Bob Goodlatte

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, the committee bill makes significant reforms to the Crop Insurance Program. The bill reduced the statutory loss ratio to an actuarially sound 1.0. By doing this, we were able to include a provision by Mr. Neugebauer that makes additional crop insurance available, which has to be paid for, which will lessen need for disaster assistance. Mr. Neugebauer's provision is similar in many respects to the administration's crop insurance plan. The committee bill increases premiums for the catastrophic level of coverage. We authorize the USDA to renegotiate the standard reinsurance agreement every 5 years. The committee bill specifically authorizes data mining to ensure compliance with rules of the program. The committee bill also reduces the reimbursement rate by 2 percentage points. These are significant changes that make the program more actuarially sound and make the program more responsible with taxpayer dollars. Additionally, the committee-passed bill authorized an additional 1 million acres in the GRP land to protect sensitive grasslands in this country. While we all would like more money for many programs, this is a carefully balanced approach. I think we have done a good job of balancing the needs of both commodity producers and those that would like to preserve native grasslands. I strongly oppose this amendment.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Yes, in its current form.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, my amendment streamlines and adopts one set of terms and conditions for easements for the Wetlands Reserve Program, the Grasslands Reserve Program, the Farmland and Ranchland Protection Program, and the Healthy Forest Reserve Program. This greatly simplifies the process for the Department to purchase easements, while leaving functions of the programs intact. It allows for one set of rules on titleholders, establishment of easements, type of deeds, acceptance of contributions, title transfer and reversionary interest. This amendment not only helps the Department to reduce inefficiencies which result in administrative costs, but will help producers by simplifying the process of obtaining easements for these programs. This amendment does not consolidate any program. This simply sets up one set of rules and regulations for easements. Each program has its own application process, sign-up period, and administrative requirements. Countless hours are wasted on administrative work because each easement has its own set of rules. This amendment makes an effort at streamlining these complex rules and regulations into one set of rules with flexibility that is simple and makes common sense. Each of these individual programs retains their own mission. These easement programs are implemented through landowners who voluntarily agree to a deed restriction and some landscape and resource restoration. Making the sign-up process for producers easier will allow NRCS to focus on their true mission, which should be to provide technical assistance to producers wanting to implement voluntary conservation methods. We have taken popular components of the Farmland and Ranchland Protection Program, including the ability of third-party entities to hold easements, and implemented them in a manner that all producers interested in easements will be able to enjoy. This amendment keeps the funding and missions of each easement program intact. The amendment even keeps the appraisal method of each program intact. This is a commonsense amendment, a good government amendment, and a producer-friendly amendment. And I ask for your support. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the Speaker for coming down to the floor and discussing the bipartisan nature of the farm bill that was produced by the House Committee on Agriculture. It was, indeed, a bipartisan product. There are things in the bill that I don't like, things in the bill that I do like, things in the bill the chairman does not like, things in the bill that he does like. But it was a bipartisan product. But it was written under very difficult circumstances, which we identified at the outset, because of the fact that there is a $60 billion cut in the baseline for the commodity program, a 58 percent cut. That meant we needed to have money to accomplish the goals that the Speaker outlined for reform, some of which I share with the Speaker for increased payments for conservation, for nutrition, for fruits and vegetables, for renewable energy. So we went to the Budget Committee in a bipartisan fashion and pointed out that you couldn't have a $60 billion cut, achieve these new reforms, which all entail new spending, without having the ability to also have some additional resources. Well, the Budget Committee ignored that request and instead gave us a reserved fund. And their budget is papered over with reserve funds; no money in them, no way for the Agriculture Committee to find new funds without going outside of the committee. We were assured inside the committee repeatedly that there would not be a tax increase. But nonetheless, in the closing hours of this debate, a tax increase, indeed, was what was put forth outside of this committee, without hearings in the Ways and Means Committee, without a markup in the Ways and Means Committee, without any input from this side of the aisle. And that is what caused the loss of the bipartisanship coming to the floor, because this is precedent setting. This is the first of many of these reserve funds that we're going to have to deal with, and it is readily apparent what the purpose is: to raise taxes in order to accomplish something that should have been paid for in a budget that had funds available, 9 percent increase in appropriations. It should have been made available to us so we could write a bipartisan farm bill all the way through this House going to the floor. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds to say to the distinguished majority leader that I join him in the support of this bill for the efforts to help preserve and protect the Chesapeake Bay, but also to correct the assertion that I object to the pay-fors. I objected all along to a tax increase all through the process. And I went with the chairman to the Budget Committee at the outset and asked for a fair portion of the current Federal budget for agriculture, and that is what we expected to come forward from the budget. We didn't receive it. So that's what we expected the leadership to provide later on. It was not provided. Instead, we're asked to pay a tax increase on American businesses, and that is wrong. Mr. Chairman, at this time, it is my pleasure to recognize the distinguished Republican whip, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt) for 3 minutes.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the House Republican Conference chairman, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Putnam).

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Terry).

Mr. GOODLATTE

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

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King), a member of the committee whose work we appreciate.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Chairman, I yield myself 5\1/2\ minutes. Madam Chairman, it's a sad day for American agriculture when the Democratic leadership pits America's farmers and ranchers against America's working class. The tax increases included in this bill stand to jeopardize millions of American jobs by raising taxes on companies that do business in the U.S. Not only does this provision cunningly added by the Democrat leadership after the bill left the control of the Agriculture Committee jeopardize American jobs, it stands to violate treaties with other nations and lead to significant ramifications for U.S. companies with operations in other countries. Worst of all, we're not even considering a tax bill; we're considering a farm bill, a farm bill that has been twisted into a partisan pawn. At the beginning of the week, I stood beside the chairman of the Agriculture Committee to voice my support for this bill that we had worked in a bipartisan fashion to bring to the floor. I had only one caveat, that the offsets not be in the form of tax increases. Not 24 hours before we were to consider this bill on the floor, we were made aware of a tax increase provision that had been added to this language behind closed doors. Unfortunately, all of the good things contained in this bill have been overshadowed by very partisan elements of what should be a bipartisan bill. Today we should be debating the merits of this bill, a bill that was carefully crafted to meet the calls for reform and expand programs such as nutrition and fruits and vegetable programs. But the leadership has decided to take American agriculture out of the debate on the farm bill. Heading into the reauthorization of the farm bill, Agriculture Committee Republicans anticipated problems with the budget, given the collapse of the baseline projections for the commodity programs. The lack of funding for the nutrition interests further compounded the problem. As the number of nonfarm interests in farm bill funding has grown and the availability of funding dwindled, farm programs have become particularly vulnerable, and the Democratic leadership and the Budget Committee refused to address the needs of a forward-looking farm bill. From the start, the Agriculture Committee Republicans have made our concerns about funding for this bill very clear. When the chairman announced his projected farm bill time line on May 17, I urged him not to rush the process and find the offsets before promising the money in the farm bill language. Again and again, I, along with my subcommittee ranking members, have implored the committee to slow down, to wait until the money is available before moving ahead. At the Conservation, Credit, Energy and Rural Development Subcommittee markup on May 22, both subcommittee ranking member Frank Lucas and I urged caution in rushing the process. On May 24, at the Livestock, Dairy and Poultry markup, the message was the same. The subsequent markups on June 6, 7, 15 and 19, the message to the leadership of this committee was the same; slow down and find the money. We were consistently told the money would be made available, and we were consistently denied any further information. It would be disingenuous for my Agriculture Committee Democrat colleagues to claim our objections are at all new or recently conceived. We have worked in a bipartisan fashion throughout this process and had the opportunity to take a bipartisan product of the committee to the floor. But our work has been undermined by the addition of tax increases without consultation, review or due process to cover the extra costs of the bill. Despite repeated assurances that the $4 billion in offsets would not come from tax increases, here we are, looking at tax increases as a funding mechanism of choice employed by the Democratic leadership. Moreover, to insinuate that Democrats were made to do anything by the Republicans' opposition to revisions that would directly impact U.S. jobs is preposterous. The Democrats and the Democrats alone are solely responsible for any modifications made to this bill after it left the Agriculture Committee. Because the Democrat leadership won't invest in American agriculture, they're calling for increased taxes to pick up the tab to fund our domestic priorities by increasing taxes on companies that provide millions of Americans with good jobs and stimulate economic growth. I anticipate this tax increase will likely be the first of many needed to fund the priorities that bulge between the majority's budgets. Rural America is served best when we work together in a bipartisan fashion. With passage of this rule, partisanship invades rural America and destroys bipartisan support for the underlying legislation. I want to be clear, I support the farm bill. I do not support the nonagriculture, non-Agriculture Committee approved tax increase that has been shamefully attached to this legislation. Prior to the announcement of this tax increase, it was clear that the administration, which has opposed this bipartisan effort, it was clear that a veto threat was headed our way. A bipartisan farm bill without this tax increase would have produced a veto-proof majority and would have sent this farm bill soaring into the negotiations with the Senate. Now this farm bill will not be an effective product to move American agriculture forward. I urge my colleagues to reject this legislation. Madam Chairman, I reserve my time.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Chairman, at this time I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas, another of the subcommittee ranking members on the Agriculture Committee, Mr. Neugebauer.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Chairman, I yield myself 10 seconds to say to the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee that neither I nor any other Republican on this committee that I know of ever went to him and asked for any, any funds whatsoever, certainly not from a tax increase. Madam Chairman, at this time it is my pleasure to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Everett), the distinguished ranking member on the Agriculture Committee. (Mr. EVERETT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. McCarthy), a new member of the committee who has distinguished himself.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Chairman, at this time it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma, another of our ranking members on the committee, Mr. Lucas.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Chairman, at this time, it is my pleasure to yield 1 minute to the distinguished Member from California (Mrs. Bono).

Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to a distinguished member of the Agriculture Committee, the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Fortenberry).

Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Chairman, at this time, it's my pleasure to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Colorado (Mrs. Musgrave), a very strong member of the committee.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Chairman, at this time, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Boustany).

Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Conaway), a member of the Agriculture Committee.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Chairman, I yield myself 20 seconds to say to the gentleman from Georgia that no one on this side of the aisle is turning their back on anybody. We are simply recognizing that increasing taxes in order to pay for what is in this farm bill is the wrong thing to do. To set businesses who have invested in this country and the American workers whose jobs depend on them against that is very, very wrong, and I would suggest to the gentleman that everyone I have talked to has called this a tax increase. Madam Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Walberg), a distinguished member of the committee.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Washington (Mrs. McMorris Rodgers).

Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston), the distinguished ranking member on the House appropriations agriculture subcommittee.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. I would just say, Madam Chairman, that we reach this point in a process that has been going on for about 2 years. It spanned both my chairmanship and the current chairman's chairmanship. It has encompassed a great deal of effort to write a bipartisan farm bill. We have listened to hundreds of farmers. We have received input from thousands of farmers and ranchers and others interested in this legislation. We address the reform that has been requested in a farm bill. We have addressed the concerns about more funding for fruits and vegetables for nutrition and conservation and renewable fuels. And then to have this tax increase injected into this process after the bill has left the committee is why you have heard every single Member on this side of the aisle speak about how they feel betrayed by this process. It is unfortunate for us, but it is also unfortunate for this farm bill because what happens when it leaves the House, if it passes at all, will be very different than if it passed leaving this House with a veto-proof majority. That opportunity has been lost. I would say to those on the other side of the aisle we can fix that if we would simply slow down and take a look at the appropriate way to pay for the additional funding that is due this committee because we took a $60 billion cut in the budget. The way to do that is to vote for the motion to recommit that we will offer later on that will say you can have this farm bill that we have all praised and send it back to the committee to look for an appropriate way to do this without pitting American agriculture against American industry by having a tax increase imposed to pay for the things that are in this bill. That's the appropriate way to proceed here. That would restore the bipartisanship that is needed in this process, and that would restore a good future for this farm bill, which is very much endangered because of the injection of this partisan tax increase that has been laid at our doorstep, the most bipartisan committee in the House of Representatives that has worked so hard and so long. And to be faced with this at the end is wrong. I do not support this legislation.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, this is a sad day for this Congress. Farm bills are written in a bipartisan fashion. And I appreciate the comments of the gentleman from California and others, the gentleman from Vermont, about the hard work that the House Agriculture Committee put into creating a bipartisan farm bill. There is a lot to like in it; there are things to dislike in it. But this rule turns that bipartisan process on its head. It has poisoned the well in terms of bringing this to fruition. It has made this farm bill, no matter its fate here today, unlikely to have any future beyond this House of Representatives because of the tax increase that has been placed in this legislation, because of the fact that Members who are accustomed to seeing an open rule when dealing with the farm bill. Historically no one can recall a farm bill process as closed as this one, Members denied the opportunity to deal with provisions brought into this legislation like labor provisions and so on, not allowed to offer an amendment to take out Davis-Bacon provisions that have no business being in farm bill legislation. And it is, in my opinion, very disappointing. Now, some have said that this is not a tax increase, this is closing tax loopholes. Businesses all across America are speaking up and pointing out that this is sweeping tax reform that has received no hearing. Here we are with an Agriculture Committee bill dealing with something that should have been dealt with in the Ways and Means Committee, but was simply handed out and said, here, take this. Take this tax increase as the pay-for for a substantial cut in agricultural programs that the Budget Committee did not address properly. We have been trying for months to get fair treatment on the promise that we would be given an appropriate offset. We reported the bill out of the committee, and now we find what we are going to do is put American jobs up against American farmers. What kind of an outrage is that? This rule should be voted down. It is totally unfair to American farmers and ranchers to see a good, bipartisan farm bill put at risk over a tax increase that will have a dramatic impact not only on the businesses that are subsidiaries of foreign-owned corporations providing millions of jobs here in the United States, but also on the trustworthiness of investment in the United States when we begin violating 58 different treaties that we have negotiated with other countries, and then, the ultimate, when those countries start retaliating against us, saying, if you violate a treaty, we certainly can, too, and affecting American investment abroad. This is a very bad tax increase. It is a tax increase, not a ``closing the loophole.'' It is a very, very harmful one and should be the basis for Members to oppose this bill and bring the bill back appropriately. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my opposition to this rule. Apparently, the Speaker and the Chairwoman of the Rules Committee have decided to dispense with the annoying procedures of the committee process and serious floor debate. The rule before the House begins by limiting amendments to a select few, denying Members the right to offer amendments. In living memory, there has never been a rule this restrictive on a farm bill which is traditionally considered under an open rule. As a result, the provision requiring Davis-Bacon wage rates on the new loan guarantee program for the next generation ethanol plants that would effectively eliminate the program in many rural States will go unchallenged. Also immune from floor action, is a provision that prohibits States from contracting private concerns to help deliver food stamps or upgrade their delivery systems to provide better service for recipients. The result is that State employee unions will be protected at the expense of State taxpayers and those who need the program. These are only examples of issue after issue that Members will be denied the right to address. But then we come to the self-enacting portions of this rule. There is a 75-page amendment from the chairman of the Agriculture Committee that moves hundreds of millions of dollars around, cuts programs passed by the committee without consultation and adds new programs from other jurisdictions that spend huge sums of money. If you vote for this rule, that becomes a part of the bill without amendment. Another self-enacting provision sweeps in billions of dollars in offsets by raising fees and royalties on off-shore oil production. Yet another spends nearly $1 billion for a mandatory international feeding program. Finally, a more than $7 billion tax increase is automatically made a part of the bill. This tax increase comes to the floor as if by magic. ``It was not considered in ways & means where it would have been noted that the provision violates up to 50 Senate-ratified international tax treaties that are the basis of international tax treatment for all trade. In fact, this tax increase idea has been bumping around for over a decade without receiving any appreciable support. Now the Democrats are trying to attach this bad idea to a popular bill in an unamendable form. Members should be very careful not to rush to accept this rule. The fate of thousands of companies in our districts and more than 5 million U.S. workers will be jeopardized if we thoughtlessly support this rule. I have worked on the Agriculture Committee since I first came to Congress and I have enjoyed being part of a committee that always prided itself on a bipartisan legislative process. In all those years, I have never witnessed or experienced a situation that discarded the committee product to this extent or that precluded the members of the committee and the general Membership of the House from legislating on major portions of the bill. Mr. Speaker, this rule puts in jeopardy every Member's right to legislate and every Member's ability to rely on the careful deliberations of the committee process to produce fully vetted legislation for floor consideration. When that process is violated, we end up with a rule like this one that was cobbled together in the dead of night and contains tax increases that put at risk millions of American jobs. There is only one response possible to a rule like this and that is to join me in voting this rule down.