Farm Bill, Yes; Tax Increase, No OPINION FROM WASHINGTON By Rep. Bob Goodlatte   In late July, the House passed H.R. 2419, The Farm, Nutrition, and Bioenergy Act of 2007, more commonly known as the Farm Bill. While I supported many of the provisions included in the Agriculture Committee passed version of the bill, later additions to the bill such as a tax increase, negated the good work the Committee had done and I could no longer support it. A few days before the bill was to be brought to the House floor for consideration, I joined with other members on the Agriculture Committee and voiced my support for the legislation the Committee had put together. I had worked with them to incorporate several provisions into the bill including funding for conservation of the Chesapeake Bay, the Emergency Food Assistance Program increasing funding for food banks, and compromise language that would allow country-of-origin labeling for meat and produce products to take full effect next year. Unfortunately, at the last minute, tax increases on “insourcing” companies operating inside the United States were added to the bill behind closed doors. The tax increase was added to pay for extra “sweeteners” for nutrition programs that the Majority needed in order to secure the votes of their urban colleagues. The correct action was to either trim spending in the bill or write the budget to treat programs under the farm bill more fairly. The tax provisions, added without the consultation of the Agriculture Committee, would raise taxes on companies with U.S. subsidiaries. These companies are responsible for the employment of more than 5 million Americans and make significant investment back into the U.S. economy. By raising taxes on foreign companies operating in the U.S., these provisions could make the U.S. a less hospitable place to do business, discourage future investment, and drive jobs abroad, not to mention the retaliatory effects these actions may impose on U.S. companies operating on foreign soil. These tax provisions are part of numerous treaties that allow reciprocal treatment on taxes for U.S. companies with foreign subsidiaries to avoid double taxation. This is, in no uncertain terms, a tax increase. If at the end of the day, a company’s tax burden is more on Tuesday than it was on Monday, it is a tax increase. In fact, this tax increase idea has been bumping around for over a decade without receiving any appreciable support. It was unfortunate that the Farm Bill, which has enjoyed bipartisan support in the Agriculture Committee for years, was bogged down with things like tax increases that do not belong in a bill that should be about agriculture, conservation, nutrition, rural development, and energy. Rural America is served best when we work together in a bipartisan fashion; however, the addition of the tax increase destroyed the bipartisan support for the underlying legislation. I want to be clear: I support the Farm Bill, but I will not support tax increases as a means to pave the way to more spending.

* * * * *