FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
July 26, 2007

Goodlatte Opposes Rule to Consider House Farm Bill
“Sad day for Congress” when tax increases are made part of a farm bill

WASHINGTON – This evening, the U.S. House of Representatives began consideration of H.R. 2419, the Farm, Nutrition and Bioenergy Act of 2007, with an hour of debate on the rule under which the five year farm bill would be considered. Farm bills have traditionally been considered under an open rule, but the Democrat Rules Committee approved a closed rule, limiting debate to a select number of amendments. Of the 110 amendments submitted to the Rules Committee, only 31 were ruled in order limiting the debate and discussion on the bill. The rule also added a tax increase provision to the farm bill. This provision was added behind the closed doors without the consideration of the Agriculture Committee.

Ranking Member Goodlatte made the following statement opposing the closed rule on the floor of the House today.

“Mr. Speaker, this is a sad day for this Congress. Farm bills are written in a bipartisan fashion and I appreciate the comments from the gentleman from California and others, the gentleman from Vermont , about the hard work the House Agriculture Committee put into creating a bipartisan farm bill. There's a lot to like in it and 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 the House of Representatives because of the tax increases that have been placed in this legislation; because of the fact Members who are accustomed to seeing an open rule when dealing with the farm bill cannot recall a farm bill process as closed as this one; because Members are denied the opportunity to deal with provisions brought into this legislation like labor provisions; because Members are not allowed to offer amendments 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 this is not a tax increase that it's “closing tax loopholes.” Businesses all across America are speaking up and pointing out that this is sweeping tax reform yet received no hearing. Here we are on an Agriculture Committee bill dealing with something that should have been dealt with in the Ways and Means Committee, but simply handed out as: “Here take this: take this tax increase as the payfor for a substantial cut in agriculture programs that the Budget Committee did not address properly.” We've 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 Committee and now we find that what we're 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 companies providing millions of jobs here in the U.S., but also on the trustworthiness of the investment in the U.S. when we begin violating 58 different treaties that we've negotiated with other countries. The ultimate consequence occurs when those other countries start retaliating against us saying: if you violate a treaty, then we certainly can too, thus affecting American investment abroad.

“This is a tax increase, not “closing a loophole.” It is a very, very harmful one and should be the basis for Members to oppose this rule and bring it back to the floor appropriately.”

###