Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of overriding the farm bill veto. Currently, 14 of the farm bill's 15 titles have been enacted into law, and the passage of the veto override will ensure that the whole bill, including the trade title, becomes law.

The content of the bill before us today is the exact same as it was when

317 of my colleagues joined me in May in support of the reform-minded farm bill the House and Senate Conference Committee produced. The only things that have changed are the bill number and the title, all else remains the same.

This farm bill has enjoyed significant bipartisan support in both Chambers. This bill was a collaborative effort crafted by Members on both sides of the aisle and both sides of the Capitol and is historic in the amount and degree of reform that it contains.

We brought this bill a long way with a long list of reforms that lower cost to the taxpayer and increase the efficiency and effectiveness of the programs, yet retains the fundamental purpose for having farm programs to begin with, guaranteeing a stable, reliable, and affordable food supply for the American consumer.

Unlike the last farm bill, which was signed into law by the President of the United States, this farm bill is less expensive and contains many of the reforms that the President requested. So I urge my colleagues to support the farm bill override and ensure that the very same farm bill that has garnered significant bipartisan support in this Congress already can finally become law in its entirety.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself a moment to say to the chairman of the committee that I also appreciate the very hard work that he put into this very bipartisan effort. And I want to thank the staff on both sides of the aisle.

I do believe that this farm bill contains far more reform than any previous farm bill. And I think the track record in the future in preserving good farm policy to assure the American people, our taxpayers, our consumers of the opportunity to have a safe and abundant and affordable food supply is very, very important. And so I thank the chairman for his hard work for all this time. The two-and-a-half-year process it has taken has finally come to a conclusion. I urge my colleagues to pass this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to reclaim my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arizona.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 3058, the Public Land Communities Transition Act of 2008. Mr. Speaker, this bill had the opportunity to provide rural schools with

the much-needed funding that allows them to keep their doors open and serve sparsely-populated areas. Unfortunately, the majority decided to offset this bill with provisions that will increase the cost of gas to the American public. Already paying $4 a gallon at the pumps, Americans should not be forced to bear further increases, especially those living in rural areas that, on average, already drive greater distances.

The fee increases on oil and gas leases would place further confines on domestic energy production at a time when we need to be expanding production and building our Nation's energy independence.

This provision was included in the farm bill that was brought to the House floor a year ago, and was one of several tax increasing provisions that drew criticism from House Members, as well as the Senate and the White House. It would be disingenuous to sing praises of this bill when the cost of providing support to rural schools would be borne by the very rural constituents we are trying to help.

There is a proposed compromise that was introduced in the 109th Congress and enjoyed broad bipartisan support. It would solve the problems created by the oil and gas lease provisions in H.R. 3058 by increasing domestic energy exploration and production, thereby helping to reduce the gas prices for the American consumer. At the same time, this alternative would provide the necessary funding for rural school districts. That alternative would be something I could stand behind but, unfortunately, that is not the bill we are considering today.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.'' I urge them to vote against the policy that will raise gas prices for Americans when they have the opportunity to do it right and create increased domestic energy production and solve this problem for our rural schools.

I thank the leader for yielding and for all of the effort that he and virtually every Member of this House put into this legislation now. If some of us are experiencing a sense of deja vu, it is because we are considering the exact same bill that we passed with overwhelming bipartisan support last Wednesday. The Senate also passed the bill by a significant margin.

However, yesterday it was determined that somewhere between the House and Senate passage of the farm bill, while the bill was being enrolled, title III, the trade title, was accidentally omitted from the enrolled bill that was then sent to the President. To avoid future uncertainty or constitutional questions about the bill omitting the trade title, we are presenting the same farm bill that we passed last week to both chambers and running it back through the necessary procedures to ensure the whole bill becomes law.

While the substance and content of the bill is the exact same as we passed last week, three technical items have been added to reflect the technical corrections necessary. The technical changes to correct the clerical error include, one, a slight change to the long title in order to distinguish the bill from H.R. 2419; a provision that deems the conference report on H.R. 2419 to be the legislative history of this new bill; and a provision that prevents duplication of the identical sections on H.R. 2419 upon adoption. This would prevent double spending if the Senate overrides the veto and 14 titles are in law when this new bill is enacted.

Other than those technical corrections, we are simply redoing the farm bill to correct the error.

Let me say that while it was an unfortunate error, it also was an egregious error. This is a very serious problem that has been created, and we are seeing that reflected in the fact that we are taking several different approaches to try to make sure that the farm bill which had that strong bipartisan support is indeed enacted into law. So it is with some disappointment that I see the majority table the privileged resolution offered by the Republican leader and not look into this in greater detail. I think it certainly deserves that attention, and it would be my hope that the majority would reconsider that approach and bring that privileged resolution to a vote so we can get to the bottom of all the considerations that need to be made regarding this and how this can be avoided in the future, but also to find out exactly what indeed did happen in the past few days that led to the unfortunate situation we find ourselves in today of again finding it necessary to pass this legislation, which I urge my colleagues to again adopt, as they already have voted for it once and have subsequently voted to override the President's veto, so we can indeed do what America's farmers and ranchers seek, and that is to have a new farm bill that is forward looking and that does address the concerns that have been brought to the attention of the committees.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the farm bill, and the words before me say ``the very same farm bill passed by this body last week with an overwhelming bipartisan majority.'' Now we find that it is not quite the same farm bill because of an enrolling error or something in the transmission of the document. I certainly hope that we can find an amicable way to make sure that the trade title of this bill, which is an important title, is included in the final product, whether as a part of a joint resolution or by some other means of adopting that.

This bill was a collaborative effort, crafted by Members on both sides of the aisle and both sides of the Capitol, and is historic in the amount and degree of reform. It costs less than either the House or the Senate bills and ensures Americans will continue to enjoy access to a safe, affordable, and reliable food supply.

Last week, the 318 bipartisan votes in favor of the farm bill sent a clear message: This is a good bill and there is significant support for it. Despite what has been opined by editorial boards throughout the country, this bill contains significant reforms and is the most reform- minded farm bill this body has ever considered. Granted, everyone didn't get exactly what they wanted. We all gave a little and we all got a little. But such is the nature of compromise. Given the diverse nature of a farm bill, it is extremely difficult to manage the scope of needs within the farm bill, and even more difficult when you're not given the resources needed to do so.

This bill contains many of the ideas suggested in the administration's farm bill proposal. Like the administration, we utilized the adjusted gross income to reduce payments to the wealthiest farmers and ranchers. We eliminated the three-entity rule, created a revenue-base countercyclical program, modified and modernized the dairy program, modified planting flexibility rules, increased the efficiency of the crop insurance program, directed funding to the development of cellulosic ethanol, included programs for beginning and socially disadvantaged farmers, and created beneficial interest for the loan programs.

Variations of these measures were included in the administration's proposal. We may not have gone as far as the administration wanted, but these reforms help make this a better bill than the House or Senate farm bills.

It is important to point out that despite comments to the contrary, this bill is completely paid for, without any tax increases. While many throughout the world are feeling the effects of increased food prices, U.S. consumers have been largely insulated from spikes in food prices because many years ago we established a food production system that maintains an adequate supply in good times and in bad. Because it is produced domestically, we know it to be safe and affordable.

This bill ensures that Americans will continue to enjoy the access to a safe, affordable, and reliable food supply, and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this farm bill, which moved substantially in the direction that the President asked for, but which did not meet all of his goals. I think we have increased the support for this bill substantially by almost 90 Members in the process, and I urge my colleagues to support this override vote.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to respond to the gentleman from Arizona about the ACRE program. This is a program that was requested by the administration. It was modified by the House and modified by the Senate. Now we hear the administration doesn't like the way it is projected to work, but, quite frankly, it scores by the Congressional Budget Office as saving the taxpayers of our country $400 million.

Why? Because the fact of the matter is it is not expected to have a very high enrollment, and in order to have what the gentleman describe take place, we would have to have a dramatic drop in corn prices. But the administration just signed into law in December a bill that mandates ever-increasing costs of amounts of production for ethanol, and the fact of the matter is we are not going to see those conditions. It is a theoretical possibility, a practical unlikely condition.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Boustany).

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, at this time it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished Member from Missouri, a real advocate for agriculture, Mr. Hulshof.

(Mr. HULSHOF asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, a lot has been said here today about the bipartisan nature of this legislation, but when it passed the House last week, a majority on both sides of the aisle voted for this farm bill, and three-quarters of all of the Members here did so. But we did so because there are provisions in this bill that are of interest to each side of the aisle, and sometimes there are very clear partisan differences.

But nonetheless, the Republican side of the aisle received a number of concessions in the final negotiations of this bill: a provision that would have prohibited all 50 State food stamp programs to be able to reach out to technology companies and others to modernize and improve their food stamp program, something they have done many times in the recent past. A prohibition on that was removed from the bill. A provision in the bill that would have rolled back the Welfare Reform Act of 1996 and provided increased food stamps for able-bodied adults without dependent children was removed from the bill. Provisions related to the Davis-Bacon legislation that many Members on my side of the aisle, including myself, were concerned about were removed from the bill.

So this is a bipartisan bill because it was compromise and give-and- take on both sides of the aisle.

I have also heard Members complain that this bill is not fiscally responsible. It's less than the last farm bill. It is less than either the House-passed

version of the bill or the Senate-passed version of the bill: $4 billion less than the House, $5 billion less than the Senate version. I ask any Member here in the House, when was the last time they recall that a bill came back from a conference between the House and the Senate and spent less money than either the House or Senate spent?

And I would give you this overall picture. Americans spend about $1.2 trillion a year on food. The provisions in this bill related to the commodity title, the safety net for America's farmers and ranchers, is about $7 billion or slightly less than one-half of 1 percent of what Americans spend on food.

I yield myself an additional 30 seconds.

Now for that one-half cent on every dollar, Americans get the stability and safety of their food supply and the assurance that they will not see in the United States what they're seeing in other countries around the world which do not have a good farm program for their farmers that assure their consumers that they will get an adequate, safe, and affordable supply of food. They do not see food riots in the United States.

They see, instead, those in the greatest need receiving appropriate food programs and the average American being able to spend less than 9 percent of their income on food. That is lower than any other country in the world today or any other country in the history of the world.

This farm bill helps to promote those good policies. I urge my colleagues to support the override.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

I urge my colleagues to vote to override this veto, but I would like to close my remarks by commending the President of the United States and his administration for their involvement in this process. They have improved this farm bill considerably from the versions that were passed in the House and the Senate. In fact, I'm going to yield a portion of my time to the leader.

But I want to say that this includes more than 90 provisions that the President of the United States, the leaders in the Department of Agriculture and others, suggested to us to reform. And there are numerous reforms in this legislation that are very, very substantial, very, very significant. They would not have occurred without the President's active involvement and support for efforts to improve this farm bill.

This farm bill is dramatically reformed from previous farm bills, and as a result of his involvement, of involvement on both sides of the aisle, this farm bill is dramatically improved. As a result, the Republican Members on this side of the aisle went from 17 Members supporting the bill when it came out of the Agriculture Committee to 100 Members supporting it when we voted for it last week.

There is much to commend in this bill. The President has asked for additional reforms. I supported him in the efforts to obtain some of those reforms, but we could not achieve every single objective that he sought because this is a bipartisan bill that includes the considerations of a wide array of viewpoints.

But I will say that this side of the aisle was well represented in this process and thanks in part to the efforts of the administration.

Notwithstanding that, the bill is a good bill, and we would urge our colleagues to support it.

At this time, I yield the balance of my time to the Republican leader, the gentleman from Ohio.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I just want to say to all of my colleagues that this has been, as the chairman described, a very long and arduous process that began more than 2\1/2\ years ago by listening to farmers and ranchers and other people all across the country and holding a multitude of hearings there, and here in Washington as well. It began under my chairmanship. I have never seen anybody who has pursued the passage of legislation as tenaciously and with such dedication, but also listening to so many different people, as the chairman of the committee has done.

Mr. Speaker, as a result, this is not your father's farm bill, nor is it even the farm bill that passed out of this House last summer. This farm bill has more reform than any farm bill that the Congress has ever taken up. It imposes payment limitations on farmers and those who own land and have substantial nonfarm income alike and is well worth consideration in this body, and I urge its passage.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.

I rise today in support of the farm bill conference report. I thank the chairman and all of the other members of the Agriculture Committee on both sides of the aisle for working in such a bipartisan spirit to produce good legislation. I also thank my staff and the majority staff for their hard and, I know to them, seemingly endless work on this legislation.

This farm bill contains solid reforms while addressing a variety of issues including forestry, rural development, renewable energy, nutrition, conservation, research, specialty crops, and livestock and still maintains the safety net necessary to ensure a safe, reliable and affordable domestic food supply. This farm bill is a good work product, and I am proud of the work we have done.

The bill contains more reforms than any previous farm bill, eliminating payments to millionaire farmers, eliminating the three- entity rule, and increasing the efficiency of the crop insurance program among numerous other reforms.

It's 100 percent PAYGO-compliant and is fiscally responsible, scoring $4

billion less than the House bill and $5 billion less than the Senate bill. I think you would be hard-pressed, Mr. Speaker, to find a conference report in the history of this body that came back scoring less than the House and Senate bills. That is a significant achievement, and I think it would be foolish to overlook the positive changes this farm bill has undergone.

When we talk about the farm bill, many believe that the Congress is voting on a $288 billion bill that goes directly to farmers. The truth is that only 17 percent of the farm bill spending is devoted to farm programs, while nearly 70 percent goes to the nutrition title alone. In fact, there is very little farm in a farm bill anymore.

In 2002, the farm program funding comprised just three-quarters of 1 percent of the Federal budget. Today, farm program funding accounts for just one-quarter of 1 percent of the Federal budget, a twofold reduction in just 5 years.

Agriculture policy is essential to the lives of every American, and it is important that the policy we formulate is responsible, effective and at a low cost to the taxpayer.

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. Speaker, at this time, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Lucas), a ranking member of one of our subcommittees.

(Mr. LUCAS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence).

(Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, how much time remains?

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

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. 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.

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

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.''

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. 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. 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.

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. Speaker, I offer a motion to instruct conferees.

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. 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. 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.

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.