Bob Goodlatte

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes. Mr. Speaker, much has been said about whether or not there is reform in the legislation. Let me point out that there is very substantial reform. We have caps on adjusted gross income limits on farmers and on nonfarmers. We require direct attribution of benefits. We reform the dairy and sugar support programs. We create revenue-based countercyclical programs. We address the beneficial interest problem. We reform the crop insurance program, and we eliminate the three-entity rule. Those of you who are not in agriculture may wonder what some of those things are. They are all significant reforms resulting in this. For those who say we are not making cuts in the commodity programs, this orange bar represents payment for commodity programs under the last 3 years of the so-called Freedom to Farm Act, which some have touted as being more reform oriented in agriculture, $24.7 billion a year. During the last farm bill, the 2002 to 2007 farm bill, it averages $12.1 billion per year. The projected average cost for the current farm bill that we are debating right now, $7.6 billion a year, less than one-third of what was spent per year under the Freedom to Farm program. This is real reform, these are real cuts in the commodity title for America's farmers and ranchers. This gives you an illustration of what we are talking about, what we are debating about. This thing that looks like a pin, this little tiny slice of overall total Federal spending, is what goes to commodity programs, one-quarter of 1 percent of the Federal budget, down from three-fourths of 1 percent during the first year of the 2002 farm bill. You might say we are dancing on the head of a pin when we have this much debate about reform for one-fourth of 1 percent of the farm programs. I urge my colleagues to support this reform legislation.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, at this time it's my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Miller).

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, how much time remains?

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds to say to my friend from Arizona that if you know of the farm couple where each person has $500,000 in off-farm income and each has $750,000 in farm income, the two limits we have imposed, down from $2.5 million to $500,000 for nonfarm income and never before limited to $750,000, I would like to meet that couple, and then we will fix that problem. I yield to the gentleman from New York 1 minute. (Mr. KUHL of New York asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, the Speaker just mentioned the bipartisanship in this legislation, and that is very true. But this legislation is not bipartisan because many Republicans will be supporting a Democratic bill, this legislation is bipartisan because it was crafted by both Republicans and Democrats throughout the conference process, and this legislation is very, very different than the legislation that passed the House last summer which I voted against primarily because there were tax increases to pay for the legislation. There are no more tax increases paying for this legislation. In fact, this legislation is paid for by a means that is acceptable to both sides and acceptable to the administration. But there are more reforms in this legislation that Republicans prevailed upon our Democratic colleagues on in the conference. The effort to prohibit States, most particularly the State of Indiana, from being able to seek outside help to reform their flawed food stamp program was removed from this bill, and so now not just Indiana but all 50 States will be able to continue to use appropriate means to modernize their food stamp programs. Davis-Bacon provisions in the Northern Border Economic Development Commission, the Southeast Crescent, and the Southwest Border Regional Commissions, those Davis-Bacon provisions have been removed from this legislation. An effort to undermine the Welfare Reform Act of 1996 by providing increased food stamp benefits to adults, able-bodied adults without dependents was removed from this legislation. And anticompetition livestock provisions, which were very troubling to many Members on this side of the aisle and on the other side of the aisle as well, were removed. So while there are certainly advocates for each of those provisions in this bill, this bill is bipartisan because we worked together to give on both sides to make sure that we came up with a good farm bill that could command strong bipartisan support. This bill promotes energy independence by expanding investment in cellulosic biofuels and helping move away from corn-based ethanol. It cuts the ethanol subsidy by 12 percent. It's fiscally responsible because it contains no tax increases and is PAYGO compliant. It boosts conservation programs benefiting our environment. It aids food banks and nutrition in our schools in its nutrition programs. It preserves the farm safety net and assures that we continue to have the safest, most affordable, most abundant food supply in the world. This is real reform. This is a real farm bill for the 21st century. I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan legislation. I want to thank, again, the chairman of the committee, the chairmen of the subcommittees, the ranking members on my side of the aisle, but most importantly, the staff on both the majority and the minority side who worked many, many, many weekends over the last 2\1/2\ years, but particularly in the last few months, to craft this legislation, to address all of the concerns that were raised, to go down blind alleys, find that something didn't work, come back up, find a different way to make it work, and to reach this point today, the staff has helped make that possible. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Neugebauer) who is a subcommittee ranking member on the Agriculture Committee. (Mr. NEUGEBAUER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. GOODLATTE. I yield myself an additional 30 seconds. This bill meets those requirements. I support the farm bill because I believe American agriculture is vital to our national security, health and way of life, and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this important legislation. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, may I ask how much time is remaining.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, at this time I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Hulshof).

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this important legislation to strengthen our nation's laws against counterfeiting and intellectual property violations which passed the House yesterday. Article I Section 8 of our Constitution lays the framework for our nation's copyright and patent laws. It grants Congress the power to award inventors and creators, for limited periods of time, exclusive rights to their inventions and works. The founding fathers realized that this type of incentive was crucial to ensure that America would become the world's leader in innovation and creativity. As we continue our journey into the digital age, we must be sure to continue to reward our innovators with the exclusive rights to their works for limited periods of time. This incentive is still necessary to maintain America's position as the world leader in innovation. Because the United States has been the pioneer for intellectual property protections, it is no surprise that the copyright industries are so successful and play such an increasingly crucial role in our national economy. The U.S. copyright industries have created millions of high-skilled, high-paying U.S. jobs and have contributed billions to our economy. However, the proliferation of copyright piracy and counterfeiting in America is growing and is threatening to undermine the very copyright protections our founding fathers envisioned. In 1999, I introduced legislation with my friend, Representative Zoe Lofgren, to prohibit the alteration or removal of product identification codes on goods or packaging, prohibit the manufacture and distribution of devices primarily used to alter or remove product identification codes, and allow the seizure of decoded goods and decoding devices. In addition, for the better part of the past six years I have been pleased to work with retailers and law enforcement agencies to attempt to solve the growing problem of organized retail crime, which has resulted in billions of dollars of loss to retailers, has often resulted in counterfeit, diverted products being placed back on store shelves, has threatened the safety of such products as baby formula and medicine, and has been linked to major organized crime rings. I am equally pleased to be an original cosponsor of H.R. 4279. This legislation builds on current laws in many ways, including increasing penalties for both civil violations of copyright laws and repeat offenders, allowing treble damages in certain counterfeiting cases, and increasing the maximum penalties for trafficking in counterfeit goods when those offenses endanger public health and safety. The bill also raises the profile of intellectual property within the Administrative Branch by creating an Office of U.S. IP Enforcement Representative within the Executive Office of the President to coordinate all the various agencies and departments that work on IP enforcement issues, and to serve as the President's principal advisor for IP matters. In addition, it increases the number of IP liaisons from the PTO in U.S. embassies around the world and enhances DOJ's computer crime units to make sure they are equipped and being used to prosecute IP violations. I believe this legislation is a major step in the right direction, and I look forward to continuing to work on this bill as it progresses through the legislative process.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Chairman, on rollcall No. 213, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Speaker, an oasis. That is what so many of us are reminded of when we think of Virginia Tech. The Commonwealth of Virginia's land-grant university, it is located in a beautiful valley in southwest Virginia. Virginia Tech--home of the Hokies--is located just outside my congressional district, a short drive from the Roanoke metropolitan area. It is linked in so many ways to the Roanoke Valley and to the Commonwealth as a whole. Those links were never more evident on this day a year ago--April 16, 2007. Whether direct--as a result of being a student, a faculty member, an administrator, an employee--or indirect--a family member, a contributor, a supporter, a friend--those links combined to form a chain a year ago today. That chain was formed almost instantaneously when shots rang out in a dormitory and an academic building. The chain formed from innumerable links in reaction to unspeakable horror, heroic response, shared grief, and what became an outpouring of worldwide support. The day that led us to this one, 365 days later, broke like so many others on the campus in Blacksburg. Like any other university, Virginia Tech thrives on routine--dining hall lines and daily classes, instruction and research, service projects and athletic contests, friendships formed. None of those or a multitude of other routines have been the same since. For the first time in my nearly 16 years in Congress, I literally turned around halfway through my 4-hour drive to Washington. I knew that I couldn't continue that trip, with such events occurring a mere 40 miles away from my front door affecting my constituents, friends, and associates in Blacksburg. But in the gathering that I attended the next day on campus, I saw a remarkable transformation. I saw a community touched by the deaths of 32 people--students and professors all--turned into a friendship community unlike anywhere else. And then the world began sharing its hopes that the Almighty would transmit healing to each and every person touched in some way by the heartbreak that had befallen Virginia Tech. One cannot help but reach out to our fellow man at times such as those like April 16, 2007. The magnitude with which the globe embraced Virginia Tech in its ultimate time of need still amazes me. It does so because I see that embrace as visible evidence of the university's motto at work--``Ut Prosim''--``That I may serve.'' And we have seen that service in ways, shapes, and forms we could never have imagined being necessary on the Virginia Tech campus. On that day and on each day since, we are reminded of the marvelous impact that comes from simply lending a hand. There are the first responders--the police officers and other emergency service officials who put their lives in harm's way in order to save the lives of those who did not fall, and bring an end to the chaos. There are the school officials--tested as if in a war zone, yet called back each day hence to preserve the integrity of a storied institution of higher learning. There are the thousands who gathered spontaneously on the Drillfield the evening of the shootings--one large force whose aim was to bring light to the deep darkness of the day just finished. There's the Hokie Spirit Memorial Fund--formed to serve as the clearinghouse for contributions, small and large, that began pouring in to help offset the untold costs associated with what beset the families of those who died and the university itself. There are the orange and maroon ribbons worn on our clothes, the visits by performers like Dave Matthews and athletic teams like the New York Yankees. And so it has continued through the year since, almost unabated. The outpouring of support remains active. And so be it, for we should never forget the 32 lives taken. It is for them that we continue to grieve with and pray for their families and friends, that God may bring them comfort through the memories of the wonderful things their loved ones accomplished. It is for them that we are drawn to the memorial on the Drillfield, a part of the campus that will permanently serve as a destination for reflection. We remain steadfast in offering a kind ear to anyone who is touched in any way by the April 16, 2007 shootings at Virginia Tech and still requires reassurance. And we thank each person participating in today's remembrance events on campus, showing through their time and talents that they stand ready to help put the events behind us while maintaining recollections of lives lost. We were all Hokies United a year ago. A year later, Virginia Tech has prevailed. It remains Virginia Tech. Today, let us pray to God for the men and women who passed into his embrace on April 16, 2007. Let us never forget the sacrifices, far and wide, made in service to the Virginia Tech community. And let us hope for healing, for it is through that healing that we can shape the lives of those yet to come who yearn to be able to proudly share in saying, ``We are Virginia Tech.''

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the temporary farm bill extension that will extend some provisions of the 2002 farm bill just a little while longer so that we may complete the work on this farm bill. I believe we've made good progress on coming to agreement on the funding which has been the biggest obstacle preventing any real movement on the completion of a farm bill to this point. While we're not there yet, I do believe we are getting close. The House and Senate conferees have been meeting every day this week, and we intend to continue our work throughout the rest of the week. We are committed to putting together a reform-minded bill that we can bring before this body soon and earn the support of our Members here and in the other chamber, and then go on to the President for his approval. We all recognize the need for a new farm bill. This process has already been delayed enough, and while it is a long time coming, we shouldn't halt the momentum that is finally getting this process moving to a positive direction. I urge my colleagues to support this farm bill extension to give us a little more time to work out the rest of the funding issues and wrap up the policy differences so that we can produce a good farm bill. I want to thank the chairman of the committee, Mr. Peterson, for his kind words, and say that there is no doubt that no one, in this body or the other, I'll take the chance of saying that, has worked harder or longer in order to try to get to this point than Chairman Peterson has. He has spoken to innumerable people in order to try to bring about the kind of consensus it takes to get here. He has been down many different avenues, and if one doesn't work, he comes back, starts over again and tries a different approach. And his persistence and his attention to the details in this farm bill and his knowledge of the wide range of issues that comprise the farm bill has enabled us to negotiate effectively with the Senate to negotiate effectively with Members in this body who have legitimate concerns that need to be addressed in the farm bill. But with the limited resources and the differences of opinion that arise in any bill, particularly one of this complexity, he has done an outstanding job of listening to the concerns of many different people, and I am optimistic that we can move forward and reach a final farm bill to bring before this body and before the other body. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this legislation. I think this is a fitting tribute to our late friend and colleague Jo Ann Davis. This legislation would designate Jo Ann's home post office in Gloucester, Virginia as the ``Congresswoman Jo Ann S. Davis Post Office.'' I had the opportunity to first meet Jo Ann Davis when she was a member of the Virginia General Assembly. She showed there the same courage, determination and hard work that she showed here during her service in the United States Congress. Right through to her final week here, she was still working for the people of the First Congressional District of Virginia. She was very proud of her representation of those great people and often talked about her district as being America's First Congressional District because it contained Jamestown and Yorktown and Williamsburg, and worked very hard for the past several years as we prepared for last year's celebration of the 400th anniversary of the settlement of Jamestown. Sadly, Virginia lost a devoted public servant when Congresswoman Jo Ann Davis passed away after her two year battle with breast cancer. Jo Ann was not only a dear friend but a true public servant, working tirelessly on behalf of all Virginians. Jo Ann was an active and vocal participant of this body. She was vigilant in looking after the interests of Virginia and her congressional district. Jo Ann loved being in her district and particularly her home in Gloucester. It was here at home that she could be with her wonderful husband, Chuck, her children and grandchildren, and her horses and it was here where she passed on. It is only fitting that the Jo Ann S. Davis Post Office will be in Gloucester, the town that she loved, in the district she fought tirelessly for here in Congress. This will serve as a memorial to her work for the people of America's First Congressional District, the people she served with distinction, courage, great honor and determination. I am proud to be a cosponsor of this tribute to my friend Jo Ann. I hope that all members will join me in honoring the service of our brave and courageous colleague.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this irresponsible rule. The Colombia trade agreement was negotiated under trade promotion authority, which clearly specifies that once transmitted to Congress this body must take up the agreement within 90 days. The Government of Colombia negotiated this agreement with us in good faith, that we would keep our word. Unfortunately the majority now wants to change the rules of the game. This is damaging to our relationship with Colombia and damages our reputation in the world. It shows the world that Congress does not keep its word, and this will make any other country reluctant to enter into agreements with our nation. This is simply bad foreign policy. I believe in the benefits of free and fair trade. I support efforts to remove tariffs and barriers to trade whenever possible and feel that such efforts will lead to increased economic growth for the nation as a whole. With tens of thousands of jobs in my congressional district being tied to trade, the expansion of trade means a healthy future for a number of local businesses, and in turn new jobs for my district, and the Nation. However, I believe that all trade must be fair trade. The Colombian agreement would be fair trade. Already, the vast majority of Colombian products pay zero tariffs to enter the U.S. market. In fact 365 members of this House, many of whom now stand opposed to this fair trade bill, voted to allow Colombia this open access to our markets. It is not defensible to keep U.S. producers from the same access to Colombia, that Colombia already has to our market. Since 1991, U.S. workers and businesses have paid over a billion dollars in tariffs to sell their wares in the Colombian market. Every day we delay enactment of the Colombia FTA we hurt U.S. workers, farmers, and entrepreneurs who will benefit from opening the Colombian market. It is disappointing that the Democratic majority has not embraced this trade agreement, as it would mean new jobs for citizens across the nation. New jobs that are very much needed in our tightening economy. Mr. Speaker, I remain committed to the benefits of free and fair trade. I urge my colleagues to reject this rule which would be detrimental to our relationship with Colombia and is more importantly reckless foreign policy.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Chairman, while we debate a bill about beaches today, I am again appalled that the majority has once again missed an opportunity to address one of the biggest problems confronting our constituents, rising energy costs. It is reported today that gasoline prices reached a new all time high of $112 a barrel. Yet, we have let another week here pass without doing anything to confront this challenge. Not a week goes by when I am not asked about rising energy prices. These increased costs affect everyone in our society. But none are more affected by these increased costs than some of our nation's most poor. On average, the nation's working poor spends approximately 13 to 30 percent of their yearly income on energy costs, and as prices rise so will the amount of their income spent on energy. A large number of factors combine to put pressure on energy and gasoline prices, including peaked U.S. oil production, increased world demand for crude oil, and U.S. refinery capacity that is inadequate to supply gasoline to a recovering national economy. These are serious problems that will not go away with time, and they require real solutions that will restore American energy independence and help ease the pain of record price fill-ups. However, the majority in Congress has failed to do anything that would address any of these factors contributing to high prices. When many are citing U.S. production numbers and refinery capacity as a reason for increased gas prices, the Majority has proposed additional taxes on these domestic energy suppliers. We have voted on several bills that would impose up to $15 billion in tax increases on domestic energy suppliers. These taxes will impede domestic oil and gas production, discourage investment in refinery capacity, and make it more expensive for domestic energy companies to operate in America than their foreign competitors, actually increasing America's dependence on foreign oil. Let's make no mistake, an increased tax doesn't just hurt energy companies, it hurts every American--individual, farm, or company--that consumes energy. Increased taxes on energy companies are passed on to consumers. Every American will see these increased costs on their energy bill. This body shouldn't pass legislation that further raises energy prices for consumers. I have voted against these attempts to raise taxes, and luckily none of these bills have become law. Unfortunately, too often in the 110th Congress, the majority's solution has been to place restrictions on the marketplace. Policies that increase supply, not those that place restrictions on the marketplace, are the solutions to today's energy concerns. For example the dramatic expansion of the Renewable Fuels Standard to require 36 billion is an artificially created government mandate. While I am supportive of renewable energy, we should develop a policy that is technology neutral and allows the market to develop new sources of renewable energy. The RFS provisions create an unrealistic mandate for advanced biofuels technology that doesn't yet exist and creates hurdles for the development of second generation biofuels. These restrictions will undoubtedly lead to a consumer tax to help bridge the gap in production. However, there are many things we could actually do here in Congress that would help ease the prices at the pump. Many Americans don't know that the U.S. is the world's largest energy producer. Over the past 25 years we have pumped 67 billion barrels of oil, and strong reserves remain. The fact is the energy sources are there--in Alaska, the Rockies, and offshore--but political roadblocks keep it in the ground instead of in use in the economy. We should also be focusing on the development of clean Coal-to-Liquid technologies. This is one of the most promising advancements in coal research and produces liquid transportation fuels synthesized from coal. Even using conservative estimates, our country has enough coal to last over 200 years. Coal is one of our nation's most abundant resources, yet the development of Coal-to-Liquid technologies has been completely ignored by this Congress. Producing liquid transportation fuels from coal will be a major catalyst in helping our country become energy independent. Energy costs are affecting the daily life of all of our constituents. We must change the direction this Congress has been headed in addressing this issue. We must reject the politics that put restrictions on the marketplace and keep energy in the ground instead of in our gas tanks. Instead, we must develop a long-term strategy that allows us to access our traditional energy sources, while developing alternative and renewable energy sources that seek to increase energy supplies and encourage cleaner, more efficient energy use.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would just say to the gentleman from Pennsylvania that I very much appreciate his kind words. We have worked in a very bipartisan fashion. The chairman of the committee has been very dedicated to working with us, and we very much appreciate that, as have the other members of the committee. We now look forward to going to conference and have the opportunity to work together as we work with the other body to try to work out what are still many, many hurdles. A lot of the people have been excited that we are going to conference, and we need to make sure they understand that we are not done with this, but we do have some good ideas that we are going to be able to move forward with. I think that's very encouraging. I would also say to the gentleman from Wisconsin that I too share his desire for reform. This farm bill will contain a lot of reform, and it will result in substantial savings to the taxpayers of the country, because, in fact, that has already occurred. The current farm bill, if it were to be perpetuated, which I do not support, but if it were to be perpetuated, would cost $58 billion less for the next 5 years than it cost for the last 5. So the fact of the matter is there is already substantial savings being achieved. There are, nonetheless, additional reforms that I and many others support as we move to conference with this legislation, and I think the outcome will be one that maintains the safety net for America's farmers and ranchers, but makes a number of very important reforms in a number of different areas and enhances those new areas that I know the gentleman has championed and others, like conservation, which I very much join him in supporting and making sure that the nutritional needs of many in this country are met, and other purposes. We can do that without tax increases, and, as a result, I think this is a very appropriate motion to instruct to adopt today. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I offer this motion to instruct conferees to make clear that tax increases do not belong in a farm bill. While there are still some funding issues that need to be worked out and many policy decisions to be negotiated, these instructions are very clear in stating that tax increases cannot be used to fund the remaining elements of the farm bill. Again I will read the actual language of the motion, which is that the managers on the part of the House at the conference on the disagreeing votes on the two Houses on the Senate amendment to the bill H.R. 2419 be instructed within the scope of the conference to disagree to any provision which will result in an increase in taxes. These instructions are very clear in stating that tax increases cannot be used to fund the remaining elements of the farm bill. Farm bills have long enjoyed bipartisan support in this body, and it would be devastating to American agriculture to add a divisive element such as tax increases to this bill. This conference has been a long time coming, and we are ready to put together a reform-minded farm bill that addresses a variety of issues, including conservation, nutrition, energy, rural development, fruits and vegetables, and forestry, while maintaining a strong safety net for America's farmers and ranchers so that they can continue to meet the growing demand for their products in the global market. This motion is very important. I expect that there will be strong bipartisan support for this motion, and it's important because we have been down this road of attempting to pass a farm bill for quite some time. When the bill came out of the House Agriculture Committee last summer, many of the Members on this side of the aisle expected that the amount of money that was added outside of the committee's jurisdiction would not constitute tax increases. We are very disappointed to find that it did include tax increases, and that has definitely bogged down this process for the many, many, many months since. We have now had some very good discussions with members of other committees that are involved in making sure that we have the ability to move forward and to pay for measures that exceed the amount of money within the jurisdiction of the Agriculture Committee, and those do not include tax increases. This is, I think, an important statement to be made here and in the other body that we can complete this work without tax increases. We do not need to repeat the mistakes that were made earlier in that regard. I also think it's very clear that the President of the United States has been very strong in his statement that this bill would be vetoed if it included tax increases. While we continue to work with the administration on a number of other issues, we are making progress there as well. Again, this would reaffirm, I think, the kind of bipartisan support that it takes to pass a farm bill and get it signed into law. I urge my colleagues to support this motion to instruct. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to instruct conferees.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Emergency Wildland Fire Response Act of 2008. This bipartisan bill, introduced by Chairman Peterson and I, along with five other original sponsors, is a fiscally responsible solution to the USDA Forest Service and Department of the Interior Wildfire budget dilemma. The Emergency Wildland Fire Response Act of 2008 creates a new fund to pay for firefighting while setting strong standards for containing costs and holding the agencies accountable. There's no question that firefighting costs will continue to rise in the future, given the current overly-dense condition of our forests and the fact that more people are moving into these heavily forested areas. Last year, over 9 million acres across the country went up in smoke, costing the Forest Service and the Department of the Interior over $1.5 billion to suppress. This does not mean that Congress should simply give the agencies a blank check to cover these rising costs. This bill sets up a funding structure to balance the need for more funding with the need for accountability. As firefighting costs are increasing, the Forest Service and Department of the Interior's budgets are not. This means that non-fire accounts are cut as more money is shifted to fight fires. Last year, wildfire expenses amounted to 48 percent of the total Forest Service budget. In the 1990's wildfire constituted only 13 percent. Since 2000, Forest Service resources for managing recreation, wildlife, and timber in our national forests have been cut by roughly 23 percent. Programs that assist the Nation's 10 million family forest owners with forest management are facing a 58-percent cut this year alone because of the rising firefighting costs. These drastic funding reductions mean that it's nearly impossible for the agencies to fulfill their missions. In addition to addressing the rising firefighting costs, the Emergency Wildland Fire Response Act provides new tools for reducing fire risks and getting ahead of the game to reduce costs over the long term. First, the bill provides the Forest Service with permanent authority to contract with States to reduce wildfire risks across boundary lines. This authority, commonly called ``good neighbor'' authority, has been tested successfully in Colorado and Utah for the past several years, accomplishing much-needed hazardous fuels reduction work in severely fire-prone areas. This work is done in compliance with all environmental laws. Since wildfires don't stop at boundary lines, this tool is about making sure the Federal land management agencies are good neighbors to their State and private partners. The bill also encourages local communities to step up to the plate and reduce wildfire risks. Under this authority, the Secretary would give priority in Federal funding to communities that have taken proactive steps to make their homes and communities fire-ready. I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to move this important legislation forward.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 2745, the short- term farm bill extension that will extend some provisions of the 2002 farm bill until April 18. The other body passed the same provision this morning, and this body must pass this bill so both bodies can continue to work on conference negotiations. Mr. Speaker, I would like nothing more than to stand before you today and report that we are on the brink of an agreement on the farm bill. However, progress on a new farm bill agreement has been painfully slow, and this process has become a source of frustration for me and my colleagues, and the chairman I know as well, as well as millions of rural Americans awaiting a new farm bill. If we do not seek prompt and substantive action on the farm bill, I believe we must pursue a different course of action, because our farmers and ranchers have already waited too long. Interminable delays in implementing a new farm bill may not have real ramifications in Washington, but in rural America the effects are real, and they are substantial. I appreciate the efforts of our committee chairman to try to keep this process moving. I know at times he has shared my frustrations. We all recognize the need for a new farm bill, and we continue to work toward completing a farm bill and getting it to the President for him to sign into law by April 18. I urge my colleagues to support this farm bill extension to give us a little more time to try to overcome the budget obstacles that have been standing in the way of the farm bill finish line since last year. We started this process together in a bipartisan fashion more than 2 years ago. We worked together in the committee to move a farm bill forward, but we have been hindered time and time again outside the committee by the fact that others in the Congress have failed to recognize the fact that this farm bill starts out $58 billion below the last farm bill in terms of what it will cost to continue the farm legislation forward. That is a great thing. That is a tremendous savings for the American taxpayer. But when we are trying to write a modern, forward-looking farm bill that encompasses changes in conservation, in nutrition, in energy, in specialty crops, and we are trying to reform the commodity title of the farm bill, we needed to have some additional resources. The chairman and I went to the Budget Committee last year in a bipartisan fashion and asked for some money above the baseline, not $58 billion coming back to us, but $5 billion, $10 billion above that baseline, which still would have been a huge savings for the taxpayers and allowed us to write a farm bill inside the committee and bring it to the floor of the House without being dependent on another committee or another source. The same problem existed in the Senate. The outcome has been that we have been spinning our wheels having to deal with other outside influences rather than getting the job done in the committee because of this funding not being available. We are going to have to look at some new alternatives if we don't get a breakthrough here in the next couple of days, because even this extension will expire very, very soon, and the time it takes to write a farm bill that encompasses a whole host of issues, from what goes on on the farm to all of our nutrition programs, to our environmental and conservation programs, to research programs for agriculture, to a whole host of other areas that are very, very important, not just to America's farmers and ranchers, not just to people living in rural America, but to every American consumer who depends upon our farm community to continue to provide the safest, most abundant, most affordable food supply in the world, and we will be working together. I appreciate the chairman's working with me and with other Members on this side of the aisle to accomplish that goal. He has been tenacious in that effort. But we need to either move on, or we need to get the help that was promised a year ago to finally come to the committee so we can get the job done. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. I thank the ranking member for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to this bloated budget resolution. Facing a slowing economy and an increased cost of living, Americans have to tighten their belts and carefully budget their hard-earned money. It's time the Federal Government did the same. Instead, the budget proposed by the majority exceeds the President's spending levels by $276 billion over 5 years. This budget increases discretionary spending and fails to touch entitlement reform. To pay for the massive spending increases, the bill passes the cost on to lower and middle class American taxpayers. This budget resolution calls for the largest tax increase in American history, $683 billion over the next 5 years, which means 116 million taxpayers will face an average tax hike of more than $1,800. Worst of all, it raises the debt by $646 billion. Mr. Chairman, Washington has a spending problem, not a revenue problem. This budget makes no attempt to rein in wasteful government spending or balance our Federal budget. I believe it should be the highest priority in this House to balance the budget, which is why, on the first day of this Congress, I introduced House Joint Resolution 1, a constitutional amendment to require that the Federal budget be balanced, with 160 bipartisan cosponsors. When families across the country are preparing their budget, they know that they can't spend more than they take in. It's a simple concept but one that Congress has not adhered to for far too long. We must balance the budget and cut the national debt, not by raising taxes but by being good stewards of taxpayer money. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to join me in rejecting this fiscally irresponsible budget and rein in wasteful spending.