Bob Goodlatte

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I rise to join Chairman Bonilla in opposition to this amendment. Mr. Chairman, the most important thing that should come out of this debate is that the American beef supply is very, very safe, the safest in the world. And that is based not only on the statistics maintained by the Department on food-borne illness, the lowest in the world, but also based on the fact that there is no evidence of any American ever contracting any disease from BSE based upon consuming American beef, ever. The enhanced surveillance program for BSE was designed as a one-time intensive assessment to test as many animals as possible from the portion of the cattle population considered to be most at risk for BSE. A surveillance program is not designed to test every single animal at risk for a disease, and surveillance is not a food safety measure. Surveillance testing looks for signs of the disease in the cattle herd. But it is USDA's other safeguards, such as the removal of specified risk materials from cattle at slaughter, that protect consumers and the food supply. USDA has tested over 714,000 samples. And they have tested the greatest at-risk cattle for having BSE. It has cost us more than $1 million a week to do it. The USDA's analysis of that surveillance data shows that we are dealing with an incredibly low prevalence of the disease in the United States, no more than four to seven cases in the entire U.S. herd of 100 million cows. What is more, because of the other practices, even if a cow has BSE, like four to seven may have, they are not getting into our food supply. The two cows that have been found so far in this country with BSE, neither one got into our food supply. The USDA is currently putting its analysis through a rigorous peer review process to ensure that the conclusions drawn are sound and that they are scientifically credible. We should allow that process to go forward. The enhanced surveillance program gives the USDA the ability to stand on solid scientific ground in saying that the prevalence of BSE in the United States is extraordinarily low. Mr. Chairman, given that fact, there is little justification for continuing surveillance at the enhanced level once the USDA analysis is affirmed by peer review. The USDA has said that the framework for ongoing BSE testing will be based in science and will be in line with international guidelines for a country like the United States that is at minimal risk for the disease. Mr. Chairman, we now have the data to draw scientific specific conclusions, leaving no need to continue the enhanced program and no justifications for the related costs. Surveillance testing is distinct from food-safety testing, which we also conduct. It is appropriate that the USDA will transition to ongoing testing for BSE from a standpoint of sound science and policy. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I rise to make a point of order.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order against section 752.

Mr. GOODLATTE. I raise a point of order against page 82, line 6, ending on page 82, line 17, because it violates rule XXI, clause 2, which prohibits legislative language in a general appropriations bill.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Georgia for yielding me this time. I rise in opposition to the amendment. While I appreciate the intent of the amendment and the questions that have led to it, the appropriations measure as reported contains language on animal identification that should be sufficient to address its concerns. Since becoming chairman of the Agricultural Committee, we have conducted five hearings on the national identification, national animal identification system. It is clear that animal ID has the potential to significantly improve our animal health monitoring system and enhance our ability to respond to an animal health emergency. Unfortunately, many of the livestock producers I talk with about the USDA's animal ID system, still have questions about cost, liability, regulatory burden, confidentiality and barriers to commerce that have yet to be addressed. It is reasonable to expect that an individual producer could look at a USDA document and determine what he would be required to do under either the voluntary program or the mandatory program that will follow on later. Today, it is simply not possible. The Appropriations Committee has included language in their bill that holds funding until the Secretary of Agriculture publishes an advance notice of proposed rulemaking outlining how USDA's animal ID system will work. This informal process will provide the details necessary to have a full and thoughtful debate about animal ID and allow us to find our way forward with this important public policy initiative. For those who worry an ANPR might slow down an animal ID implementation, I offer this observation, if USDA is not prepared to quickly answer these fundamental questions about its plans, then USDA is in no position to be moving forward in any case. Mr. Paul's amendment has the best of intentions. However, the underlying bill has provided the mechanism to work through the issues he seeks to address. For this reason, I believe his amendment should be defeated.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by Mr. Chabot to limit funding to the Market Access Program. This very important program helps boost U.S. agricultural exports. U.S. agricultural exports are expected to be $64.5 billion in 2006, resulting in a trade surplus of more than $1 billion. Just a year ago, this trade surplus was significantly higher, but with increased subsidized foreign competition, all U.S. economic sectors have seen a steady increase in trade deficits. Agriculture is still one of the few sectors of the American economy to enjoy a trade surplus, and it is programs such as MAP that enable this. Exports also provide needed jobs throughout the U.S. economy and generate economic activity in the nonfarm economy. Nearly every State exports agricultural commodities. Agricultural exports in 2001 generated an estimated 912,000 full-time civilian jobs, including 461,000 jobs in the nonfarm sector. MAP helps the U.S. meet heavily subsidized foreign competition. Mr. Chairman, the European Union spent more than $3.25 billion in 2003 on agricultural export subsidies, compared to about $30 million by the U.S. The EU and other foreign competitors are moving aggressively in providing other forms of assistance to maintain and expand their share of the world market at the expense of U.S. farmers and ranchers. In recent years, they have devoted approximately $1.2 billion for market development and related activities. Without U.S. policies and programs to counter such subsidized competition, American farmers and ranchers will be at a substantial disadvantage. MAP is specifically targeted to help small businesses, farmer cooperatives and trade associations to meet this subsidized foreign competition. It is not a subsidy to big business as some would want you to believe; in fact, it represents a successful public-private partnership. MAP is administered on a cost-share basis by the U.S. Department of Agriculture with farmers, ranchers and other participants required to contribute up to 50 percent toward the program. In fact, since 1992, for every dollar contributed by Federal funding, MAP participants have increased their contributions from 30 percent to 166 percent. According to the USDA, every Federal dollar invested has resulted in $16 in additional U.S. agricultural exports. Mr. Chairman, in closing, I urge my colleagues to vote against this misguided amendment. MAP helps U.S. agricultural exports meet foreign competition, improves U.S. trade, strengthens farm income and protects American jobs.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. I do so always reluctantly when it involves my good friend from Florida (Mr. Putnam), with whom I have the greatest respect. But in 1981, Congress enacted a ban on energy exploration covering more than 85 percent of U.S. Outer Continental Shelf. At the time, U.S. natural gas prices were the lowest in the industrialized world. Today, U.S. natural gas prices are the highest in the industrialized world. Prices for natural gas continue to increase while the government continues to promote new natural gas consumption. To balance the market, we need to invest in efficient and alternative energy. But we also need to increase access to new sources of supply to keep pace with new sources of demand. The high cost of natural gas has a major impact on both the farm and forest sector. Paper mills, a major employer in my district, are very energy intensive. Energy costs account for 18 percent of the cost of operating a mill, almost eclipsing costs for employee compensation. The impacts have been dramatic. Over 232 paper mills across the country have closed, and 182,000 jobs lost since 2000, when energy prices started a steep rise. For farmers, higher natural gas prices mean higher costs for fertilizers. According to the USDA, average fertilizer prices in March 2006 stood 74 percent higher than their 1990-1992 level, very near all time high records. The Interior appropriations bill begins to address the supply piece of the puzzle to help bring natural gas prices down. We can no longer continue to ban access to large sources of supply, even as we continue to encourage new demand. The bill exempts natural gas from the congressional ban on energy development in the OCS. The ban on oil development remains in place. It allows the Federal Government to begin the process of developing these important resources. The bill's provisions are a starting point. It is the first time in a quarter century that Congress is acknowledging that it can no longer continue to promote natural gas consumption and, at the same time, prohibit more production. I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment. My friends, I rise in opposition to the amendment. In 1981, Congress enacted a ban on energy exploration covering more than 85 percent of the U.S. Outer Continental Shelf. At the time, U.S. natural gas prices were the lowest in the industrialized world. Today, U.S. natural gas prices are the highest in the industrialized world. Prices for natural gas continue to increase, while the government continues to promote new natural gas consumption. To balance the market, we need to invest in efficiency and alternative energy, but we also need to increase access to new sources of supply to keep pace with new sources of demand, like ethanol and hydrogen. The high cost of natural gas has a major impact on both the farm and forest sector. Paper mills, a major employer in my District, are very energy intensive. Energy costs account for 18 percent of the cost of operating a mill, almost eclipsing costs for employee compensation. The impacts have been dramatic. Over 232 paper mills have closed and 182,000 jobs lost since 2000 when energy prices started a steep rise. For farmers, higher natural gas prices mean higher costs for fertilizers. According to the USDA, average fertilizer prices in March 2006 stood 74 percent higher than their 1990-92 level, very near all- time records. The Interior Appropriations bill begins to address the supply piece of the puzzle to help bring natural gas prices down. We can no longer continue to ban access to large sources of supply, even as we continue to encourage new demand. The bill exempts natural gas from the Congressional ban on energy development in the OCS. The ban on oil development remains in place. It allows the Federal government to begin the process of developing these important resources. The bill's provisions are a starting point. It is the first time in a quarter century that Congress is acknowledging that it can no longer continue to promote natural gas consumption and, at the same time, prohibit more production. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the amendment.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, once again we are confronted with the question of how to manage one of our great national treasures, the Tongass National Forest in Alaska. It is my hope that we will choose more wisely this time. The choice here is really quite simple. We can choose to follow the law and respect the results of the forest planning process, or we can trump the law and substitute our own political needs for those of an economically depressed region of the country. The gentleman's amendment is the final piece of a long-standing strategy to do one thing and one thing only, to kill what remains of the forest products industry in Alaska. This is not a decision about protecting pristine forests. My friends, we have already done that. More than 96 percent of the Tongass National Forest has not and will not be managed for timber under the existing forest plan. This amendment simply says ``get lost'' to the last few sawmills in the region and the hundreds of jobs they provide. The Tongass National Forest has a newly revised forest management plan, a carefully considered plan that took more than 13 years to complete. The plan provided for careful roadless area management following established planning processes, including extensive public participation. The gentleman's amendment ignores all of this for no other reason than to shut down the Alaska timber industry. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlemen from North Carolina (Mr. Hayes).

Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady).

Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Chairman, the gentleman makes an excellent point. And the point you made earlier about choosing between dead, dying, burned trees versus live, living trees not being cut down are also helping the environment by absorbing that CO2. So this is a very proenvironmental piece of legislation

Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Chairman, I yield myself 4 minutes. Madam Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 4200, the Forest Emergency Recovery and Research Act. This bill is a very moderate approach to a very serious problem. As usual, I have worked in close cooperation with my friends and colleagues on the House Resources Committee to develop a commonsense approach to forest recovery that has garnered wide bipartisan support from our colleagues and strong endorsements from professional foresters, firefighters and local officials. The Society of American Foresters, representing some 15,000 forestry professionals in both public and private service, has supported and, in fact, provided constructive input as both committees have worked through numerous revisions of this important bill. FERRA has been endorsed by the Federal Wildland Fire Service Association, which represents some 12,000 firefighters who annually risk life and limb fighting forest fires and responding to other disasters. The association called FERRA ``a commonsense approach'' to addressing forest recovery. Additionally, this bill has been endorsed by the National Association of State Foresters, State officials who manage millions of acres of State forests and help the Nation's over 10 million family forest owners keep their woodlands healthy. Among the bill's many other supporters are the National Association of Counties, the American Farm Bureau Federation, the International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners, Wildlife Management Institute, and the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation. Many of you have heard that FERRA is not relevant to your States. I am here to tell you that is not the case. First, the bill directs the Forest Service and Department of the Interior to work with the adjacent landowners and managers when catastrophe strikes to develop landscape- scale assessments of the damage. Since the Forest Service is only in charge of about one-quarter of our Nation's forests, this leaves the large majority of forestlands in the hands of private land owners. This provision is critically important to any Member who represents a forestland owner back home. Second, many of you have been told not to worry about forest catastrophes, that they only happen somewhere else. Unfortunately, catastrophic events know no boundaries. In my home State of Virginia, just last week the Forest Service wrapped up fire-fighting efforts on the Cardinal fire in Page County, Virginia, just outside my district. This fire, seen in these photographs, damaged over 1,900 acres of public lands. So what would happen in Page County if H.R. 4200 was already in place? The Forest Service would simply have 30 days to complete a rapid evaluation of the burned area and then it would have to decide whether or not to propose a catastrophic event recovery project. That is it. No environmental laws are waived, no wilderness areas are entered, no logging is required. Nothing in the bill forces the Forest Service to cut a single tree. If the professional land managers and the Forest Service do decide that H.R. 4200's emergency procedures are appropriate, the agency would have 90 days to analyze a proposed project and the no-action alternative. Appeals and litigation would be governed by the same sort of rules overwhelmingly approved by this body under the Healthy Forest Restoration Act. All projects would comply with existing forest plans. FERRA also directs the Forest Service to develop preapproved practices that will undergo rigorous scientific peer review. It emphasizes the need for research, and provides that 10 percent of the revenues from any timber removed for a recovery project be dedicated to research on forest recovery. This bill addresses the need for further research and is equipped with its own funding mechanism to drive this research. The bill will also pay for itself. CBO found that H.R. 4200 will save the taxpayers $21 million over the next 5 years. I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan bill that has earned the strong support of our professional forest management people. Please join me in giving them one more tool to use in their efforts to promote forest health and the sustainability of our precious forests.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Chairman, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx).

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the rule for H.R. 4200, the Forest Emergency Recovery and Research Act, or FERRA. This bill has 147 bipartisan cosponsors, including almost every Representative whose district includes substantial amounts of public forest land. FERRA is designed to help our professional foresters respond to disasters such as fires, hurricanes, and ice storms more quickly, while providing a dedicated source of funding to conduct research on forest recovery. In 2003, this House came together on a bipartisan basis and passed the Healthy Forest Restoration Act. That bill was designed to help our public land managers move quickly to help restore forest health across our national forests. But with millions of acres of our public forests at risk of catastrophic wildfires and still others subject to disasters such as Hurricane Katrina, it is obvious that some forests will sustain catastrophic damage. The question then becomes what to do about it. Our public land managers have been faced with this question over and over again in recent years. It has become apparent that the framework of existing laws and regulations discourages them from acting quickly to restore forests and capture the value of damaged timber. The Forest Service has encountered difficulties in my home State when insect outbreaks or ice storms have damaged our national forests. Between 1992 and 1994, the gypsy moth, a nonnative, invasive pest, defoliated over half a million acres of Virginia's national forest, killing trees on tens of thousands of acres. Unfortunately, the Forest Service conducted salvage sales on a mere 2,700 acres, a very small percent of the total. Furthermore, the response to the ice and windstorms that hit our forests proceeds at a snail's pace, and it can take the NEPA from 6 months to several years to move forward with a salvage and recovery project. Even as the agency has attempted to use administrative rules to move more quickly, radical environmental groups who oppose all timber harvest on our public lands have sued to force even small projects through cumbersome appeals processes. H.R. 4200 would help provide some assurance that restoration projects would at least be considered in a timely fashion. I have worked closely with the bill's bipartisan lead sponsors, my friends and colleagues, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden), the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird) and the gentlewoman from South Dakota (Ms. Herseth) on this bill. The final version before you today reflects months of work and countless revisions to ensure that the bill protects the environment while ensuring that forest recovery can take place while damaged trees still have value. That is why there is broad support for H.R. 4200 within the private sector where it has been endorsed by more than 50 organizations, including professional resource managers and sportsmen's groups. My belief is that H.R. 4200 provides a balanced approach to forest recovery while sending Federal land managers a clear signal that forest recovery should be a priority. Delays result in wasted timber resources, degraded environmental conditions, and increased costs for taxpayers. Projects which could have paid for themselves, provided valuable timber to local industry, and help put our forests on the road to recovery wind up delayed to the point where the timber is valueless. Adjacent private landowners meanwhile absorb the risk as national forests become the source of future insect epidemics and wildfires. H.R. 4200 also focuses on improving the science behind forest recovery, and it does not waive a single environmental law. It requires consideration and, if appropriate, implementation of expedited environmental review to ensure that projects are documented and implemented in a timely fashion. As Forest Service Chief Dale Bosworth told the Committee on Agriculture, ``H.R. 4200 would provide direction for rapid response to catastrophic events and allow managers and partners to spend less time planning and more time doing.'' Recovering forests quickly after a disaster is common sense. Our bill ensures that the Forest Service will take these commonsense measures and back them up with sound science. I urge my colleagues to support this rule and the accompanying legislation.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4709, the Law Enforcement and Phone Privacy Protection Act. I was pleased to join with Representatives Smith, Conyers and Scott to introduce this important legislation to protect phone records from thieves and opportunists. The sale of confidential phone records is a serious problem. for approximately $100, anyone can buy an individual's private cell phone call history. These histories catalogue every outgoing and incoming call a customer makes or receives. This information should not be available for unauthorized sale on the Internet. The primary method thieves use to obtain this information is known as ``pretexting''. This involves an individual with some key information-- a cell phone number or possibly a Social Security Number--pretending to be the subscriber to get information about an account. The Law Enforcement and Phone Privacy Protection Act puts a stop to this by imposing criminal penalties for ``pretexting,'' As well as other methods of seeking to obtain such records through the use of fraud. Furthermore, this legislation will provide additional punishment for those who illegally sell or obtain phone records knowing they will be used in a criminal act. This is extremely important for the protection of law enforcement officers and potential victims of domestic violence, whose call histories may be particularly desireable to those who wish to do them harm. We all use telephones and cell phones with the assumption that information about who we receive calls from and make calls to will not fall into the wrong hands. I urge the members of the house to support this legislation to ensure that phone records are protected.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Design Piracy Prohibition Act. Article I section 8 of our Constitution lays the framework for our Nation's copyright laws. It grants Congress the power to award inventors and creators, for limited amounts 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. This truth is still applicable today. 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. Most industrialized nations provide legal protection for fashion designs. However, in the United States--the world's leader in innovation and creativity--fashion designs are not protected by traditional intellectual property protections. Copyrights are not granted to apparel because articles of clothing, which are both creative and functional, are considered ``useful articles,'' as opposed to works of art. Design patents are intended to protect ornamental designs, but clothing rarely meets the criteria of patentability. Trademarks only protect brand names and logos, not the clothing itself, and the Supreme Court has refused to extend trade dress protection to apparel designs. Thus, if a thief steals a creator's design, reproduces and sells that article of clothing, and attaches a fake label to the garment to market it, he would be violating Federal law. However under current law it is perfectly legal for that same thief to steal that same design, reproduce and sell the article of clothing if he does not attach a fake label to it. This loophole allows pirates to cash in on others' efforts and prevents designers in our country from reaping a fair return on their creative investments. Furthermore, the production life cycle for fashion designs is very short. Once a particular design gains popularity through a fashion show or other event, a designer usually has only a limited number of months to effectively produce and market that original design. Further complicating this short-term cycle is the fact that once a design is made public, pirates can now virtually immediately offer an identical knock-off piece on the Internet for distribution. Again, under current law this theft is legal unless the thief also reproduces a label or trademark. Because these knock-offs are of such poor quality, these reproductions not only take away designer's profits, but also damage the designer's reputation. Chapter 13 of the Copyright Act offers protection for the designs of vessel hulls. The Design Piracy Prohibition Act protects designers by amending Chapter 13 of the Copyright Act to also include protections for fashion designs. Because the production life cycle for fashion designs is very short, this legislation similarly provides a tailored period of protection that suits the industry--3 years. This legislation further establishes damages for infringing a fashion design at the greater of $250,000 or $5 per copy. As America's fashion design industry continues to grow, America's designers deserve and need the type of legal protections that are already available in other countries. The Design Piracy Prohibition Act establishes these protections, and I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I too want to congratulate you for the hard work that you have put into this legislation and thank you for that. I know that you agree that peer to peer piracy is a serious challenge on college and university campuses. This activity is not only theft but also exposes college and university information technology infrastructures to security risks from spyware. There is bipartisan agreement that these institutions should have effective policies and punishments in place to deter this illegal activity, and I am asking if you would commit to working with me to combat peer to peer piracy on college and university campuses.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield the remaining balance of my time to the gentleman from California (Mr. Nunes).

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds. Just to respond to the gentleman, I certainly respect the gentleman's concerns. I too learned about the measure last Thursday or Friday, but this is very common with the scheduling of suspensions. As the gentleman is well aware, we have been discussing this issue, and it has been on the cusp of coming to the floor for a long, long time. We need to attempt to resolve these differences, and I think the consensus, on the part of many, is that we need to proceed with this debate today. I think that is the best way to get to the heart of what is going on here. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. Mr. Speaker, I want to take a moment to respond to the gentleman from Wisconsin regarding the concern that this legislation is targeting one or two individual producer handlers to the benefit of the rest of the dairy industry. We are here today to discuss how to keep the current Federal milk market order, something very important to the people of Wisconsin and other States, operating in a fair and equitable manner. I do not fault companies for their success. In fact, I applaud them for it. When one or two companies' success, however, is based on a gap in the regulatory system, I believe we have an obligation to respond. In this particular case, millions of pounds of unregulated milk flows in your State commerce in direct competition with regulated milk. This certainly has the potential to impact markets. I support this legislation because I believe that this milk should be treated the same way by the Federal Government that we treat milk that is in direct competition with it. This is not about punishing individuals. It is about ensuring a level playing field for competition. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Schmidt). (Mrs. SCHMIDT asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht), the chairman of the Dairy Subcommittee of the Agriculture Committee. (Mr. GUTKNECHT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I have just one speaker remaining, and I believe we have the right to close.

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 the bill just considered.