Bob Goodlatte

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself a moment to say to the chairman of the committee that I also appreciate the very hard work that he put into this very bipartisan effort. And I want to thank the staff on both sides of the aisle. I do believe that this farm bill contains far more reform than any previous farm bill. And I think the track record in the future in preserving good farm policy to assure the American people, our taxpayers, our consumers of the opportunity to have a safe and abundant and affordable food supply is very, very important. And so I thank the chairman for his hard work for all this time. The two-and-a-half-year process it has taken has finally come to a conclusion. I urge my colleagues to pass this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to reclaim my time.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 3058, the Public Land Communities Transition Act of 2008. Mr. Speaker, this bill had the opportunity to provide rural schools with the much-needed funding that allows them to keep their doors open and serve sparsely-populated areas. Unfortunately, the majority decided to offset this bill with provisions that will increase the cost of gas to the American public. Already paying $4 a gallon at the pumps, Americans should not be forced to bear further increases, especially those living in rural areas that, on average, already drive greater distances. The fee increases on oil and gas leases would place further confines on domestic energy production at a time when we need to be expanding production and building our Nation's energy independence. This provision was included in the farm bill that was brought to the House floor a year ago, and was one of several tax increasing provisions that drew criticism from House Members, as well as the Senate and the White House. It would be disingenuous to sing praises of this bill when the cost of providing support to rural schools would be borne by the very rural constituents we are trying to help. There is a proposed compromise that was introduced in the 109th Congress and enjoyed broad bipartisan support. It would solve the problems created by the oil and gas lease provisions in H.R. 3058 by increasing domestic energy exploration and production, thereby helping to reduce the gas prices for the American consumer. At the same time, this alternative would provide the necessary funding for rural school districts. That alternative would be something I could stand behind but, unfortunately, that is not the bill we are considering today. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.'' I urge them to vote against the policy that will raise gas prices for Americans when they have the opportunity to do it right and create increased domestic energy production and solve this problem for our rural schools.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. I thank the leader for yielding and for all of the effort that he and virtually every Member of this House put into this legislation now. If some of us are experiencing a sense of deja vu, it is because we are considering the exact same bill that we passed with overwhelming bipartisan support last Wednesday. The Senate also passed the bill by a significant margin. However, yesterday it was determined that somewhere between the House and Senate passage of the farm bill, while the bill was being enrolled, title III, the trade title, was accidentally omitted from the enrolled bill that was then sent to the President. To avoid future uncertainty or constitutional questions about the bill omitting the trade title, we are presenting the same farm bill that we passed last week to both chambers and running it back through the necessary procedures to ensure the whole bill becomes law. While the substance and content of the bill is the exact same as we passed last week, three technical items have been added to reflect the technical corrections necessary. The technical changes to correct the clerical error include, one, a slight change to the long title in order to distinguish the bill from H.R. 2419; a provision that deems the conference report on H.R. 2419 to be the legislative history of this new bill; and a provision that prevents duplication of the identical sections on H.R. 2419 upon adoption. This would prevent double spending if the Senate overrides the veto and 14 titles are in law when this new bill is enacted. Other than those technical corrections, we are simply redoing the farm bill to correct the error. Let me say that while it was an unfortunate error, it also was an egregious error. This is a very serious problem that has been created, and we are seeing that reflected in the fact that we are taking several different approaches to try to make sure that the farm bill which had that strong bipartisan support is indeed enacted into law. So it is with some disappointment that I see the majority table the privileged resolution offered by the Republican leader and not look into this in greater detail. I think it certainly deserves that attention, and it would be my hope that the majority would reconsider that approach and bring that privileged resolution to a vote so we can get to the bottom of all the considerations that need to be made regarding this and how this can be avoided in the future, but also to find out exactly what indeed did happen in the past few days that led to the unfortunate situation we find ourselves in today of again finding it necessary to pass this legislation, which I urge my colleagues to again adopt, as they already have voted for it once and have subsequently voted to override the President's veto, so we can indeed do what America's farmers and ranchers seek, and that is to have a new farm bill that is forward looking and that does address the concerns that have been brought to the attention of the committees.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Conaway).

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Neugebauer), a subcommittee ranking member.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to respond to the gentleman from Arizona about the ACRE program. This is a program that was requested by the administration. It was modified by the House and modified by the Senate. Now we hear the administration doesn't like the way it is projected to work, but, quite frankly, it scores by the Congressional Budget Office as saving the taxpayers of our country $400 million. Why? Because the fact of the matter is it is not expected to have a very high enrollment, and in order to have what the gentleman describe take place, we would have to have a dramatic drop in corn prices. But the administration just signed into law in December a bill that mandates ever-increasing costs of amounts of production for ethanol, and the fact of the matter is we are not going to see those conditions. It is a theoretical possibility, a practical unlikely condition. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Boustany).

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Colorado (Mrs. Musgrave).

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, at this time it is my pleasure to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma, a ranking member on the Agriculture Subcommittee, Mr. Lucas.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, at this time it is my pleasure to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Kuhl).

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, at this time I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Fortenberry), a member of the Agriculture Committee.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, at this time it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished Member from Missouri, a real advocate for agriculture, Mr. Hulshof. (Mr. HULSHOF asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, may I ask how much time remains.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes. Mr. Speaker, a lot has been said here today about the bipartisan nature of this legislation, but when it passed the House last week, a majority on both sides of the aisle voted for this farm bill, and three-quarters of all of the Members here did so. But we did so because there are provisions in this bill that are of interest to each side of the aisle, and sometimes there are very clear partisan differences. But nonetheless, the Republican side of the aisle received a number of concessions in the final negotiations of this bill: a provision that would have prohibited all 50 State food stamp programs to be able to reach out to technology companies and others to modernize and improve their food stamp program, something they have done many times in the recent past. A prohibition on that was removed from the bill. A provision in the bill that would have rolled back the Welfare Reform Act of 1996 and provided increased food stamps for able-bodied adults without dependent children was removed from the bill. Provisions related to the Davis-Bacon legislation that many Members on my side of the aisle, including myself, were concerned about were removed from the bill. So this is a bipartisan bill because it was compromise and give-and- take on both sides of the aisle. I have also heard Members complain that this bill is not fiscally responsible. It's less than the last farm bill. It is less than either the House-passed version of the bill or the Senate-passed version of the bill: $4 billion less than the House, $5 billion less than the Senate version. I ask any Member here in the House, when was the last time they recall that a bill came back from a conference between the House and the Senate and spent less money than either the House or Senate spent? And I would give you this overall picture. Americans spend about $1.2 trillion a year on food. The provisions in this bill related to the commodity title, the safety net for America's farmers and ranchers, is about $7 billion or slightly less than one-half of 1 percent of what Americans spend on food.

Mr. GOODLATTE. I yield myself an additional 30 seconds. Now for that one-half cent on every dollar, Americans get the stability and safety of their food supply and the assurance that they will not see in the United States what they're seeing in other countries around the world which do not have a good farm program for their farmers that assure their consumers that they will get an adequate, safe, and affordable supply of food. They do not see food riots in the United States. They see, instead, those in the greatest need receiving appropriate food programs and the average American being able to spend less than 9 percent of their income on food. That is lower than any other country in the world today or any other country in the history of the world. This farm bill helps to promote those good policies. I urge my colleagues to support the override.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. I urge my colleagues to vote to override this veto, but I would like to close my remarks by commending the President of the United States and his administration for their involvement in this process. They have improved this farm bill considerably from the versions that were passed in the House and the Senate. In fact, I'm going to yield a portion of my time to the leader. But I want to say that this includes more than 90 provisions that the President of the United States, the leaders in the Department of Agriculture and others, suggested to us to reform. And there are numerous reforms in this legislation that are very, very substantial, very, very significant. They would not have occurred without the President's active involvement and support for efforts to improve this farm bill. This farm bill is dramatically reformed from previous farm bills, and as a result of his involvement, of involvement on both sides of the aisle, this farm bill is dramatically improved. As a result, the Republican Members on this side of the aisle went from 17 Members supporting the bill when it came out of the Agriculture Committee to 100 Members supporting it when we voted for it last week. There is much to commend in this bill. The President has asked for additional reforms. I supported him in the efforts to obtain some of those reforms, but we could not achieve every single objective that he sought because this is a bipartisan bill that includes the considerations of a wide array of viewpoints. But I will say that this side of the aisle was well represented in this process and thanks in part to the efforts of the administration. Notwithstanding that, the bill is a good bill, and we would urge our colleagues to support it. At this time, I yield the balance of my time to the Republican leader, the gentleman from Ohio.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the farm bill, and the words before me say ``the very same farm bill passed by this body last week with an overwhelming bipartisan majority.'' Now we find that it is not quite the same farm bill because of an enrolling error or something in the transmission of the document. I certainly hope that we can find an amicable way to make sure that the trade title of this bill, which is an important title, is included in the final product, whether as a part of a joint resolution or by some other means of adopting that. This bill was a collaborative effort, crafted by Members on both sides of the aisle and both sides of the Capitol, and is historic in the amount and degree of reform. It costs less than either the House or the Senate bills and ensures Americans will continue to enjoy access to a safe, affordable, and reliable food supply. Last week, the 318 bipartisan votes in favor of the farm bill sent a clear message: This is a good bill and there is significant support for it. Despite what has been opined by editorial boards throughout the country, this bill contains significant reforms and is the most reform- minded farm bill this body has ever considered. Granted, everyone didn't get exactly what they wanted. We all gave a little and we all got a little. But such is the nature of compromise. Given the diverse nature of a farm bill, it is extremely difficult to manage the scope of needs within the farm bill, and even more difficult when you're not given the resources needed to do so. This bill contains many of the ideas suggested in the administration's farm bill proposal. Like the administration, we utilized the adjusted gross income to reduce payments to the wealthiest farmers and ranchers. We eliminated the three-entity rule, created a revenue-base countercyclical program, modified and modernized the dairy program, modified planting flexibility rules, increased the efficiency of the crop insurance program, directed funding to the development of cellulosic ethanol, included programs for beginning and socially disadvantaged farmers, and created beneficial interest for the loan programs. Variations of these measures were included in the administration's proposal. We may not have gone as far as the administration wanted, but these reforms help make this a better bill than the House or Senate farm bills. It is important to point out that despite comments to the contrary, this bill is completely paid for, without any tax increases. While many throughout the world are feeling the effects of increased food prices, U.S. consumers have been largely insulated from spikes in food prices because many years ago we established a food production system that maintains an adequate supply in good times and in bad. Because it is produced domestically, we know it to be safe and affordable. This bill ensures that Americans will continue to enjoy the access to a safe, affordable, and reliable food supply, and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this farm bill, which moved substantially in the direction that the President asked for, but which did not meet all of his goals. I think we have increased the support for this bill substantially by almost 90 Members in the process, and I urge my colleagues to support this override vote.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, of the 30 minutes yielded to me by the gentleman from Minnesota, I would ask unanimous consent to yield 10 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona so that he may manage that time as a part of the debate.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to give one of my minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence). (Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, at this time it's my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Hayes), a ranking member on the Agriculture Committee.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Lucas), a ranking member of one of our subcommittees. (Mr. LUCAS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes. I rise today in support of the farm bill conference report. I thank the chairman and all of the other members of the Agriculture Committee on both sides of the aisle for working in such a bipartisan spirit to produce good legislation. I also thank my staff and the majority staff for their hard and, I know to them, seemingly endless work on this legislation. This farm bill contains solid reforms while addressing a variety of issues including forestry, rural development, renewable energy, nutrition, conservation, research, specialty crops, and livestock and still maintains the safety net necessary to ensure a safe, reliable and affordable domestic food supply. This farm bill is a good work product, and I am proud of the work we have done. The bill contains more reforms than any previous farm bill, eliminating payments to millionaire farmers, eliminating the three- entity rule, and increasing the efficiency of the crop insurance program among numerous other reforms. It's 100 percent PAYGO-compliant and is fiscally responsible, scoring $4 billion less than the House bill and $5 billion less than the Senate bill. I think you would be hard-pressed, Mr. Speaker, to find a conference report in the history of this body that came back scoring less than the House and Senate bills. That is a significant achievement, and I think it would be foolish to overlook the positive changes this farm bill has undergone. When we talk about the farm bill, many believe that the Congress is voting on a $288 billion bill that goes directly to farmers. The truth is that only 17 percent of the farm bill spending is devoted to farm programs, while nearly 70 percent goes to the nutrition title alone. In fact, there is very little farm in a farm bill anymore. In 2002, the farm program funding comprised just three-quarters of 1 percent of the Federal budget. Today, farm program funding accounts for just one-quarter of 1 percent of the Federal budget, a twofold reduction in just 5 years. Agriculture policy is essential to the lives of every American, and it is important that the policy we formulate is responsible, effective and at a low cost to the taxpayer.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that 10 minutes of the time allocated to me be granted to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) so that he can manage that time.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, at this time I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King), a member of the committee.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I just want to say to all of my colleagues that this has been, as the chairman described, a very long and arduous process that began more than 2\1/2\ years ago by listening to farmers and ranchers and other people all across the country and holding a multitude of hearings there, and here in Washington as well. It began under my chairmanship. I have never seen anybody who has pursued the passage of legislation as tenaciously and with such dedication, but also listening to so many different people, as the chairman of the committee has done. Mr. Speaker, as a result, this is not your father's farm bill, nor is it even the farm bill that passed out of this House last summer. This farm bill has more reform than any farm bill that the Congress has ever taken up. It imposes payment limitations on farmers and those who own land and have substantial nonfarm income alike and is well worth consideration in this body, and I urge its passage.