Congressman Goodlatte wrote in the Roanoke Times, in an article entitled "Trying to do more with less," that "Here in Virginia, the health of the Chesapeake Bay is of great concern to many of us." Goodlatte continued, "The Farm Bill affords us the opportunity to create policies that would positively impact the health of the bay without burdening farmers with superfluous regulations."
Congressman Goodlatte continued to distract constituents with worthy praise for environmental considerations in his article: "The benefits of conservation programs are not solely realized by farmers. All of us benefit from improved air, water, and land quality."
One week later, we read "Bay Bill Too Costly, Congressman Says" in the Daily-News Record. And "Unfortunately, [CHESSEA] is extra expensive..." about the conservation plan known as Chesapeake's Healthy and Environmentally Sound Stewardship of Energy and Agriculture Act of 2007. And Congressman Goodlatte executes this abrupt about-face as Senator John Warner and State Delegate Matt Lohr, both Republicans, continue to express support for CHESSEA.
Now, the Farm Bill involves a wide range of considerations, from farming, through commodities, domestic food assistance, energy development, trade and conservation. It is prudent for any public office holder to periodically take a fresh look at complex and costly proposals. We do not know what went into this reappraisal and reversal. But we do know that Congressman Goodlatte owes us an explanation.
Unless he turns over a new page, Congressman Goodlatte will be reluctant to offer that explanation because he seems to feel a lack of responsibility to his Virginia constituents. Why? Well, unexplained rhetorical position reversal maneuvers, from an eight-term incumbent Congressman, who signed the Republican Contract with America, limiting Congressmen to three-terms, are not unprecedented.