or to generate power from geothermal and other new technologies. We also want to encourage as much energy efficiency as we possibly can. All of those things will help our families and help our businesses. It will help them remain competitive and preserve and create jobs. But we also know that it is absolutely important, if America is going to create new jobs, that we have to utilize the resources that we have in this country, that we have been dependent upon for a long time. And until you have new technologies, you don't raise the cost of the types of energy that people are dependent upon. More than half of our electricity comes from coal, a resource which we have in tremendous abundance in this country. Twenty percent of our electricity comes from nuclear power, another area that the gentleman from Tennessee and I share a very strong common interest in, he having Oak Ridge in his congressional district and I having Lynchburg, a major nuclear power center in the country, in my congressional district. The legislation that we voted on a month ago here in the Congress did nothing to promote the most greenhouse gas-reducing form of electricity generation, nuclear power. That, to me, seemed to be something that was completely and totally neglected in that legislation. Coal, on the other hand, wasn't neglected. It was thrown out in a way that will raise the cost of electricity to my constituents and anybody in the country from areas that are heavily dependent upon electricity generation from coal, which, by the way, is most of the country. So that was the wrong approach. The right approach is the American Energy Act. Many of us--I think everybody who is here this evening-- came back here to Washington last August when gasoline prices were $4 a gallon and oil was $140 a barrel. We took the floor in a darkened Chamber day after day after day to talk to the people who were touring the Capitol. People around the country were aware of what we were doing to tell the story of what needed to be done. We came back into session in September, and that was completely ignored. And we never have revisited the need to have a comprehensive energy act where, if we really made this a top priority of our country, we would become free of dependence upon foreign oil and other foreign sources of energy in 15 or 20 years. And even more importantly, we would create millions of jobs, exploiting those resources that we have in this country. This is not a new idea. This is how America came to be a strong Nation, a competitive Nation, a Nation with millions of jobs. The reminder of the importance of doing this is right there above us on the wall, above our Speaker's rostrum, above the American flag, above our Nation's motto, ``In God we trust,'' at the very top of the wall, a famous quote from Daniel Webster that says, ``Let us develop the resources of our land, call forth its powers, build up its institutions, promote all its great interests, and see whether we also, in our day and generation, may not perform something worthy to be remembered.'' That saying, more than 150 years old, is every bit as important today as it was back when Daniel Webster said it. That's what we have to hearken to; not the idea that somehow government will solve all of these problems, that government can provide people with all the health care they need, paying for it with taxes on small businesses and losing jobs, mandating all kinds of new agencies and institutions, more than 30 to run this crazy program; not with the cap-and-tax proposal that will cost American jobs, raise the cost of living for every American, make it harder for manufacturers and farmers and others to be competitive with other countries around the world that have no intention of engaging in a practice that raises unnecessarily the cost of the basic ingredient for manufacturing and agricultural success and really enjoying a good standard of living for anyone's life, and that is having access to affordable sources of energy. It is certainly not going to be solved by having this government spend through the roof. We saw back in January the most amazing single appropriations bill ever, the so-called stimulus package to create jobs. Now here we are 6 months later, and the question is being asked day after day after day, not just by those of us here in the Congress but by people all across America, ``Where are the jobs?'' Well, you don't get them by government spending. You get them by returning to the ingenuity of the American people, their hardworking spirit, their knowledge that it is the free enterprise system that will bring this economy back. But we delay day after day after day and dig the hole deeper and deeper and deeper when we pile up debt like this-- $1 trillion. That is a stack of thousand-dollar bills 63 miles high. And then in March we went on to pass the budget for next year. We said, ``Ooh, I'll outdo that.'' I voted against it. Mr. Wamp voted against it. Others here talking tonight voted against it. Every Member of our party voted against it, but also a lot of Members in the other party voted against a budget that has a $1.2 trillion deficit for next year. That's a stack of thousand-dollar bills 75 miles high, which reaches up into outer space, and we don't see any end to it. The 10-year projection for the budget passed by the majority party and the President never sees it going below--the highest deficit ever before this year was $450 billion. It never gets below $600 billion ever again as far as the eye can see. That will cost jobs. That will raise the cost of living. That will raise interest rates and inflation. It is devastating to our country. We need to return to sound fiscal responsibility. We need to return to an opportunity to have an American energy policy that creates millions of jobs here by drilling for oil offshore and on Federal lands; by extracting the huge resources we have of natural gas; by building new, safe, more modern, latest-technology nuclear power plants; by using clean-burning coal technology and advancing that and developing new technologies. All of these things coupled together will lead to a bright future. But the path we are on now worries all Americans, and we need to turn off of it as quickly as possible. I thank the gentleman again and hope that the message that sits on our wall, let us develop the resources of our land--not Venezuela, not Nigeria, not Saudi Arabia. Let us develop the resources of our land. That will lead to the creation of the jobs that people are looking for and the restoration of our economy. I thank the gentleman.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Last week, Democratic leaders in Congress introduced the ``America's Affordable Health Choices Act,'' which sets the tone for a Washington takeover of the health care system, one defined by Federal regulation, mandates, a myriad of new big government programs, and a significant increase in Federal spending. A recent poll, which was released at the beginning of July, indicates that Americans by a margin of 2-1 think a government takeover of health care would be a bad thing. Unfortunately, the Democratic leadership is not listening to the American people and they are pushing legislation which only offers more of what is wrong with the current system. At least two different independent analyses of the House Democrats health care legislation estimate that more than 100 million Americans would lose their current health care coverage. In addition to losing their health insurance, Americans are going to lose control over their health care decisions. Under the Democrats' vision, Washington would have ultimate control over what is best for patients, what treatments are acceptable, and how long patients wait for needed care. Additionally, this misguided health care legislation is estimated to cost the Federal Government as much as $1.5 trillion. In fact, Congressional Budget Office Director Douglas Elmendorf testified before the House Ways and Means Committee that the coverage proposals in this legislation would expand Federal spending on health care to a significant degree. He went on to say that in CBO's analysis so far, they didn't see other provisions in the legislation reducing Federal health spending by a corresponding degree. To pay for this massive new government expansion, the legislation contains $820 billion in new job-killing tax increases imposed on certain income filers, a majority of whom are small businesses, even while the country remains in a serious recession. Struggling middle class families need jobs and small businesses cannot afford to hire more workers while paying higher taxes. It's simple. People want to focus on creating jobs, not raising taxes. For this reason, the National Retail Federation, which represents the employers of one in five American workers, the National Federation of Independent Business, which represents over 350,000 small and independent businesses, the United States Chamber of Commerce, and the National Association of Manufacturers all strongly oppose the current health care reform legislation. Rather than creating a massive government-managed health care bureaucracy that will dictate medical decisions from Washington, we should be concentrating our efforts on making health care more affordable for all Americans and giving them the freedom to choose the health care and health insurance plans that best fit their needs. Some important first steps toward real health care reform include creating health insurance tax credits, which will increase the affordability of health care for those who do not have access to employer-based health insurance, expanding health savings accounts, creating association health plans which allow employers to band together to purchase insurance coverage at lower rates for their employees, medical malpractice reform, which would discourage the practice of defensive medicine, and encouraging the establishment of a nationwide health information technology network which can reduce medical errors, save time, money and, most importantly, save lives. While we can all agree that our current health care system is flawed, there are many different ideas about how to fix it. Republicans have solutions that will empower patients with choices, make high quality coverage more affordable, and protect and preserve the doctor-patient relationship. The most important principles in health care reform are holding down costs and preserving consumer choices. We already spend far more per person than any other country in the world. Reform must mean using the health care dollars we now spend in a smarter, more effective way. We should be preserving and enhancing the ability of people to choose the plans that are tailored to their needs and the doctors that they trust to guide them, not putting more power in the hands of Washington bureaucrats.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, let me ask a question. I don't know if it has been asked yet today. The American people want to know, where are the jobs? We have a Congress that has gone off the tracks. A trillion- dollar stimulus package, that's thousand-dollar bills stacked 63 miles high. Did we get any jobs? No. We have a budget with a $1.2 trillion deficit built into it. Are we going to get jobs? No. We are going to get inflation and higher interest rates. We have a cap-and-tax bill that is going to kill American jobs by raising the cost of our traditional sources of energy, coal, nuclear and oil. We have a health care bill on the agenda before the Congress today that is going to kill jobs and raise the cost of health care to the American people rather than contain the cost and create more choice and more competition for the American people. This Congress is out of control, and the American people want to know, Mr. Speaker, where are the jobs?

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Speaker, I rise today to support this resolution urging the Senate to end further proceedings to remove Samuel Kent from his judicial office. On June 18, 2009, the House of Representatives overwhelmingly voted to impeach Judge Samuel Kent by adopting four, separate articles of impeachment without a single ``no'' vote. This House vote was the result of (1) a thorough investigation into Judge Kent's misconduct by the House Judiciary Committee's Task Force on Judicial Impeachment, (2) an investigatory hearing on the matter; (3) a Task Force meeting at which it made a formal recommendation to the full Judiciary Committee that Judge Kent should be impeached, and (4) a full Committee markup of the articles of impeachment. Indeed, the evidence clearly showed that Judge Kent's misconduct merited the serious step of impeachment. Judge Kent lied to the FBI and DOJ about the nature of his sexual misconduct with court employees. In addition, he pled guilty to felony obstruction of justice and to committing repeated acts of nonconsensual sexual contact with court employees. He was sentenced to 33 months in prison for committing felony obstruction of justice, and on Monday, June 15th, he reported to prison and began his prison term. However, because the Constitution provides that federal judges are appointed for life, Samuel Kent, despite the fact that he was sitting in prison, continued to collect his taxpayer-funded salary of approximately $174,000 per year, continued to collect his taxpayer- funded health insurance benefits, and continued to accrue his taxpayer- funded pension. Citizens of the U.S. have a right to a fair and impartial judiciary. The House vote to impeach Judge Samuel Kent sent the strong message to all federal judges that the House of Representatives will carry out its Constitutional duty to root out abuses of power in the federal judiciary. After the June 18th vote, the Senate began preparations for trial to convict Kent and remove him from office. On June 30, 2009, facing a public trial in the Senate, Judge Kent finally resigned from office. As a result of the swift action by the House and Senate, Samuel Kent is no longer a federal judge and he will no longer collect his taxpayer- funded salary or benefits while sitting in federal prison, nor will he do so after his release. I would like to take this opportunity to thank Adam Schiff, the chairman of the Task Force on Judicial Impeachment, for his leadership in this effort, along with all the Members of the Task Force on both sides of the aisle. As Ranking Member of the Impeachment Task Force, I appreciate the fact that this effort has been undertaken in an extremely bipartisan fashion. I would also like to thank Chairman Conyers and Ranking Member Smith for their comprehensive, yet expeditious and bipartisan consideration of the articles of impeachment in the full Judiciary Committee. Now that Samuel Kent is no longer serving as a federal judge, there is no longer a need for the Senate to remove him from office. Therefore, I support this resolution urging the Senate to end further proceedings in this matter.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Speaker, pursuant to the Republican Leadership standards on earmarks, I am submitting the following information regarding earmarks I received aspart of H.R. 3183, FY2010 Departments of Energy and Water Appropriations Act. Requesting Member: Congressman Bob Goodlatte Bill Number: H.R. 3183 Account: Construction Legal Name of Requesting Entity: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers/City of Roanoke, VA Address of Requesting Entity: 215 Church Street, Roanoke, Virginia Description of Request: $1,075,000 to continue construction of a flood control plan that includes 6 miles of channel widening. Bill Number: H.R. 3183 Account: Investigations Legal Name of Requesting Entity: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Address of Requesting Entity: 803 Front Street, Norfolk, VA 23510 Description of Request: The purpose of the Section 216 Study, $300,000, is to verify that the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality's draft total maximum daily load Gathright Dam flow modifications, along with additional proposed nutrient reductions, will correct the impairment of the Jackson River without adversely affecting the approved functions of Gathright Dam/Lake Moomaw.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. I thank the gentleman for yielding and commend him for offering this amendment, which is a great opportunity for our colleagues on the other side of the aisle to stop putting the cart before the horse and suppressing our traditional sources of energy, oil, natural gas, coal. Doesn't even do anything for nuclear power, and yet you want to push us into a direction where the technology doesn't yet exist. This legislation, this amendment, this substitute is exactly what you can need. You can vote for this, put us on a Manhattan Project to develop the new green technology that we need in this country, to do it in a way that is commercially feasible, to do it in a way that can rise up to replacing the 95 percent of our sources of energy that we have in our country this day, that you can push down in this legislation. And if you were to vote for that and against the underlying bill, we would be putting this country on a course in a bipartisan fashion that would lead our country to exactly what we need. Unlike the Markey- Waxman approach, this amendment does not pick winners or losers in technology. It allows the ingenuity of American citizens to create the technology that will make our country energy independent. I urge my colleagues to support the gentleman's substitute. This amendment focuses on making our country energy independent through the innovation of American individuals and businesses, not through government mandates and intrusion. Unlike the Waxman-Markey approach, this amendment does not pick winners and losers in technology but allows the ingenuity of American citizens to create the technology that will make our country energy independent while at the same time reducing carbon emissions. Most importantly, the Forbes Amendment won't raise the cost of living to American consumers or hinder the ability for American businesses to compete. The technology that a new Manhattan Project could spur has the ability to rebuild our economy and make it stronger than ever before. The Forbes Amendment is the right approach to make our country energy independent while reducing carbon emissions. I encourage all my colleagues to vote for this amendment.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this bill. I agree with one thing the gentleman from Massachusetts had to say and, that is, this bill has very important consequences, but those consequences are devastating for the future of the economy of this country, and it's in pursuit of the fantasy of thinking that this legislation will cause us to be able to turn down the thermostat of the world by reducing CO2 gas emissions when China and India and other nations are pumping more and more CO2 gas into the atmosphere all the time. We would be far better served with legislation that devotes itself to developing new technologies before we slam the door on our traditional sources of energy like coal and oil and natural gas and nuclear power, the most CO2-free emission that we have; and this bill does nothing to promote it. It stifles the ability of the people of this country to have the kind of competitiveness they need in the world to be able to get inexpensive sources of energy. So I strongly oppose this legislation. You know, we, Republicans and Democrats, offered over 200 amendments to try to improve this bill. They made in order one. In shutting down this democratic process, the Speaker of the House has taken away the voice of the American people. The simple truth behind this legislation is it raises taxes, kills jobs, and will lead to more government intrusion. It is estimated this bill will raise electricity rates 90 percent, gasoline prices 74 percent, natural gas prices 55 percent--and that's in addition to the expected rise in all of those sources of energy because this Congress, for the last 2\1/2\ years, has refused to take up a real American energy plan to devote more to producing domestic sources of all of our traditional sources of energy and developing new sources. We support the effort for energy efficiency. We support the effort to promote new and alternative forms of energy. We do not support this kind of suicide for the American economy. I urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation. It would be true democracy to allow the people's representatives to have a say about what is in this legislation. However, committees with jurisdiction, including the Agriculture Committee, were not allowed to mark-up the bill and make changes. The simple truth behind this legislation--it raises taxes, kills jobs and will lead to more government intrusion. Many have said the ``Peterson compromise'' is a win for farmers. Let me be clear, this legislation is not a win for American famers. Agriculture is an energy intensive industry, and this legislation will make the cost of energy even higher for everyone. In effect this legislation turns off the ability to produce energy from reliable sources in favor of energy technologies that have not proven that they can meet the energy demands of our nation. We cannot ignore that America's economy is intrinsically linked to the availability and affordability of energy. During this economic slow- down we should adopt policies that seek to rebuild our economy and create more jobs. We need reliable and affordable energy supplies. Unfortunately, cap and trade legislation would only further cripple our economy.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, it's a rare occasion when the House of Representatives must vote on Articles of Impeachment against a Federal judge. Indeed, the last time this occurred was 20 years ago. However, when evidence emerges that an individual is abusing his judicial office for his own advantage, the integrity of the judicial system becomes compromised, and the House of Representatives has the duty to investigate the matter and take the appropriate actions to end the abuse and restore confidence in the judicial system. It is also rare for the members of the House Judiciary Committee to agree on anything. However, the committee voted unanimously last week to report out House Resolution 520, which contains the four Articles of Impeachment against Judge Kent. This vote came after a thorough investigation and much work by the Task Force on Judicial Impeachment. Specifically, the task force conducted an investigation of Judge Kent's conduct, which included working with the FBI, the Department of Justice, and the Fifth Judicial Circuit. The task force also conducted an investigatory hearing on the matter, at which two court employees who were victimized by Judge Kent testified about the extent of his sexual abuse. At that same hearing, we heard from a constitutional scholar who testified that Judge Kent's misconduct rises to the level of impeachable offenses. It is important to note that Judge Kent was invited to testify at the hearing. His attorney was also invited to testify and participate in the hearing. Both declined to attend. As you have already heard in statements today and as you have already seen in the Judiciary Committee report, Judge Samuel Kent's misconduct merits the serious step of issuing Articles of Impeachment. The evidence also shows that he lied to the FBI and the Department of Justice about the nature of his sexual misconduct with court employees. In addition, he pled guilty to felony obstruction of justice and to committing repeated acts of nonconsensual sexual contact with court employees. He was sentenced to 33 months in prison for committing felony obstruction of justice, and this past Monday he reported to prison and began his prison term. However, because the Constitution provides that Federal judges are appointed for life, Samuel Kent, despite the fact that he is sitting in prison, continues to collect his taxpayer-funded salary of approximately $174,000 per year, continues to collect his taxpayer- funded health insurance benefits, and continues to accrue his taxpayer- funded pension. This is the first time that a Federal judge has pled guilty to a felony, has reported to prison, and has still not resigned from his office. This shows how deep Judge Kent's audacity truly runs. In fact, Judge Kent even took the step of sending a letter to the President explaining that he intends to resign 1 year from now. However, this purported resignation is not worth the paper it is written on because nothing would prevent Judge Kent from withdrawing his resignation at any time before the expiration of the year. What it really amounts to is an attempt to extort hundreds of thousands of dollars from the American people. It is not a pleasant task to impeach a Federal judge; yet when a judge so clearly abuses his office, it becomes necessary to take the appropriate action in order to restore the confidence of the American people in their judicial system. The Constitution gives the House of Representatives the power and responsibility to impeach Federal judges. It is my strong recommendation that the Members of the House adopt these Articles of Impeachment against Judge Kent. It is my hope that the United States Senate will then act to swiftly bring this matter to trial and quick disposition. I would also like to take this opportunity to thank Adam Schiff, the chairman of the Task Force on Judicial Impeachment, for his leadership in this effort, along with all the members of the task force on both sides of the aisle. As ranking member of the task force, I appreciate the fact that this effort has been undertaken in an extremely nonpartisan fashion. And I would also like to thank Chairman Conyers and Ranking Member Smith for their comprehensive yet expeditious and bipartisan consideration of these Articles of Impeachment in the full Judiciary Committee.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, it's not surprising to me that the chairman of the Rules Committee continues to reserve her time and that there are few Democrats who have come down to the floor to defend this terrible rule or this embarrassing bill that the rule brings to the floor. It's a disgrace what happened last night. After only a few minutes of debate, legitimate debate on legitimate amendments, the majority moves to rise, goes back to the Rules Committee, and writes a rule that slams down more than 80 Republican amendments, a number of Democratic amendments too, but far more Republican amendments, without any consideration whatsoever. We have heard from some of those speakers here just in the last few minutes, people who had good, sound amendments to offer. But I would like to talk about the overall bill. That's my concern. This bill spends $64.31 billion, an 11.7 percent increase. Now, where is that money coming from? Every penny of that increase is going to be borrowed. In fact, the budget that the Democrats adopted for this coming year that this appropriations bill is a part of spends $1.2 trillion more than is coming in in revenues; $3.6 trillion in expenditures, $2.4 trillion in revenues coming in--a $1.2 trillion deficit in 1 year. Until this year we have never had a single year in our Nation's history where we have had more than a $500 billion deficit, and $500 billion is a staggering amount of money. And yet the budget they just adopted for the next 10 years, every single year it exceeds $550 billion, rising until at the end of the 10 years about $700 billion. Year after year after year, doubling our national debt and putting our country in great jeopardy. People don't even know what $1 trillion is.

Mr. GOODLATTE. I urge my colleagues to reject this rule and bring back the bill so that we can adjust and cut spending.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, as we speak here on the floor of the House right now, the House Agriculture Committee is holding a hearing on the legislation reported out of the Energy and Commerce Committee, the so-called cap-and-trade legislation. Many of us know it as cap-and- tax or a massive new energy tax on the American people. The Agriculture Committee has wisely decided to hold a hearing on this complex legislation and, in fact, the Secretary of Agriculture, Secretary Vilsack, has been answering questions from Members on both sides of the aisle for the past 3\1/2\ hours, as Members are almost uniformly opposed to the legislation, regardless of their party status, and have expressed grave concerns about the impact that this will have on America's farmers and ranchers, that it will have on rural America and, indeed, the devastating impact that it will have on our economy and jobs and our standard of living as a whole. And I want to bring to the attention of the Members of the House some of the concerns that we have raised. The impact that this legislation will have on our economy and our very lives is extensive, and we should make sure that not just the Energy and Commerce Committee, but every committee in the House fully vets this bill. The cap-and-trade proposal is really an $846 billion national energy tax that will hit nearly every American. Moving into a cap-and-trade system will place the United States economy at a distinct competitive disadvantage because it would place significant additional costs on every American business, farmer, manufacturer, and American family. This bill will raise electric bills across the country by hindering the development of traditional energy sources while also, ironically, limiting the development of renewable energy. Coal provides the majority of electricity generation in our country, and this bill will effectively stop coal-fired power plants from being built in the United States at a time when one new coal-fired electric generating power plant a week is being built in India and China. They will use those coal-fired power plants to power the growth in their economy, taking jobs away from the United States and putting the same CO2 gas into the atmosphere that we are passing this legislation to try to stop in this country. It makes no sense. Nuclear power is the second largest source of electricity generation and the largest source of CO2-free energy, and it is effectively ignored by this bill, notwithstanding the fact that it will reduce CO2 gas emissions by a far greater measure than any of the other alternatives that are being discussed. Also concerning to me is the one-size-fits-all renewable electric standard. This legislation assumes that all States have the exact same amount of renewable resources and can develop them and penalizes States when they cannot. Furthermore, the legislation excludes far too many people who should be able to participate in the renewable energy market. I know I speak for members on both sides of our committee when I say that the biomass definition in this bill is inadequate. Woody biomass is a clean, sustainable form of energy that deserves encouragement from the Federal Government, not unneeded restrictions. Given the restrictions already placed on woody biomass by the Renewable Fuels Standard, we should not be repeating the same mistake in this legislation. We must keep in mind that agriculture is an extensive energy- intensive industry, and this legislation will make the cost of energy even higher. It's estimated that the Waxman legislation will raise electricity rates 90 percent after adjusting for inflation, gas prices 74 percent, and natural gas prices 55 percent. There is no doubt that this legislation will also raise the cost of fertilizer, chemical, and equipment which farmers use daily. This will cause serious economic harm for the American farmer. According to the Heritage Foundation, farm income is expected to drop because of this legislation by $8 billion in 2012, $25 billion in 2024, and over $50 billion in 2035. These are decreases of 28 percent, 60 percent and 94 percent, respectively. I do not know how we can expect American farmers to survive when we cut their farm income by 94 percent. What I find even more frustrating is that the impetus for this legislation is to reduce carbon emissions, yet it does not recognize the role that agriculture and forestry can play in sequestering carbon. The legislation does not specifically provide for agricultural or forestry offsets but rather leaves eligible offsets to the discretion of the Environmental Protection Agency. To add insult to injury, over 30 pages of this bill are devoted to developing international forestry offsets, including provisions to send American taxpayer money overseas to forest owners in developing countries while disregarding our own forest owners. I urge my colleagues to look at this legislation closely and to soundly reject it. Quite frankly, leaving these offsets at the discretion of the EPA makes me nervous. The EPA is not known to have the best working relationship with farmers and ranchers. USDA has a long record of working with farmers and ranchers, and they have the extensive expertise in agriculture and forestry that will make an agricultural offset program successful. This legislation needs to be amended to allow the USDA, not the EPA, to be in charge of administering agricultural offsets. This legislation has far reaching consequences for every person, farmer, and business in the country. We cannot ignore that America's economy is intrinsically linked to the availability and affordability of energy. During this economic slow-down we should be adopting policies that seek to rebuild our economy and create more jobs; we need reliable and affordable energy supplies. Unfortunately, cap and trade legislation would only further cripple our economy. Instead of government mandates and bureaucracy we should focus on policies that support technological advances and consumer choices. The bottom line is that we need policies which encourage investment in environmentally sound, cost-effective practices without stifling innovation and setting our economy further back. The simple truth behind the Waxman energy plan is that it raises taxes, kills jobs and will lead to more government intrusion.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 332 I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. GOODLATTE. I am. I am asking unanimous consent to submit a modification.

Mr. GOODLATTE. I offer an amendment.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment to H.R. 1385, the Thomasina E. Jordan Indian Tribes of Virginia Federal Recognition Act. Given that this bill could dramatically change localities in Virginia, I am offering an amendment to provide an additional protection for private property. This amendment would ensure that no use of eminent domain could be used to acquire private property to transfer it to the tribes. This would ensure that lands are not taken out of current private use for the sole purpose of expanding tribal lands and ensure some protection for private residents and localities. The bill greatly expands the congressionally recommended areas in which tribes can acquire lands for their trust. Given that this is a great expansion in comparison to versions of this bill introduced in previous Congresses, I believe that it is necessary and appropriate to provide this level of protection. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this amendment.

Mr. GOODLATTE. I will be happy to yield.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Reclaiming my time, the chairman makes me feel a lot better, and I'm pleased that he will accept my amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Chairman, I have always supported granting these six Virginia tribes Federal recognition, and I am extremely happy that that bill has included language that seeks to prevent casino-style gaming in the Commonwealth of Virginia. However, I was troubled to learn of a change that was made to the bill without notification to any of the local communities that would be affected. In the section dealing with the Monacan Indian Tribe, the area that the tribe could have placed in trust for their reservation grew from one county to seven. Originally, it was an area of approximately 479 square miles, and now it's an area of approximately 3,728 square miles. What is even more disturbing to me is that none of these new localities knew that they would be part of an area in which the tribes could acquire lands. My office only discovered it once the bill was scheduled for floor consideration. This bill could dramatically affect these counties. If tribal lands were established in these counties, it could mean the localities would lose all control of the lands that were placed in trust in them. We would no longer be in control of zoning, environmental reviews, and these localities could no longer collect tax revenues from these lands. These are serious concerns and could greatly impact operations of the counties. The fact that the bill would establish tribal land in these counties is a total surprise to these jurisdictions. They have not had a sufficient opportunity to discuss and study how such a change would affect them. The addition of these new counties is also a total surprise to me and the counties involved, and they should be removed from this bill. I've also spoken to my colleagues, Tom Perriello and Rick Boucher of the Fifth and Ninth Congressional Districts, who also represent these newly added counties, and they also support this amendment. These communities should have the right to know how these changes will affect them as far as this legislation is concerned and the far- reaching consequences that could permanently change central Virginia. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume to say the gentleman's points are well taken. We certainly understand the concerns of the tribe and the interests of the individual who owns the land in Rockbridge County that would like to have it taken into trust. My concern, of course, is that this has happened at a late hour and, as you know, we've been scrambling to figure out exactly what that land is. We now think we have a reasonably good definition of it, and subject to the approval of the local government, I think that we could agree on language. And if the chairman and the ranking member, or other Members for that matter, do not object, I would be prepared to make a unanimous consent request.

Mr. GOODLATTE. If the gentleman would yield, the consent of the local unit of government, to me, would mean the approval of the Rockbridge County Board of Supervisors by way of an ordinance or some other measure that they would pass, a resolution, approving the action taken. If the gentleman has some perfecting language, I'm certainly willing to consider it.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Well, if the gentleman would yield further, I take the gentleman's point. However, by the same token, we would have to have some kind of a date by which they would have to act in disapproval, because otherwise they could disapprove some time well into the future. So I think that the appropriate step here would be to adopt this amendment with the unanimous consent modification, if no one objects to that, and then the tribe would then proceed to go to the Rockbridge County Board of Supervisors and ask them to approve this. If they refuse to approve it, they would still have the opportunity to come back in the future and ask them for approval at a later date. Whereas, the gentleman's language might be more confusing.

Mr. GOODLATTE. If the gentleman would yield, I don't think the gentleman is going down the right track because the gentleman who owns this land is still living, and it's my understanding that he's going to convey the land in a testamentary document, and therefore, to try to set a date for the action by the board seems to me to be trying to put the cart before the horse. I believe that I must insist, myself, on my own unanimous consent request.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Chairman, with that modification, I would urge my colleagues to support the amendment. And I do believe that this is a good and effective way to address the concerns that I raise and were raised by Congressman Perriello and Congressman Boucher in my conversations with them and my staffs conversations with their staffs about the impact that this could have on these particular localities. And, therefore, I would ask my colleagues to support the amendment, as modified. I yield back the balance of my time.