Bob Goodlatte

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Hart).

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), the vice chairman of the Committee on Agriculture.

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

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the time. Mr. Speaker, the natural gas language contained in the committee bill makes two changes to the CFTC's current regulatory program to detect and deter manipulation or attempted manipulation. First, upon a finding that there has been a significant and highly unusual change in the market price of natural gas, the CFTC is required to determine what had caused that price change. Second, persons with futures or option positions in natural gas are required to keep records of those trades and other related transactions and to submit those records to the CFTC upon request. In the committee's view, and in my view, this is a reasonable compromise that does not add significant new costs to transactions in natural gas, whether futures or options contracts or other transactions used in over-the-counter strategies of most of the major firms involved in the natural gas markets on a daily basis. This new recordkeeping requirement is the only part of the legislation that imposes any new regulatory mechanism. The CFTC is not required to impose itself into any new market arena and will not as a result of this legislation. The bill requirements are unobtrusive, contain no burdensome new costs and will be used sparingly. We have seen over the years, over the course of the last half year, an energy sector that is under great stress. And the price response to that stress has been of great concern to all of us. This bill does nothing to add to that stress, and it should be adopted today. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on the bill just considered.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for his good work on this important legislation. Mr. Speaker, we have heard a lot of rhetoric from this side of the aisle about what this is about today. Let me tell Members what this is about. This is about reforming programs that are important to the American people, but they do not always work properly. They do not always reach the people that the programs are intended to reach; and these positive reforms which are a modest, a tiny percentage of the $2.5 trillion that this government will spend next year, more than $12.5 trillion over the next 5 years, to save $50 billion is not a very big percentage. I would say to my colleagues, Where is your plan to reform programs? Where is your plan to achieve savings? What are you doing for the American people, the American taxpayers? And, yes, even the people who depend upon the programs that you claim to so strongly support. And yet you will do nothing to protect the programs by putting in the reforms that are necessary. I will tell you where their plan is, it is locked up. And I will tell you why it is locked up, because what that plan primarily consists of is raising taxes on the American people. The reason they want to raise taxes is because they are opposed to the effort to do what has done wonders for our economy in the last few years, and that is to extend the tax relief that we have provided to stimulate the economy, create jobs, bring the unemployment rate below 5 percent; and they have done nothing except wait in the wings to raise taxes on the people of this country. That is what this is all about. That is the party of spending. They will not come forward with any savings. That is the party of taxes, the tax and spend Democrats, the same way they have always been. That is why we are here today with a responsible plan in response to this abuse that they would sit here and attack modest reforms of important programs and suggest that, as a result of that, they can sit back with nothing and wait for the opportunity to raise taxes yet again on the American people. The last time they were in power, the last thing they did was to impose the largest tax increase in history on the American people, and we should not ever allow them that opportunity again. That is what they are trying to achieve here by bringing down this plan, and they should not be allowed to succeed. Let me talk briefly in the time remaining about the reforms we have made in important programs under the jurisdiction of my committee. First of all, we have approached this across the board. We have achieved fair savings in farm programs which keep the programs intact. We have achieved savings in conservation programs that make those programs work better. We have achieved savings in research for agriculture. We have achieved savings in other areas that are important. And, yes, we have also achieved savings from the food stamp program: one-half of 1 percent of the $180 billion that will be spent on food stamps in the next 5 years is what we are hoping to achieve. It is less than one-half of 1 percent. It will affect less than 1 percent of the 24 million Americans that receive food stamps. And it is targeted at whom? People who are not citizens of the United States who signed a document that said they would not become wards of the State and who by virtue of having been in this country for more than 5 years are eligible to apply for United States citizenship and avoiding the savings we are attempting to achieve by not giving food stamps to people who are not citizens of this country. Secondly, we say that under the food stamp program if you are attempting to achieve food stamp benefits through a particular State's programs, you ought to qualify for real welfare programs like the TANF program. The bridge from welfare to work ought to be sustained, but it ought not be abused by those who would do so. Those are the savings we want. They are good reforms, and we ought to pass them. We are here today in a good faith effort to continue putting the Nation's fiscal house in order. Some have questioned the need or the degree to which mandatory spending should be reduced. I would remind my colleagues that mandatory spending today takes up almost 55 percent of the total federal budget and, if left on its current path it will, within a decade, consume 60 percent of the federal budget. Clearly, it is unrealistic to think we can meet the pressing challenges facing our Nation without reducing Federal spending and redirecting priorities. The House and Senate agreed to reduce mandatory spending by $34.7 billion earlier this year to start reining in mandatory spending. Paying for hurricanes and other disaster assistance--in addition to addressing the threat of international terrorism here and abroad--has necessitated targeted reductions in spending by all authorizing committees, including agriculture. Eight House Committees were instructed to put together a reform savings plan to reduce the growth in mandatory spending over the next five years to reduce spending and address some of the Nation's most pressing financial needs. The committees were asked to do more and I am pleased to report that the committee on agriculture headed this call and reported out savings above the $3 billion we were originally asked to find. From the beginning of this process it was the goal of the House Agriculture Committee that no single program should bear a disproportionate share of the spending reductions. The committee's final recommendations are balanced terms of the impact they will have on the many diverse interests that will be affected by this reform savings plan. The Agriculture Committee's savings plan includes an overall reduction in mandatory spending of $3.48 billion over five years (FY06- 10). The savings package includes reductions in a variety of programs under the committee's jurisdiction including commodity, conservation, energy, rural development, research, and food stamp programs. There are some who have suggested that food stamps take a disproportionate share of the spending reductions. This is simply not the case. While food stamps comprise nearly 60 percent of the agriculture committee's mandatory spending, they account for only 19 percent of the total savings under the package. The proposed reductions account for less than a half a penny for every dollar spent on the food stamp program. Under the agriculture's reform savings plan, eligibility requirements are harmonized between Federal assistance programs so that food stamp benefits go to those truly in need. By tightening the categorical eligibility for some temporary assistance to needy families (TANF) recipients as well as the eligibility requirements for non-citizens, this legislation ensures that the Nations most needy will continue to receive this Federal assistance. When an individual enters the country to become a legal permanent non-citizen, an affidavit is signed indicating that they will not participate in programs such as food stamps; however, this is not the reality. Under current law, non-citizens are eligible for food stamps after five years of resident status. The house agriculture committees savings reform plan extends this time requirement to seven years. This provision will not affect children non-citizens. Non-citizens who are 60 years old and above and are currently receiving food stamp benefits on the date of enactment will not be affected. Additionally, non-citizens who have submitted their citizenship application by date of enactment and currently receive food stamps would still be eligible to receive food stamps. After five years, non-citizen residents can apply for U.S. citizenship. If approved, they can apply for food stamps immediately. If someone chooses to remain a non-citizen, that choice will result in a longer waiting period to qualify for food stamps. It is essential that the House approves a reform savings plan. While all government safety net programs--including agriculture--need to be sustainable, the burden of addressing the nation's budget pressures needs to be broadly shared in order to be effective. Let me also say that in an ideal situation we would have had the support of the minority in moving this reform savings plan forward, However, in the absence of bipartisan cooperation, it is incumbent on those of us who are privileged to serve in the people's house that we address the budgetary problems facing the Nation. I urge my colleagues to support the deficit reduction act.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Boucher) for yielding me time and for his leadership on this issue. I rise in strong support of this bipartisan resolution, which I introduced with the gentleman from California (Mr. Doolittle) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Boucher) to express the sense of Congress supporting the current method of administering the Internet. The Internet's domain name system is administered by the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, or ICANN, a private nonprofit organization based in the United States that works closely with the U.S. Department of Commerce. This privately-operated approach fosters market principles and is the most efficient way to administer the Internet's domain name system and root servers. However, the United Nations, with the support of countries including China, Iran and Cuba, released a report earlier this year, which included proposals to take control of administration of the Internet from the United States-based ICANN and give it to a bureaucratic U.N. body. The European Union had also signaled that it would support having an international body oversee the Internet. The more governments and bureaucracies involved in running the Internet's day-to-day operations, the more likely that red tape and overly burdensome regulations will result. However, last night at the World Summit on the Information Society in Tunis, Tunisia, the United States struck a deal with the international community which ensures that, for now, the administration of the Internet's core technical functions remains within the private hands of ICANN with continued oversight by the United States Department of Commerce. This appears to be a big victory for the Internet, for free market principles and for the free flow of information around the world. While I am optimistic about the agreement that was reached yesterday in Tunis, there is little doubt that some countries will continue to push for more control of the Internet, so the United States must continue to be vigilant. The United States is uniquely positioned to protect the fundamental principles of free press and free speech upon which the Internet has thrived. The U.S. Constitution guarantees these basic rights, and to cede control of the Internet with countries, with at best questionable records regarding these rights, would jeopardize the continued success of the Internet and lead to significant restrictions on access to the Internet's wealth of information. House Concurrent Resolution 268 will send a strong message that the United States is committed to the principles that have made the Internet thrive. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton) for his management of this legislation as chairman of an important Energy and Commerce subcommittee. I urge my colleagues to support this important resolution.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of House Concurrent Resolution 230, expressing the sense of the Congress that the Russian Federation must protect intellectual property rights. As co-chairman of the Congressional International Anti-piracy Caucus, I am very concerned about the appalling levels of copyright piracy in Russia. Russia's copyright piracy problem is among the most serious in the world, and it is getting worse. In Russia, 80 percent of all motion pictures and 87 percent of business software are pirated. I have personally witnessed pirated American copyrighted works, movies, music and software, sold openly on the streets in Moscow, even in view of the Kremlin. Considering that the core copyright industries account for 6 percent of the U.S. gross domestic product and the total copyright industries account for approximately 12 percent of U.S. GDP, it is clear that America's businesses are facing a serious problem in Russia. In fact, the FBI estimates that U.S. businesses lose between $200 and $250 billion a year worldwide to counterfeit goods. We must make sure that each nation recognizes that piracy is a global problem. The growth of piracy among organized crime rings is illustrative of its global scope. The combination of enormous profits and practically nonexistent punishments by many foreign governments makes copyright piracy an attractive cash cow for organized crime syndicates. Often specializing in optical disks and business software piracy, these crime rings are capable of coordinating multi-million dollar efforts across multiple national borders. Russia has become one of the largest producers and distributors of illegal media material, and the increasing number of optical disk plants in Russia has a production capacity that far exceeds Russian demand for copyrighted works. Another disturbing trend is the growing willingness of foreign governments to condone the use of, and even use, pirated materials. At its best, government sets the standards for the protection of rights. At its worst, government encourages and even participates in the breach of those rights. By recent Russian government accounts, 16 optical disk plants are on Russian State (owned) Restricted Access Regime Enterprises where regular law enforcement is prohibited from visiting. In addition, corruption in Russia's justice system results in the routine dismissal of piracy complaints or inadequate and non-deterrent sentences. We all must realize that copyright piracy and counterfeiting are serious problems that do not merely affect private companies' bottom lines in the short term. They also discourage investment and innovation in the long term which will eventually lead to fewer consumer choices, a repercussion that affects entire societies and economies. Government must work together to reward creators and punish thieves. In addition, counterfeit goods can pose serious risk of bodily harm and even death. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce estimates that trade in counterfeit goods makes up between 6 and 9 percent of all world trade. With products as essential as airplane parts and car brakes being faked, we must focus attention on this growing problem for the sake of our citizens' safety. In passing House Concurrent Resolution 230 today, we send a clear signal to the Russian Federation we will not stand idly by while our copyrights are infringed. The Russian Federation must make fighting copyright piracy a priority for the country and law enforcement authorities. And, if Russia's accession to the World Trade Organization is to be approved by Congress, Russia must make meaningful progress against piracy now. I urge my colleagues to join me in voting for this important resolution. I commend the gentleman and gentlewoman from California on this issue.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, to the extent that the language in the bill could be confusing in the amendment, would the gentleman be willing to work with the chairman of the Judiciary Committee and myself and others to ensure in conference that his intentions are accurately reflected in the amendment language?

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, I would like to start by thanking some people who do not always get thanked, and that is the diligent, hard-working staff of the Agriculture Committee on both sides of the aisle, the Judiciary Committee on both sides of the aisle and my congressional office staff. They worked very, very hard on what I think is a comprehensive and carefully crafted piece of legislation. We are going to begin to entertain some amendments, and some of those amendments could have a devastating impact, a gutting effect on this legislation, and I urge my colleagues to follow that debate closely and help us defeat amendments that would open this back up to the same kind of court misinterpretation that has been a problem here. Finally, let me say that the United States Constitution protects private property rights as a fundamental right, and we need to make sure that we respond to a Supreme Court decision that has cast private property rights in America into question by passing this important legislation today.

Mr. GOODLATTE. I appreciate the gentleman's willingness to work with us; and, on that basis, we will support the amendment.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I would say very quickly to the gentleman from Virginia, the majority that he mistrusts is about the business of protecting the minority that he values, because a private property owner facing eminent domain powers being used to take their property for private economic development purposes is very much alone, and he needs this kind of weight of authority behind him or her to protect their private property rights. If the gentleman's amendment is adopted, it will reopen exactly the kind of confusing and controversial court decisions that we are about trying to address here today. The specificity in the bill is superior to the gentleman's amendment.

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

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Schmidt), the newest Member of Congress, who is standing up on this important issue. (Mrs. SCHMIDT asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx), another member of the House Agriculture Committee.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence). (Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne).

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla), the chairman of the Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee and the author of the STOPP Act, which was passed out of the Committee on Agriculture.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this important piece of legislation. I want to thank Chairman Sensenbrenner for his leadership on this issue. I also appreciate the hard work of Congressman Henry Bonilla, who introduced the STOPP Act, legislation that passed out of the Agriculture Committee, and Ranking Member Peterson on the Agriculture Committee, as well as Ranking Member Conyers on the Judiciary Committee. I especially want to thank my colleague from South Dakota (Ms. Herseth) who was the first Democrat to take a leading role on this issue in introducing the STOPP Act, and it is in part due to her leadership that we will have a very strong bipartisan vote on this legislation today. Private ownership of property is vital to our freedom and our prosperity, and it is one of the most fundamental principles embedded in our Constitution. The Founders realized the importance of property rights when they codified the takings clause of the fifth amendment to the Constitution, which requires that private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation. This clause created two conditions to the government taking private property: that the subsequent use of the property is for the public and that the government gives the property owners just compensation. However, the Supreme Court's recent 5-4 decision in Kelo v. City of New London is a step in the opposite direction. This controversial ruling expands the ability of State and local governments to exercise eminent domain powers to seize properties under the guise of economic development when the public use is as incidental as generating tax revenues or creating jobs, even in situations where the government takes property from one private individual and gives it to another private entity. By defining public use so expansively, the Court essentially erased any protection for private property as understood by the Founders of our Nation. In the wake of this decision, State and local governments can use eminent domain powers to take the property of any individual for nearly any reason. Cities may now bulldoze private citizens' homes, farms, and small businesses to make way for shopping malls or other developments. For these reasons, I joined with Chairman Sensenbrenner to introduce H.R. 4128, the Private Property Rights Protection Act. This important piece of legislation represents a merger between two pieces of legislation, H.R. 3135, introduced by Chairman Sensenbrenner, and H.R. 3405, the STOPP Act, which I introduced along with the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla) and the gentlewoman from South Dakota (Ms. Herseth) and which passed the House Committee on Agriculture by a strong bipartisan vote of 40 to 1. I am pleased that H.R. 4128 incorporates many provisions from the STOPP Act. Specifically, this new legislation would prohibit all Federal economic development funds for a period of 2 years for any State or local government that uses economic development as a justification for taking property from one person and giving it to another private entity. In addition, this new legislation would allow State and local governments to cure violations by giving the property back to the original owner. Furthermore, this bill specifically grants adversely affected landowners the right to use appropriate legal remedies to enforce the provisions of the bill. H.R. 4128 also includes a carefully crafted definition of economic development that protects traditional uses of eminent domain, such as taking land for public uses like roads, while prohibiting abuses of eminent domain powers. No one should have to live in fear of the government snatching up their home, farm, or business; and the Private Property Rights Protection Act will help to create the incentives to ensure that these abuses do not occur in the future. I urge my colleagues to support this important piece of legislation. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I am going to acquiesce with the chairman on the amendment, but I want to express some reservations. It appears that it is the author's intention that nonprofit and religious organizations not be singled out by local governments due to their tax-exempt status alone. Is that correct?

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, is it also the gentleman's intention that this provision would not trump the other provisions of the bill that provide additional protections to nonprofits by prohibiting takings from private entities for other economic development reasons to give to other private entities?

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of S. 397, the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, and thank the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, the gentleman from Wisconsin, for bringing this legislation forward. The second amendment to the U.S. Constitution clearly declares that the rights of citizens to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Despite this fundamental protection, an extreme minority determined to restrict the supply of firearms and firearms ownership has discovered a new tool, frivolous lawsuits. Recently, more than 30 cities and counties have filed lawsuits against the firearms industry alleging that the industry is liable for the actions of third parties, including those that use lawful firearms in a criminal manner. Many legitimate firearms manufacturers could be forced to go out of business due to the prohibitive costs of defending these targeted lawsuits. If the courts are so allowed to decide the fate of gun manufacturers, then the trial lawyers and the courts will effectively be regulating the supply of firearms and thus the right of citizens to bear arms. However, legislatures, not courts, are the proper forums for deciding the scope of regulation for the firearms industry. S. 397 would prevent plaintiffs from bringing civil actions against firearm manufacturers and sellers for the criminal or unlawful misuse of third parties of properly made firearms. This bill will help to put an end to the judiciary legislating in the firearms field. It will also serve as an important statement that responsibility for wrongdoing should rest with the wrongdoer. As Oliver Wendall Holmes stated in an 1894 Harvard Law Review article: ``Why is not a man who sells firearms answerable for assaults committed with pistols bought of him since he must be taken to know the probability that sooner or later someone will buy a pistol of him for some unlawful end?'' The principle seems to be pretty well established in this country, at least, that everyone has a right to rely upon his fellow man acting lawfully. Over 30 States have enacted legislation to prevent junk lawsuits against the firearms industry based on the criminal behavior of others. These States have thus declared that the responsibility for wrongdoing should rest with wrongdoers. Congress should follow the States' lead and pass S. 397. The House has passed the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act on several occasions. Now the Senate has passed it. We have a chance to send this bill to the President of the United States. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 554, the Personal Responsibility in Food Consumption Act, and I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin for moving this legislation to the floor. This legislation will help prevent frivolous lawsuits that allege that the consumption of lawful food products caused injuries resulting from obesity or weight gain. The food service industry employs some 11.7 million people, making it the Nation's largest employer outside of the government. However, this vital industry has recently come under attack by waves of lawsuits arguing that it should be liable for the misuse or ``over-consumption'' of its legal food products by others. It is common sense that individuals should take responsibility for their own dietary and eating habits. Unfortunately, trial lawyers have ulterior motives for these lawsuits. They have made their intentions quite clear, calling the fast food industry the next tobacco. They estimate potential profits of $40 billion from obesity-related lawsuits. It is crucial that something be done to guard against these aggressive attacks. These ill-conceived lawsuits require businesses to devote hard-earned dollars to litigate unmerited claims. In order to help ensure that America continues to be a good place to do business, and to help create and maintain American jobs, it is important that we not allow opportunistic trial lawyers to extort money from legitimate companies. This bill also protects our Nation's farmers and ranchers from the potentially far-reaching effects of these lawsuits. American agriculture produces the safest, most affordable and abundant food supply in the world and should be protected from trial lawyers' attempts to reach as far up the food chain as possible with unfounded claims seeking unjust enrichment. While preventing frivolous claims, this legislation would protect legitimate lawsuits. It would allow claims to go forward in several circumstances, including cases in which a State or Federal law was broken. Other types of food-related lawsuits not dealing with obesity would also be protected. The American public understands the importance of this effort. According to a recent Gallup poll, almost 90 percent of Americans oppose holding restaurant owners responsible for the diet-related health problems of regular fast food consumers. H.R. 554 is a common sense bill that will protect legitimate businesses from frivolous lawsuits, and I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 3824, the Threatened and Endangered Species Recovery Act. I congratulate the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Cardoza) for their outstanding work on this legislation. This legislation will reform the 1973 Endangered Species Act so that real species recovery can be achieved while minimizing conflict with landowners, businesses, public land managers, and communities, and particularly the farmers and ranchers of America that my committee represents. Since the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo) introduced this bill, we have heard groups on both sides of the issue recite statistics with the intent of proving or disproving the effectiveness of the law. Well, I do not believe I can change many minds simply by pointing out that over 99 percent of the species placed on the list are still on it. I would like to make a comparison that may put this dismal success rate in perspective. If I, for instance, ran a hospital where only one half of 1 percent of the critical patients who checked in recovered, I could hardly claim to be doing a good job. What we need is an endangered species law that not only protects the species, but allows them to recover, to expand and to get off of the endangered species list as a thriving species. This is, however, the record the Endangered Species Act has today compiled, one where only one half of 1 percent of the species have recovered. Its proponent, nonetheless, continue to claim that that is a success. Along with its glaring shortcoming, the law contains numerous unintended consequences that have proven to be extremely harmful to landowners and local communities. In fact, landowners have come to fear the Endangered Species Act as it has evolved into a giant regulatory menace. Under the current law, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has the power to halt lawful landowner activities if an endangered species is identified on their property and it is determined their actions would take that species. The landowner and his right to use his land are then simply left to the mercy of the courts. Private property rights are fundamental rights embodied in the Constitution, and Congress periodically needs to take steps to ensure that government is protecting them, not trampling on them. In my own committee, the Committee on Agriculture, we have recently examined another example of the infringement of property rights through the use of eminent domain. I commend the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo) for working with us to address that problem as well. TESRA achieves a balance between environmental concerns and property rights protection through its compensation and cooperative conservation provisions. Through these provisions, this legislation will fairly compensate landowners when they must forego use of their property and provide varied and unique ways to work with landowners. The bill also makes other important changes, such as doing away with the Act's emphasis on designating critical habitat by placing emphasis instead on functional recovery plans. These reforms will not only be more effective in achieving species recovery, but do so in a flexible, non-adversarial manner. I believe the protection of endangered species is exceedingly important, however, a law that forces Federal wildlife officials to simply catalog declining species while alienating landowners and discouraging good management practices is a bad thing. Support this legislation. Failing to improve the lot of species in more than 99 cases out of 100 isn't working. TESRA is a commonsense step towards improving and modernizing the 35-year-old law, and I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.