Bob Goodlatte

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, as ranking Republican of the House Agriculture Committee, I want to commend the chairman of our committee, Collin Peterson, for the cooperative path we have followed in developing the funding method for our committee. We are carrying on the bipartisan tradition of the Agriculture Committee in staffing and expenditures. Under normal circumstances, I would be voting to support H. Res. 202 that supports the operations of all the committees of the House. Unfortunately, the Speaker has used the unusual and inappropriate mechanism of the self-enacting rule to add the creation of a new and completely unnecessary Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming. We are being asked to support the expenditure of nearly $4 million on a committee that would have no legislative jurisdiction and would cover no issue that is not already well addressed by existing committees. It strikes me that $4 million is too much for the taxpayer to pay for press releases. The attempt to create this expensive and useless committee has added an unacceptable element to what would otherwise be a bill I could support. Therefore, I reluctantly oppose H. Res. 202.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Speaker, I rise today to introduce the ``Security and Fairness Enhancement (SAFE) for America Act.'' This much-needed legislation eliminates the controversial visa lottery program, through which 50,000 aliens are chosen at random to come and live permanently in the United States based on pure luck. The visa lottery program threatens national security, results in the unfair administration of our Nation's immigration laws, and encourages a cottage industry for fraudulent opportunists. Because winners of the visa lottery are chosen at random, the visa lottery program presents a serious national security threat. A perfect example of the system gone awry is the case of Hesham Mohamed Ali Hedayet, the Egyptian national who killed two and wounded three during a shooting spree at Los Angeles International Airport in July of 2002. He was allowed to apply for lawful permanent resident status in 1997 because of his wife's status as a visa lottery winner. The State Department's Inspector General has even weighed in on the national security threat posed by the visa lottery program. During testimony before the House Committee on the Judiciary in the 109th Congress, the Office of Inspector General stated that the Office ``continues to believe that the diversity visa program contains significant risks to national security from hostile intelligence officers, criminals, and terrorists attempting to use the program for entry into the United States as permanent residents.'' Even if improvements were made to the visa lottery program, nothing would prevent terrorist organizations or foreign intelligence agencies from planting members in the U.S. by having those members apply for the program. As long as those individuals do not have previous criminal backgrounds, these types of organized efforts would never be detected, even if significant background checks and counter-fraud measures were enacted within the program. Usually, immigrant visas are issued to foreign nationals that have existing connections with family members lawfully residing in the United States or with U.S. employers. These types of relationships help ensure that immigrants entering our country have a stake in continuing America's success and have needed skills to contribute to our nation's economy. However, under the visa lottery program, visas are awarded to immigrants at random without meeting such criteria. In addition, the visa lottery program is unfair to immigrants who comply with the United States' immigration laws. The visa lottery program does not expressly prohibit illegal aliens from applying to receive visas through the program. Thus, the program treats foreign nationals that comply with our laws the same as those that blatantly violate our laws. In addition, most family-sponsored immigrants currently face a wait of years to obtain visas, yet the lottery program pushes 50,000 random immigrants with no particular family ties, job skills or education ahead of these family and employer-sponsored immigrants each year with relatively no wait. This sends the wrong message to those who wish to enter our great country and to the international community as a whole. Furthermore, the visa lottery program is wrought with fraud. A report released by the Center for Immigration Studies states that it is commonplace for foreign nationals to apply for the lottery program multiple times using many different aliases. In addition, the visa lottery program has spawned a cottage industry featuring sponsors in the U.S. who falsely promise success to applicants in exchange for large sums of money. Ill-informed foreign nationals are willing to pay top dollar for the ``guarantee'' of lawful permanent resident status in the U.S. The State Department's Office of Inspector General confirms these allegations of widespread fraud in its September 2003 report. Specifically, the report states that the visa lottery program is ``subject to widespread abuse'' and that ``identity fraud is endemic, and fraudulent documents are commonplace.'' Furthermore, the report also reveals that the State Department found that 364,000 duplicate applications were detected in the 2003 visa lottery alone. In addition, the visa lottery program is by its very nature discriminatory. The complex formula for assigning visas under the program arbitrarily disqualifies natives from countries that send more than 50,000 immigrants to the U.S. within a 5-year period, which excludes nationals from countries such as Mexico, Canada, China and others. The visa lottery program represents what is wrong with our country's immigration system. My legislation would eliminate the visa lottery program. The removal of this controversial program will help ensure our Nation's security, make the administration of our immigration laws more consistent and fair, and help reduce immigration fraud and opportunism.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Minnesota for yielding. I rise in opposition to this misnamed bill, which should be called the Worker Intimidation Act. Madam Chairman, the National Labor Relations Act gives the private sector workers the right to join or form a labor union and to bargain collectively over wages and hours. However, this bill would eviscerate the protections for workers choosing to join or not to join a union by eliminating the requirement of a secret ballot system and requiring employees to make their ballots public. This bill strikes a blow to the privacy rights of workers throughout the country and would create opportunities for intimidation and coercion by union organizers and employees. Whom then does this bill benefit? Certainly not the American workforce, a large majority of which, as cited by the gentleman from Florida, overwhelmingly opposes this bill; nor the American people. Maybe it is the Mexican workforce. The sponsor of this bill and 15 other Democrats, after all, seek to protect the privacy of Mexican workers in a letter that they sent where they said: ``We understand that the secret ballot is allowed for but not required by Mexican labor law. However, we feel that the secret ballot is absolutely necessary in order to ensure that workers are not intimidated into voting for a union they might not otherwise choose.'' The words of those proposing to support and protect Mexican workers are not willing to do that for American workers. It is a crime. Madam Chairman, it strikes me as extremely ironic that the sponsor of this bill prefers to uphold the fundamental privacy protections of the Mexican workforce at the same time that he strips American workers of their privacy protections in their jobs here at home. I urge my colleagues to vote down this bill that amounts to a betrayal of American workers.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the nonbinding resolution being offered by the majority which, despite the rhetoric, amounts to nothing more than a vote to maintain the status quo in Iraq. This resolution offers no change from the recent course of events in Iraq. It does not take into consideration the recommendations of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group. It does not require the Iraqi people and their elected leaders to step up and take responsibility for their own future. It certainly does not set any benchmark that must be met by the Iraqis. Most importantly, passage of this nonbinding resolution does not protect the funding of our troops in Iraq and, according to many Democrats, it is likely the first step in cutting off that funding altogether. Madam Speaker, we have spent 3 days debating a resolution that does nothing more than serve as a vote of no confidence in the brave men and women who are fighting for freedom and democracy in Iraq. Not only is this resolution discouraging to our commanders and forces, it will fuel the efforts of our enemies who are determined to spread terror and suppress freedom. Despite numerous attacks by terrorists on U.S. military and diplomatic targets throughout the 1990s, Americans on September 11, 2001 awoke to the painful realization that we are engaged in a long- term global war with terrorists, an international campaign to combat an ideology that spreads hate and destruction. Iraq is now the central front in this global war. Success in bringing about a stable and democratic Iraq in the heart of the Middle East is a goal that I believe we all share. While the difficulties cannot be minimized, neither can the consequences of failure and withdrawal. If we fail, the resources now devoted by terrorist organizations and nations sponsoring terrorism in Iraq will be turned to spreading terror around the globe including, again, on American soil. Do not embolden them with this resolution. The United States and our allies, in fact, all freedom-loving peoples, need to support the popularly elected Iraqi Government in establishing control over their country and providing a stable environment for the Iraqi people and our troops as they assist in this process. Together, we have made significant progress, despite numerous obstacles. Iraqis made history when they turned out in record numbers, despite increased violence, to vote in the first free elections in over 50 years. Millions of Iraqis waved their purple-tipped fingers with pride as they came out of the voting stations, a message to the world that they chose freedom. The President is the Commander in Chief and has the authority to make decisions about the best way to accomplish our goals in Iraq. He has initiated changes to our course in Iraq. However, today we will not be voting for change. We will not be voting for a comprehensive review of our strategy in Iraq. It is too bad that when we all have concerns about how best to achieve success in Iraq, the Democratic leadership has brought this polarizing and political resolution to the floor to divide us, rather than unite us, on the most serious question facing the country today. For this reason, I urge my colleagues to vote against this nonbinding resolution, which lacks any substance. I remind my colleagues that a ``no'' vote on this resolution is certainly not a rubber stamp for the President's troop surge. While I continue to support the mission in Iraq, I think it is clear that the administration's efforts to achieve the mission have not been flawless. But a vote against this resolution is a clear vote to support our commanders and troops and all those who have lost their lives spreading freedom to the people of Iraq. I believe that more should be done to press the now established Iraqi Government and U.S.-trained Iraqi military to take the lead. I believe more can be done on the diplomatic front to engage the countries of the Middle East to help. But unfortunately, no such resolution offering concrete evidence has been allowed, and this hollow process has resulted in a hollow resolution. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King), a member of the committee.

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

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) for the purpose of controlling debate.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, at this time, it is my pleasure to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert).

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 4 minutes. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 6. Like my colleagues, I believe we should find solutions to address the growing demand for energy, and I look forward to working with my colleague, the chairman of the Agriculture Committee, Mr. Peterson, to find new ways for American agriculture to provide increasing sources of domestic energy. In the Republican-led Congress, I supported an energy bill that was signed into law that actually encouraged domestic energy production and lessened our dependence on foreign oil. Today's legislation, however, seems to dismantle any progress we have made in achieving energy independence. The Wall Street Journal and The Washington Post, they don't agree with each other very often, they both condemn this legislation. The Wall Street Journal calls it the OPEC Energy Security Act: ``This bill is said to promote America's energy independence, but the biggest winner may be OPEC. Raise taxes on domestic oil producers,'' it said. ``Yes, raise the cost at the gas pump for American consumers. Raise the cost for American farmers who have to buy oil and natural gas to operate their farms. Every American farmer has to do that.'' The Washington Post says: ``This heavy-handed attack on the stability of contracts would be welcomed in Russia, Bolivia or other countries that have been criticized for tearing up revenue-sharing agreements with private energy companies.'' The Wall Street Journal again says: ``So at the same time that the U.S. is trying to persuade Venezuela and other nations to honor property rights, Congress does its own Hugo Chavez imitation.'' Many Members have discussed passionately how America needs to decrease its dependence on foreign oil. In fact, many campaigned on promises to decrease our independence. But here we are in the midst of the Democratic leadership's first 100 hours considering a bill to increase America's dependence on foreign oil. This is dangerous policy for our national and economic security. This legislation increases fees for domestic energy production and repeals for energy companies only the manufacturing tax deduction which was put in place to encourage domestic manufacturing and jobs from domestic production of goods. The manufacturing tax deduction was extended to all manufacturing to fix the problematic FSC-ETI problem, and was in no way a giveaway to the oil companies. By singling out one industry alone, we are not righting a wrong. We are persecuting an industry and the people employed in that industry domestically. This is not attacks on foreign production in Venezuela or Iran or Saudi Arabia. This is attacks on American production of energy. Repealing these incentives makes it less economical to produce domestic energy and will compel companies to seek cheaper options abroad. While energy demands continue to rise, this bill would discourage domestic production, forcing the U.S. to import more foreign oil. While the proponents will tell you only oil companies will pay, the truth is every single one of us will pay the price. So why are we increasing the price of energy as well as our dependence on foreign oil? Those on the other side think this will help spur research for alternative energy. It is estimated that this bill robs about $14 billion over the next decade from domestic energy production. That is quite a lot of money. But where is the plan outlining how that money will be used? Sadly, there isn't one, thanks to a closed rule, with no amendments offered whatsoever time after time during this process, in contrast with the Contract With America, where we allowed 154 Democratic amendments, 48 of which, by the way, passed and were included as a part of the Contract With America. In this process, that possibility of spelling that out is gone. There is no way to tell people how we can use this for more domestic production for renewable fuels, for example. Sadly, there isn't anything like that. This bill creates a $14 billion piggy bank or slush fund that we have been told will be used for future alternative energy legislation. I urge my colleagues to oppose this very bad legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton).

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, I look forward to the day when we can work across the aisle to do what I have heard so many of the speakers here today talk about doing in terms of encouraging greater production of renewable energy here in the United States. The committee will look forward to doing that, indeed. But this legislation doesn't do it. Unfortunately, it doesn't do it because of the very closed rule that we pointed out throughout the Democrats' 100 hours; no openness whatsoever, in contrast to the Contract with America, when Democrats offered 154 amendments. In fact, 48 were adopted. We could have spelled out in good legislation, if it had been through the committee process and we had held hearings and markups in each of the committees represented here today, to say what we were going to use this money for. But, instead, what we are asked to do is vote for a tax increase on domestic production of energy, no tax increase on Venezuela and Hugo Chavez, no tax increase on Iran, no tax increase on any Middle Eastern country, no jobs lost over there, but jobs lost in the United States and American consumers paying for it at the gas pump and American farmers and ranchers paying for it with increased energy cost. Oppose this legislation.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Speaker, I rise today to re-introduce the ``Tax Code Termination Act''. This bi-partisan legislation, which I introduced with my colleague Collin Peterson of Minnesota, and 65 bi-partisan cosponsors, will accomplish two goals. It will abolish the Internal Revenue Code by December 31, 2010, and call on Congress to approve a new Federal tax system by July of the same year. The fact is our current tax system has spiraled out of control. At a time when Americans devote a total of 7 billion hours each year to comply with the tax code, we need tax simplification. Today's tax code is unfair, discourages savings and investment, and is impossibly complex. The problem is Congress won't act on fundamental tax reform unless it is forced to do so. The Tax Code Termination Act will force Congress to finally debate and address fundamental tax reform. Once the Tax Code Termination Act becomes law, today's oppressive tax code would survive for only 4 more years, at which time it would expire and be replaced with a new tax code that will be determined by Congress, the President, and the American people. The Tax Code Termination Act will allow us, as a nation, to collectively decide what the new tax system should look like. Having a date-certain to end the current tax code will force the issue to the top of the national agenda, where it will remain until Congress and the President finish writing the new tax law. The tax code is hopelessly broken and abolishing it is the necessary first step to debating, designing, and adopting a new tax system. Although many questions remain about the best way to reform our tax system, I am certain that if Congress is forced to address the issue we can create a tax code that is simpler, fairer, and better for our economy than the one we are forced to comply with today. Whichever tax system is adopted, the key ingredients should be: a low rate for all Americans; tax relief for working people; protection of the rights of taxpayers and reduction in tax collection abuses; promotion of savings and investment; and encouragement of economic growth and job creation. Taxes may be unavoidable but they don't have to be unfair and overcomplicated. Just like other programs that require reauthorization, the tax code must be reviewed to examine whether it is fulfilling its intended purpose and then Congress must make what changes are necessary. America's future depends on overcoming the handicap of the current tax code. There is a widespread consensus that the current system is broken, and keeping it is not in America's best interest. I urge each of my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Speaker, I rise to introduce legislation that will amend the United States Constitution to force Congress to rein in spending by balancing the federal budget. It is common sense to American families that they cannot spend more than they have--yet far too frequently, this fundamental principle has been lost on a Congress that is too busy spending to pay attention to the bottom line. Our federal government must be lean, efficient and responsible with the dollars that our nation's citizens worked so hard to earn. We must work to both eliminate every cent of waste and squeeze every cent of value out of each dollar our citizens entrust to us. Families all across our nation understand what it means to make tough decisions each day about what they can and cannot afford, corporate officers are required to act in the best interests of their shareholders when using company resources, and government officials should be held to similar standards when spending the hard-earned dollars of our nation's citizens. Congress took a dramatic step forward last year when it passed the Deficit Reduction Act. This new law found savings of approximately $40 billion over the next five years by eliminating wasteful spending and programs. This legislation was an important first step, but it was just that--a first step. Furthermore, the legislation was passed by the Senate by a margin of just one vote and was passed by the House by a margin of two votes, which shows exactly how difficult the task of balancing the budget is--and how important it is to force Congress to do so. In the 109th Congress, we were fortunate to have a majority in the House and Senate that had an appetite for reining in spending but we stil have to make considerable strides to achieve a balanced budget. Only time will tell whether future Congresses will have this appetite as well. However, one thing is certain--if we pass an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that requires a balanced budget, Congress will have to act accordingly regardless of which party is in control in Washington, D.C. This is exactly why I am introducing this legislation today. My legislation would amend the Constitution to require that total spending for any fiscal year not exceed total receipts and require the president to propose budgets to Congress that are balanced each year. It would also provide an exception in times of military conflicts that pose imminent and serious military threats to national security. Furthermore, the legislation would make it harder to increase taxes by requiring that legislation to increase revenue must be passed by a true majority of each chamber and not just a majority of those present and voting. Finally, the bill requires a 3/5 majority vote for any increases in the debt limit. This concept is not new. Forty-nine out of fifty States have a balanced budget requirement. It has become clear that it is extremely difficult for Congress to agree on a budget that is fiscally responsible. By amending the Constitution to require a balanced budget, we can force Congress to control spending, paving the way for a return to surpluses and ultimately paying down the national debt, rather than allow big spenders to lead us further down the road of chronic deficits and in doing so leave our children and grandchildren saddled with debt that is not their own. Yesterday, President Bush also highlighted the importance of a balanced federal budget by announcing his plan to present Congress with a budget proposal that will balance the budget by 2012. I applaud the President for his announcement and look forward to working with him to bring fiscal responsibility back to the federal government. Our nation faces many difficult decisions in the coming years, and Congress will face great pressure to spend beyond its means rather than to make difficult decisions about spending priorities. Unless Congress is forced to make the decisions necessary to create a balanced budget, it will always have the all-too-tempting option of shirking this responsibility. The Balanced Budget Constitutional amendment is a common sense approach to ensure that Congress is bound by the same fiscal principles that America's families face each day. I urge support of this important legislation.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 4093. This bill will modify the expiration date of a provision of the farm bill dealing with farm credit so that it expires concurrent with the rest of the farm bill. Currently, a provision of the farm bill dealing with guaranteed loans for farmers and ranchers expires on December 31 of this year. The rest of the farm bill, however, does not begin to expire until September 30, 2007. By passing S. 4093, we are ensuring that this credit program has the opportunity to be fully debated during the development of the next farm bill. Should this provision expire in the next few days, it could create hardship on the part of those farmers, ranchers and lenders to whom it would apply. I ask my colleagues to support S. 4093 so that this credit program, which is important for America's young and beginning farmers, has the opportunity to be debated and reevaluated during development of the next farm bill without causing undue hardship with limited notice to the farmers and ranchers that use this important program.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. I thank the gentleman for yielding. It is a real honor to rise in tribute to a great American statesman, Henry Hyde. Madam Speaker, Henry Hyde is somebody that I knew of by reputation before I arrived here at Congress in 1993. It has been one of the true privileges of my service here to get to know and work with this outstanding man. He is known throughout the world in diplomatic circles as a great ambassador for the United States, as chairman of the International Relations Committee. I have had the opportunity to see him in action with Presidents and Prime Ministers, to see the kind of respect that he commands from world leaders because of his leadership of that committee and because of his great concern for the promotion of American interests around the world. Those interests are very pure, interests of promoting democracy and opportunity, freedom and peace, for people in every corner of the globe. I have not had the privilege of serving on the International Relations Committee, but I have had the opportunity to serve for 14 years on the Judiciary Committee with Henry Hyde. Not only is he a great statesman on the international stage, but he is clearly also a great statesman in promoting and protecting the Constitution of the United States, the people's Constitution, as he views it, and as he has protected it for many, many years in his service here in the Congress. I have, as one of my prize possessions, a gavel that he used during the impeachment proceedings with regard to former President Clinton. The impeachment proceedings are not a happy or pleasant circumstance, and I don't prize the gavel because of the circumstances, but I prize it because it was used by Henry Hyde with courage, with integrity and with forthrightness and handling, in a very diplomatic and very statesmanlike way, what was clearly the most challenging thing that he dealt with in his entire career. He did it with great dignity. He did it correctly, he did it with great sacrifice as well, because he faced bitter, unfair, false attacks from many quarters for his facing up to that challenge, and I was proud to serve with him on that committee in that regard. He is also known as a champion for life in America and around the world, and I think that may perhaps be his greatest legacy of all. Because to Henry Hyde, life is not just about one issue, abortion or any other issue, it is about human dignity and about preserving and protecting and giving opportunity to each and every one of us. As a young and new Member of Congress, he took me and guided me through many challenges when we became the majority party. As a member of the Judiciary Committee, a new member of the committee, he gave me opportunities to lead the management of legislation and amendments here on the floor of the House, and I will be forever indebted to Henry Hyde for making my career in the Congress greater, and this institution a greater institution because of his dedication and service. Thank you.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on H.J. Res. 96, the joint resolution just considered.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, at this time I am pleased to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McHenry).

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Minnesota for his kind words, and I look forward to working with him in a new capacity in the new Congress. He certainly has my commitment that we will continue to work together for the interests of America's farmers and ranchers and agribusinesses in the bipartisan fashion that has been the history of the Agriculture Committee Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the author of the legislation, the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx).

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend my colleague, the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx) for introducing this resolution. The Christmas tree industry is an important part of the American agricultural industry and is an important part of the rural and forested landscape of Virginia and many other States. One of the leading States in the industry is my own. Christmas tree growers, like many other family farmers and forest landowners, are stewards of the land. They are bound together by a love of the land and a desire to produce renewable products that enhance people's lives while protecting the environment. For many family forest landowners, Christmas tree growing provides a source of annual income. While this income is rarely enough to make a living on, it allows family growers to make long-term investments for the management of their woodlands. For many small growers, this income is critical to allowing them to keep their forests green and growing, rather than subdividing or switching to another land use. According to the Virginia Christmas Tree Growers Association, there are thousands of growers in the Commonwealth who produce more than 1 million trees annually, ranging from commercial operations to choose- and-cut family farms. These trees annually account for nearly $50 million in revenue. Like other segments of the forest products industry, Christmas tree growers are engaged in a renewable, sustainable activity. They plant millions of new trees every year, 73 million trees that cover over a half million acres to be precise. That is a lot of land protected from development and a lot of new trees helping to clean the air, protect watersheds and improve the environment. Just as growing Christmas trees helps renew the environment, the annual tradition of bringing home a tree and decorating it helps renew the faith of millions of families as they gather to celebrate Christmas. In the Christmas season, the Christmas tree is a symbol of joy and goodwill, and we are grateful to all who work to provide this American tradition. I want to thank my colleague, the gentleman from Minnesota, the ranking member of the committee, for his support in our efforts to move this legislation forward. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 96) recognizing the contributions of the Christmas tree industry to the United States economy and urging the Secretary of Agriculture to establish programs to raise awareness of the importance of the Christmas tree industry, as amended.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4846, the Woodrow Wilson Presidential Library Authorization Act, which will authorize grants from the National Archives for the establishment of a Presidential library to provide educational and interpretive service to honor the life of Woodrow Wilson. As a statesman, scholar and President, Woodrow Wilson faced economic crisis, democratic decay, and a world war. Presidential historians agree that World War I and President Wilson's leadership radically altered the role of diplomacy as a tool of foreign policy, a policy that established a new path for America's role in promoting democracies throughout the world. So, too, did Wilson's high-minded ideals craft a legacy that shaped the powers and responsibilities of the executive branch in times of war. Mr. Speaker, as a professor and President of Princeton University, Wilson created a more selective and accountable system for higher education. By instituting curriculum reform, Wilson revolutionized the roles of teachers and students and quickly made Princeton one of the most renowned universities in the world. Due to Wilson's legacy at Princeton, I am pleased to have the support of the current Princeton President, Shirley Tilghman, as we establish this library. H.R. 4846 gives the National Archives the authority to make pass- through grants for the establishment of a Presidential library in Staunton, Virginia, Woodrow Wilson's birthplace, and does not create a new program. In addition, to ensure that a public-private partnership exits, this legislation mandates that no grant shall be available for the establishment of this library until a private entity has raised at least twice the amount to be allocated by the archives. Quite frankly, more Federal public-private programs should operate in this manner. Finally, and to ensure that the Woodrow Wilson Presidential Library is not part of the Presidential library's system, this legislation states that the Federal Government shall have no role or responsibility for the ongoing operation of the library. I am also pleased to have the support of several other Presidential sites throughout the Commonwealth of Virginia, known as the Birthplace of Presidents, including Monticello, Poplar Forest, Montpelier, Ash- Lawn, and Mount Vernon. Mr. Speaker, in order to increase the awareness and understanding of the life and principles and accomplishments of the 28th President of the United States, I ask that you join me in voting for this legislation in the 150th anniversary of Woodrow Wilson's birth year. I would also like to thank the Woodrow Wilson Library Foundation for their help in this cause, including Eric Vettel, Don Wilson, honorary officers, board members, and trustees. I want to thank House leadership for scheduling this bill today, cosponsors, which includes the entire Virginia delegation and the staff of the Government Reform Committee and the Office of Legislative Counsel for their assistance in crafting this bill.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gerlach) 3 minutes.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, urban sprawl continues to threaten the Nation's farmland. Social and economic changes over the past three decades have influenced the rate at which land is converted to nonagricultural uses. Population growth, demographic changes, preferences for larger lots, expansion of transportation systems, and economic prosperity have contributed to increases in agricultural land conversion rates. The amount of farmland lost to development is not the only significant concern. Another cause for concern is the quality and pattern of farmland being converted. In most States, prime farmland is being converted at two to four times the rate of other, less-productive agricultural land. There continues to be an important national interest in the protection of farmland. Land use devoted to agriculture provides an important contribution to meeting the Nation's food and fiber needs, environmental quality, protection of the Nation's historical and archeological resources and scenic beauty. The farmland protection program is administered by NRCS and provides funds to State, tribal, and local governments and nongovernmental organizations to help them purchase conservation easements from willing sellers to limit conversion of farmland to nonagricultural uses. The farmland protection program has received funding applications for 300 percent more dollars than the program was appropriated. The result in fiscal year 2005 was $262 million in unfunded projects. There simply weren't enough Federal dollars to match the number of applications to preserve farmland. H.R. 5313, the Open Space and Farmland Preservation Challenge Grant Act, was introduced to aid in reducing the number of unfunded projects. Currently, the farmland protection program provides up to a 50 percent Federal match on these easement projects. By lowering the Federal match on a small portion of farmland protection program funding, we believe that less Federal funds can be used to protect more land. The bill before us today, H.R. 5313, amends the Farm Security Act of 1985 to set aside 15 percent of farmland protection funds for cost- share grants, 25 percent maximum Federal share, to support eligible State agencies, county, and one or more eligible entities, local government or private entities, to purchase conservation easements. This bill allows Federal dollars to go further by lowering the Federal match fund to a maximum of 25 percent and allowing other entities to make up the other 75 percent. States where the State, county, and local grassroots effort is strong can make better use of increasingly limited dollars. For example, Pennsylvania, which has great grassroots efforts to protect farmland, had the most unfunded easement applications, 65 for fiscal year 2005, which accounted for 6,200 acres not being able to be put into this program. By being able to use these reserved funds, more acres, with help from more groups, can be protected. There is no new spending authorized in this bill. It simply creates a set-aside out of existing Federal farmland protection dollars. Any funds not used will go back into the general disbursement of farmland protection funds. Madam Speaker, obviously, it is in this country's best interests to protect some of its great farmland. This program is immensely popular in many States, proven by the numbers of applications for the program each year. States like Connecticut, with $14 million in projects that could not be funded; Maryland had $17 million; Michigan, $22 million; New Hampshire, $15 million; Ohio, $12 million; and Pennsylvania, $20 million. This bill gives States that have tremendous grassroots organizations the ability to protect more farmland with less Federal money. I would like to thank the ranking member of the committee, Congressman Peterson, for working with us on this matter, as well as Congressman Gerlach, who introduced the measure, and Congressman Tim Holden, a member of the committee, from Pennsylvania, who has legislation addressing this issue. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time

Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 5313) to reserve a small percentage of the amounts made available to the Secretary of Agriculture for the farmland protection program to fund challenge grants to encourage the purchase of conservation easements and other interests in land to be held by a State agency, county, or other eligible entity, and for other purposes.