Bob Goodlatte

Mr. GOODLATTE

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

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support S. 1752, a bill to reauthorize the U.S. Grain Standards Act. The other body passed this bill by unanimous consent last week, and I look forward to its swift approval today as the act expires September 30, 2005. This bill is identical to the language that the administration provided Congress earlier this year. The bill is a simple 10-year extension of current law. It will reauthorize the Secretary's authority to charge and collect fees to cover costs of inspection and weighing services and to receive appropriated dollars for standardization and compliance activities. The House Subcommittee on General Farm Commodities and Risk Management of the Committee on Agriculture held a hearing on May 24, 2005, to review the U.S. Grain Standards Act. Testimony provided on behalf of the National Grain and Feed Association and the North American Export Grain Association highlighted the need for the U.S. grain industry to remain cost-competitive for bulk exports of U.S. grains and oilseeds in the future. The American Farm Bureau Federation, the American Soybean Association, the National Association of Wheat Growers, the National Corn Growers Association, the National Grain Sorghum Producers, and the American Association of Grain Inspection and Weighing Agencies all voiced support for this legislation. The U.S. Grain Standards Act first became law in 1916. In the intervening 89 years, Congress has reauthorized and amended the U.S. Grain Standards Act so that the law could adapt to changes in grain production, grain marketing, crop diversity, competitive pressure, and fiscal constraints. The U.S. Grain Standards Act has served agriculture and our Nation well. For nearly a century, it has provided for standard marketing terms, grades and weights and facilitated domestic and international marketing of our farmers' production. Among its many responsibilities, the Federal Grain Inspection Service establishes and maintains official grades for our Nation's crop production, promotes the uniform application of official grades, provides for the official weighing and grading at export locations, provides Federal oversight of weighing and grading done by States, and investigates complaints or discrepancies reported by importers. Passage of this bill ensures the continuity of these standards and the opportunity for our farmers to remain competitive in the world marketplace. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. I thank the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Peterson), the ranking member of the committee, for his cooperation in working with us to bring this legislation to the floor. Mr. Speaker, S. 1752 is a bill to reauthorize the U.S. Grain Standards Act. The other body passed this bill by unanimous consent last week. Timely approval of this bill is important because the current law expires September 30, 2005. This bill is identical to the language the Administration provided Congress earlier this year. This bill is a simple 10-year extension of current law. The House Agriculture Subcommittee on General Farm Commodities and Risk Management held a hearing on May 24, 2005 to review the U.S. Grain Standards Act. Testimony provided on behalf of the National Grain and Feed Association and the North American Export Grain Association highlighted the need for the U.S. grain industry to remain cost-competitive for bulk exports of U.S. grains and oilseeds in the future. Specifically, these organizations proposed that U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) utilize third party entities to provide inspection and weighing activities at export facilities with 100 percent USDA oversight using USDA-approved standards and procedures. The American Farm Bureau Federation, American Soybean Association, National Association of Wheat Growers, National Corn Growers Association, National Grain Sorghum Producers, and the American Association of Grain Inspection and Weighing Agencies all voice support for this proposal. USDA testified that the ``proposal of the industry establishes a framework for changing the delivery of services without compromising the integrity of the official system.'' During the hearing, the Committee also learned of workforce challenges currently facing the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration (GIPSA). The majority of official grain inspectors will be eligible for retirement over the next several years. Testimony presented explained that transitioning the delivery of services through attrition would minimize the impact on Federal employees. Since the hearing, I have reviewed legislative proposals and discussed the issue of improved competitiveness with my colleagues, farm and industry organizations, and USDA. Chairman Saxby Chambliss of the Senate Agriculture Committee and I asked USDA to determine if they had the authority under the existing law to use private entities at export port locations for grain inspection and weighing services, and if they did, how would they implement this authority. Accompanying this statement is a copy of USDA's response to our questions. The letter states that the U.S. Grain Standards Act ``currently authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to contract with private persons or entities for the performance of inspection and weighing services at export port locations.'' The letter further explains that GIPSA considers the use of this authority as an option to address future attrition within the Agency and to address expanded service demand. I fully expect USDA to use this authority in a manner that improves competitiveness of the U.S. grain industry, that maintains the integrity of the Federal grain inspection system, and that provides benefits to employees who may be impacted. The Committee greatly appreciates the work that has gone into the reauthorization of this law and we are pleased to extend the authorization for 10 years. The Secretary of Agriculture, Washington, DC, September 21, 2005. Hon. Bob Goodlatte, Chairman, Committee on Agriculture, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Chairman: This is in response to your letter of this date, also signed by Saxby Chambliss, Chairman of the U.S. Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, posing two questions regarding legislation which is currently pending before the Congress. The legislation would reauthorize, for an additional period of years, the United States Grain Standards Act, 7 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 71 et seq. (Act), which is presently scheduled to expire on September 30, 2005. Your questions and our responses are as follows: 1. Would existing authority under the U.S. Grain Standards Act allow USDA to use private entities at export port locations for grain inspection and weighing services? Response. The Act currently authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to contract with private persons or entities for the perfonnance of inspection and weighing services at export port locations. See 7 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 79(e)(I), 84(a)(3). 2. If so, how would USDA implement this authority? Response. The Act currently authorizes the Secretary to contract with a person to provide export grain inspection and weighing services at export port locations. The Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration (GIPSA) has reserved this authority to supplement the current Federal workforce if the workload demand exceeded the capability of current staffing. GIPSA has also considered use of this authority as one of several options to address future attrition within the Agency and to address expanded service demand as several delegated States have decided or are considering to cancel their Delegation of Authority with

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the Senate bill (S. 1752) to amend the United States Grain Standards Act to reauthorize that Act.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 3402, the Department of Justice Appropriations Authorization Act, which contains an amendment that I proposed during the consideration of the bill by the House Judiciary Committee to address the rising threat of Organized Retail Theft, ORT. ORT poses a serious threat to our Nation's consumers and businesses. It is estimated that professional organized retail theft rings are responsible for pilfering up to $30 billion in merchandise from retail stores annually. Organized retail theft groups typically target everyday household commodities and consumer items that can be easily sold through fencing operations, flea markets, swap meets and shady store-front operations. Items that are routinely stolen include over-the-counter drug products, such as analgesics and cold medications, razor blades, camera film, batteries, videos, DVDs, CDs, smoking cessation products, infant formula and computer software items. Thieves often travel from retail store to retail store, and from state to state, stealing relatively small amounts of goods from each store, but cumulatively stealing significant amounts of goods. Once stolen, these products can be sold back to fencing operations, which can dilute, alter and repackage the goods and then resell them, sometimes back to the same stores from which the products were originally stolen. When a product does not travel through the authorized channels of distribution, there is an increased risk that the product has been altered, diluted, reproduced and/or repackaged. These so-called ``diverted products'' pose significant health risks to the public, especially the diverted medications and food products. Diverted products also cause considerable financial losses for legitimate manufacturers and retailers. Ultimately, the consumers bear the brunt of these losses as retail establishments are forced to raise prices to cover the additional costs of security and theft prevention measures. At the State level, organized retail theft crimes are normally prosecuted under state shoplifting statutes as mere misdemeanors. As a result, the thieves that participate in organized retail theft rings typically receive the same punishment as common shoplifters. The thieves who are convicted usually see very limited jail time or are placed on probation. I believe that the punishment does not fit the crime in these situations. Mere slaps on the wrists of these criminals has practically no deterrent effect. In addition, criminals who are involved in organized retail theft rings pose greater risks to the public because their intent is for the goods to be resold. Because the routes of these diverted products are extremely difficult to trace, there is a greater risk that these goods will be faulty, outdated and dangerous for consumer use. The punishment for these interstate crimes should be greater than that for common shoplifters. In December 2003, in response to growth of ORT crimes, the FBI established an organized retail theft initiative. While this is a good start, much work needs to be done to combat this problem. The amendment incorporated into H.R. 3402 will earmark resources for DOJ to address ORT crimes to ensure that these crimes receive the appropriate attention. Specifically, this amendment creates a Federal definition of organized retail theft crimes, and authorizes $5 million for each of the next three fiscal years for educating and training Federal law enforcement regarding these crimes, as well as for investigating, apprehending and prosecuting individuals engaged in these crimes. In addition, this amendment directs the FBI to consult with the private sector in order to construct a database, housed in the private sector, where retail establishments, as well as Federal, State, and local law enforcement can compile evidence on specific organized retail theft crimes to aid investigations and prosecutions. Often, a lack of information about the interstate nature of these crimes prevents federal law enforcement from getting involved in these cases. This database will help put the pieces together to show the organized and multi-state nature of these crimes, as well as provide important evidence for prosecutions. I want to thank Chairman Sensenbrenner for his willingness to address organized retail theft crimes in this important authorizing legislation, and I look forward to continuing to work to combat these serious crimes.

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 S. 1752, the bill just considered.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce, along with my friend and colleague Representative Marion Berry of Arkansas, the Temporary Agricultural Labor Reform Act of 2005, a bi-partisan bill to reform the H-2A guest worker program. As Chairman of the House Agriculture Committee, I have traveled across the nation and seen first-hand that the H-2A temporary visa process is not working. I have talked face to face with producers who have to deal with participating in a costly, time-consuming and flawed program. For example, employers have to comply with a lengthy labor certification process that is slow, bureaucratic and frustrating. In addition, they are forced to pay an artificially inflated wage rate. My bill will streamline the cumbersome requirements of the current H-2A program to make it a more viable option for our nation's farmers. Likewise, as a long-time Member of the House Judiciary Committee, I understand the immigration problems that currently face our country. Illegal immigration penalizes those legal immigrants and citizens who play by the rules. It is estimated that there are over 10 million illegal aliens currently living in the United States. This population grows by over 350,000 each year. Clearly, this situation has reached crisis proportions and cannot be allowed to continue. Some believe that the only way to reform the guest worker program is by including amnesty provisions and allowing illegal aliens to adjust to Legal Permanent Resident (LPR) status. However, this would create the wrong incentive by encouraging foreign nationals to come into the country and break our laws. Amnesty is unfair to those foreign nationals trying to comply with our laws and encourages more people to come into the U.S. illegally with the thought that they, too, will get rewarded for their illegal actions in the future. My bill would not grant an amnesty. Instead, it would require that anyone wishing to participate in the guest worker program must first return to their home country and apply from there to participate legally. This requirement will help us track who is entering our country and will create an incentive for those currently present illegally to return home and begin the process again while respecting our immigration laws. In addition, this legislation would address a troublesome wage issue. Employers. are required to pay an inflated wage called the Adverse Effect Wage Rate or AEWR. The AEWR was designed to protect similarly situated domestic workers from being adversely affected by guest workers coming into the country on a seasonal basis and being paid lower wages. However, the shortage of domestic workers in the farm workforce forces employers to hire foreign workers, and thus, is also forcing them to pay an inflated wage. My bill abolishes this unfair wage and creates a prevailing wage standard, under which, all workers are paid the same wage as workers doing similar work in that region. The facts are simple. Agriculture needs a reliable guest worker program. Workers need access to stable, legal, temporary employment. It is in our national security interest to create a sensible way for workers to come in on a temporary basis, work, and go back to their home countries. My bill addresses problems in the guest worker program, and I look forward to working with Representative Berry and all of the Members of this body to reform this program and make it a more viable process for everyone involved.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3408) to reauthorize the Livestock Mandatory Reporting Act of 1999 and to amend the swine reporting provisions of that Act, as amended.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 3408, a bill to reauthorize the Livestock Mandatory Reporting Act of 1999. Mr. Speaker, when the Congress considered this legislation in 1999, its intent was to improve the livestock market news reporting system so that farmers and ranchers, particularly those that rely on cash market sales, could enjoy improved market transparency and better price discovery. In particular, the Act provided the USDA with the authority to collect and disseminate information that can be readily understood by livestock producers, packers, and other participants, including information with respect to pricing, contract for purchase, and supply and demand conditions for livestock, livestock production, and livestock products. The legislation enacted in 1999 was the product of extensive discussion between livestock producers and packers. We relied on this process partly because it was such a technical issue, but mostly we wanted to avoid the situation where segments of the industry were divided against each other. After considerable give and take, the final product was agreed on by all participants. As the time for reauthorization neared, producers and packers engaged again in a dialogue to develop a consensus proposal for reauthorization. H.R. 3408 is the product of this hard work. The coalition that supports this consensus legislation included the National Pork Producers Council, the American Meat Institute, the National Cattlemen's Beef Association, the Chicago Mercantile Exchange, the American Sheep Industry Association, and the American Farm Bureau Federation. This package, as it appears before us today, is a carefully crafted document. All of these organizations have agreed that they will oppose it ``if any amendment is adopted that does not have the prior agreement'' of the coalition. Mandatory price reporting expires at the end of September, and this bill reauthorizes it for 5 years with minor changes representing the consensus of our constituents. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague, the ranking member, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Peterson) for working with us on this legislation. I urge my colleagues to support the bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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 H.R. 3408.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, as Chairman of the House Agriculture Committee and a conferee on the energy bill, I want to make it clear that sections 316 and 1281 of the conference report dealing with Natural Gas and Electricity Market Transparency are quite important. Those provisions clearly affirm the long established legal foundation of the Commodity Exchange Act, specifically the exclusive jurisdiction of the CFTC over exchanges and trading of futures in this country. I applaud the work of the conferees in producing sections 316 and 1281, which directs the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, FERC, and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, CFTC, to complete a memorandum of understanding regarding information sharing between the commissions within 180 days of enactment, without affecting the exclusive jurisdiction of the CFTC with respect to markets under its jurisdiction. The Conferees recognized that domestic energy markets involve activity in both the physical energy markets and in futures markets, and that the FERC and the CFTC have important oversight duties in these markets, respectively. In order to ensure effective and efficient oversight of these markets, the Conferees expect the FERC and the CFTC to use the memorandum of understanding as an opportunity to memorialize the good information sharing relationship that has developed between the two agencies over the past several years. The Conferees expect this agreement to accomplish 3 important goals: (1) avoid regulatory duplication of information reporting; (2) ensure appropriate protection of proprietary business information, including business transactions or market positions of any person and trade secrets or names of customer; and (3) acknowledge the respective jurisdictions of both agencies in order to avoid any jurisdictional overlap. Moreover, the Committee expects the memorandum of understanding to insure that in creating an effective and efficient means for FERC to secure legitimately needed market trading information in the possession of the CFTC, FERC does not attempt to secure such information directly from CFTC-regulated futures exchanges. This would be contrary to the CFTC's exclusive jurisdiction over those futures exchanges and inconsistent with the longstanding process followed by all other Federal and State authorities. Sections 316 and 1281 do not give--and no other provisions of the NGA and FPA give--FERC such authority. Rather, these sections specifically intend for FERC to get such information but only through submitting its requests to CFTC. I would further note that FERC will be subject to same restrictions on the use of such futures and options trading data information as the CFTC. Section 8(e) of the Commodity Exchange Act places restrictions on the public disclosure of futures and options trading data, as well as other sensitive CFTC information. If the CFTC provides futures and options trading data, or other materials identified in section 8, to FERC then FERC will be subject to the same restrictions as the CFTC, or any other Federal or State Agency which receives such information. It is my understanding that the CFTC has a long history of sharing futures and options trading data as well as other confidential materials from their investigations with FERC and other Federal and State agencies who have a legitimate need for such information. Federal and State agencies not only recognize the exclusive jurisdiction of the CFTC but they also agree that they are subject to the section 8 restrictions on public disclosure ofthe information they receive. For these reasons it is my view that the MOD between the CFTC and FERC will merely formalize well established practices in tills area.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the colloquy between the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. English) and Chairman Regula that highlights the importance of restoring funding for the Community Service Block Grant Program. Mr. Chairman, while I certainly understand the difficult work of the Appropriations Committee as it strives to keep the 2006 budget process under strict allocations, it is my hope that we can somehow find additional funding for the C-S-B-G Program. While the President sought to consolidate the program in his 2006 budget to the Congress, I was pleased to support language in the House-passed budget package, which states that: Community Service Block Grants provides invaluable assistance to low-income families and communities. These funds are used to build healthy and stable communities. Due consideration should be given to this program before Congress implements any changes. Mr. Chairman, thousands of community action agencies provide services that help low-income individuals: Train for gainful employment, obtain quality living environments and generally move toward self-sufficiency. One of those agencies is ``Total Action Against Poverty,'' in my congressional district, which has provided much-needed services to the Roanoke Valley and southwest Virginia for nearly 30-years. I Believe a major reason for the effectiveness of organizations like ``Total Action Against Poverty'' are that they are locally controlled. Rather than seeking guidance from a know-it-all bureaucracy in Washington, DC, community action agencies can resolve community problems with community solutions. These organizations are grassroots- based, and are led by local boards and volunteers, with diverse memberships and strong roots in their communities. By nature, these groups are invested in their communities--and have the ability to leverage C-S-B-G funds with significant resources from private organizations including corporations and foundations with a stake in promoting the wellness of their neighborhoods, rather than pleasing constituencies in Washington. Mr. Chairman, it is my belief that C-S-B-Gs are the kind of good- government programs that Congress should continue to support. I hope that conferees can support the C-S-B-G program.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) for yielding me this time. I rise in opposition to the McGovern amendment. This amendment would take valuable resources away from a program that is working to help keep drugs off our streets. The Andean Counterdrug Initiative was established to eliminate the cultivation and production of cocaine and opium, build Andean law enforcement infrastructure, arrest and prosecute traffickers, and seize their assets. The more we can disrupt the production of the drugs that are smuggled into our country, the safer our citizens will be. The Andean Counterdrug Initiative has provided resources necessary to fight the war on drugs where these drugs are grown and processed, and efforts to disrupt the drug trade are working. Aerial eradication efforts in Colombia have been impressive: 127,000 hectares were sprayed in 2003; 136,000 in 2004; and 95,000 hectares, or nearly 250,000 acres, have already been sprayed in this year alone. Efforts like these, which are supported by resources from the Andean Counterdrug Initiative, have reduced coca cultivation in Colombia by 33 percent. Opium poppy cultivation in Colombia dropped 52 percent in 2004, which represents the third straight year of decline. Due to these types of efforts, traffickers have been forced to decentralize their crops of coca, which has worked to decrease the total amount of coca cultivation. Efforts to seize drugs in Colombia have also seen impressive strides with the help of this important program. Mr. Chairman, 114 metric tons of cocaine were seized in 2003, 178 metric tons in 2004. Drugs seized in Colombia are drugs that do not make it to the United States. Now is not the time to reduce funding for such a successful program. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I rise in strong opposition to the Watt substitute and in support of H.J. Res. 10, which would amend the Constitution to give Congress the authority to prevent the physical desecration of the American flag. The gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt) says that the Bill of Rights has never been amended. It may be that the words have never been changed, but the United States Supreme Court on many, many, many occasions has amended the first amendment and other provisions in the Bill of Rights by changing the meaning of those words. This is one of those such occasions. For 200 years, many Supreme Court Justices opined that flag desecration laws which were in effect in 49 States were not in violation of the first amendment of the Constitution. This is in defiance of the will of the overwhelming majority of the American people, the will of the overwhelming majority of the State legislatures, and as we will see later today, the will of the overwhelming majority of the United States Congress. Clearly, free speech goes beyond the written or spoken word to include other forms of expression, including the wearing of symbols and other actions. However, not all actions constitute free speech, and I am hardly alone in asserting that flag desecration is not speech to be protected under the first amendment. In 1989, the United States Supreme Court in Texas v. Johnson unilaterally invalidated flag protection laws in 48 States and the District of Columbia, overturning 100 years of Federal and State precedent, banning the physical desecration of the American flag. When that occurs, and when the people and the Congress believe that is wrong, it is a constitutional amendment that corrects the error of the Supreme Court. Following this decision for the first time in our Nation's history, an overwhelming 49 State legislatures petitioned Congress to send a flag desecration amendment to the States for ratification. The physical desecration of the American flag constitutes an assault on the most deeply shared experiences of the American people. Our flag is more than a piece of cloth; it a symbol of our freedom. It represents the sacrifices of those who gave their lives to win and preserve freedom. There have been those who have gone unarmed into battle carrying the flag, and many have died to keep the flag from falling into the hands of our enemies. To burn a flag in front of a veteran or someone else who has put his or her life on the line for their country is an act not deserving protection. Our Nation is unique in the world because our citizens represent a variety of heritages, religions, ethnicities, and political viewpoints. Indeed, we debate our differences openly and vigorously; yet we can always look to the flag and remember that we share certain core values that bind us together as a people. For over 200 years, our flag has flown proudly over our Nation, a visible promise of our commitment to the preservation and expansion of democracy. However, symbols, like values, are eroded gradually. Each time they are desecrated, their symbolism is diminished. We must act now to protect one of our Nation's most sacred symbols because the Supreme Court has struck down Congress' effort to protect the flag by statute. It is now necessary to amend the Constitution to give Congress the authority to protect the flag. Supreme Court Justices as varied as William Rehnquist, Warren Burger, and Hugo Black have all recognized the appropriateness of these desecration statutes that were struck down by the Court. I urge my colleagues to support H.J. Res. 10. Of course, words or other forms of expression do not have to be correct in order to be protected. And clearly, free speech goes beyond the written or spoken word to include other forms of expression, including the wearing of symbols and other actions. Not all actions constitute free speech, and I am hardly alone in asserting that flag desecration isn't free speech to be protected under the First Amendment. ``I believe that the states and federal government do have the power to protect the flag from acts of desecration and disgrace,'' wrote former Chief Justice Earl Warren. This view is shared by many past and present justices of the U.S. Supreme Court across the ideological spectrum, including Hugo Black, Abe Fortas, Byron White, John Paul Stevens, Sandra Day O'Connor and current Chief Justice William Rehnquist. These eminent men and women haven't taken a merely political stance based upon ``shallow assumptions'' or ``perilously sloppy thinking.'' Rather, they rely upon well-established principles. ``Surely one of the high purposes of a democratic society,'' wrote Rehnquist, ``is to legislate against conduct that is regarded as evil and profoundly offensive to the majority of people whether it be murder, embezzlement, pollution or flag burning.'' Free speech isn't the right to do anything you want to do anytime you want to do it. Rather, it's a precious liberty founded in law--a freedom preserved by respect for the rights of others. To say that society isn't entitled to establish rules of behavior governing its members is either to abandon any meaningful definition of civilization or to believe that civilization can survive without regard to the feelings or decent treatment of others. To burn a flag in front of a veteran or someone else who has put his or her life on the line for their country is a despicable act not deserving protection. It's well-established that certain types of speech may be prevented under some circumstances, including lewd, obscene, profane, libelous, insulting or fighting words. When it comes to actions, the proscriptions may be even broader. That's where I have voted to put flag desecration--back where 48 state legislatures thought it was when they passed laws prohibiting it. This amendment doesn't, in any way, alter the First Amendment. It simply corrects a misguided court interpretation of that amendment. As Justice Rehnquist eloquently observed in concluding his dissent: ``Uncritical extension of constitutional protection to the burning of the flag risks the frustration of the very purpose for which organized governments are instituted . . . The government may conscript men into the Armed Forces where they must fight and perhaps die for the flag, but the government may not prohibit the public burning of the banner under which they fight.'' I am proud to play a part in trying to right that wrong.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against section 749 that begins on page 77, line 1, and ends on page 77, line 16, in that it violates House rule XXI, clause 2, by changing existing law and inserting legislative language in an appropriation bill.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against section 760 that begins on page 81, line 1 through 7 and beginning with ``and'' on page 81, line 11 through ``programs'' on line 17 in that it violates House rule XXI, clause 2, by changing existing law and inserting legislative language in an appropriation bill.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for the time. I want to respond to a few of the remarks made by the gentleman from Kentucky and the gentleman from New York. First of all, he talked about an inconsistent policy because we do not allow horses to be shipped overseas for slaughter purposes by boat. We do nothing to stop that from being done with regard to transport to Canada or Mexico. The fact of the matter is this amendment does not stop it. So when my colleagues talk about the humane treatment of horses, this amendment is going to result in more inhumane treatment of horses if that is their guide, because they are going to be shipped greater distances to Canada and Mexico because they cannot be sent to slaughter facilities in the U.S. Second, the gentleman from New York makes reference to the great racehorse Ferdinand, like this amendment would have stopped Ferdinand from having gone to slaughter. It absolutely would not have. I did not like seeing Ferdinand go to slaughter, but Ferdinand was sold to a Japanese owner and exported not for slaughter purposes but for breeding purposes; and later on in Japan, he was slaughtered. This amendment will do absolutely nothing to stop that same situation from happening to any other racehorse in the world. Thirdly, the gentleman makes references to just three slaughter facilities. That is not true either. There are other slaughter facilities for horses. For example, there is a slaughterhouse in Nebraska which solely slaughters horses for zoos and sanctuaries for big cats which would be essentially shut down by this amendment because horses provide the proper type of high protein diet for those animals, when they are not out racing across the savannahs, because beef simply is not good for cats, these large cats. The gentleman from New York says it is budget neutral, but the fact of the matter is all he is talking about there is budget neutral in terms of this particular amendment not costing any money; but consequences of the amendment will cost a lot of money because this amendment does absolutely nothing to stop the many practices that occur in this country that create unwanted horses, everything from nurse mares in the thoroughbred racing industry, to Premarin mares to produce the drug Premarin, to the foals of those mares, to the fact that for every Smarty Jones that is created, there are hundreds and hundreds of unwanted racehorses who do not make the grade and other horses that are unsuitable for riding and other pleasure purposes or showing. Those horses, as well, will fall into that category of unwanted horses. Nor does the amendment do anything to take care of all those unwanted horses as they start to accumulate in our society. We have already talked about the massive estimated costs that will take place as a result of that. Finally, the gentleman from Kentucky talks about the facilities that exist that would take care of horses, and we have some of those facilities in the country today. This amendment does not establish standards of care that horse rescue facilities must meet. The humane society of the United States, which supports the amendment, admits that equine shelters are less well-established than cat and dog shelters. Citing extreme costs and staff time needed to shelter horses, the humane society warned of needing to be aware of distinctions between sheltering horses and sheltering other companion animals. Current horse-rescue facilities are overwhelmed with the amount of horses they already care for without this amendment being in effect and are in desperate search of additional funding. The American Association of Equine Practitioners estimated that in the first year alone of a slaughter ban 2,700 additional equine facilities would be needed to keep up with unwanted horses displaced by the ban, compounding the problem by adding additional facilities that will also be searching for additional funding. This is a bad, bad idea. I know there is a lot of emotion that says this is a great thing to do. It is not and it is not in the best interests of the horses of this country to pass this amendment. I urge my colleagues to oppose it.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. This amendment is a piece of legislation that has been introduced by Members of the House that would ban horse slaughter in the country. And, quite frankly, this legislation has been opposed by me and many others, but it is also a fact that this particular amendment is far worse than the legislation that the gentleman has offered for this reason: the principal concern stated by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Sweeney) is that the manner of the transport and the actual slaughter of these horses is inhumane. But this amendment would simply limit the inspection of the horses for the purpose of slaughter; does not in any way stop what his other legislation at least attempts to do, that is, the transport of the horses to Canada, Mexico or anywhere else for the purpose of slaughter. The effect of that then is that the inhumane transport and the slaughter itself continue, but the horses are transported far greater distances. Now, the gentleman makes reference to the fact that this is only 1 percent of the horses that die each year. And he cites 65,000 as a figure. But I would suggest to the gentleman that he is way, way, way off on his numbers, because there are not 65,000 times 100 or 6\1/2\ million horses dying each year in this country. With the average life expectancy of a horse of more than 25 years, that would mean that we have more than 150 million horses in the United States. We do not have anywhere near that number. So this percentage is a far higher percentage. That gives rise to the concern raised by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla) and many others that you are going to have hundreds of thousands of unwanted horses, perhaps at the rate of as many as 50,000 a year according to the American Veterinary Medical Association. At a cost of $2,000 per horse to take care of them, that is a hundred million dollars times the average life expectancy that would remain in the lives of these horses if they were not sent to slaughter. If that average is 10 years, you are talking about a billion dollars after you get 10 years out from now in terms of having to support and take care of these horses. Now, the gentleman says no problem with that, but the evidence is pretty sparse that there will not be any problem with that because no country anywhere ever, ever has banned the slaughter of horses. That is what his amendment would accomplish. So I suggest that that is a very, very bad idea with far-reaching complications. I am not by any means alone in this concern. More than 60 reputable horse organizations, animal health organizations, and agricultural organizations have banded together to oppose this amendment, and they are some of the most respected people who own horses and take care of horses in the United States. The American Quarter Horse Association, the largest association of horse owners in the world, strongly opposes this amendment. The American Painted Horse Association, the second largest association of horse owners, opposes this amendment. More than a dozen State horse councils, including the New York State Horse Council and the Virginia State Horse Council, oppose the gentleman's legislation. It is also opposed by those who take care of the health of our horses, very respected organizations like the American Veterinarian Medical Association, the American Association of Equine Practitioners. More than 7,000 horse doctors, the people who take care of horses themselves, are concerned about the implications of what this amendment will have if it is allowed to go into effect and ban the slaughter of horses. Now, I do not believe anybody in this room eats horses. What this is about is what is the best approach for the humane treatment of horses, and the American Veterinarian Medical Association and the American Association of Equine Practitioners recognize the method by which horses are slaughtered in the United States as a humane method of euthanasia of disposing of horses. So the bill does not prohibit other means of deposition of horses. If people still want to put down their horse by some other means, it does not stop them from doing that. It will simply stop the proper inspection of these horses, which, as the gentleman from Texas correctly notes, will deprive us of a lot of useful information that will be gathered by those veterinarians about diseases and so on that will confront these horses if indeed they do not get properly inspected and they have serious diseases. Other organizations that oppose this: The American Farm Bureau opposes this legislation. The American Meat Institute opposes this legislation. The Equine Nutrition and Physiology Society opposes this legislation. The Animal Welfare Council opposes this legislation. The National Horse Show Commission opposes this legislation. Organizations that represent literally millions of horse owners in this country and elsewhere around the world oppose this legislation because of their concern, not about whether somebody is eating horses or not but whether or not these horses will be treated humanely if they are not allowed to go through the process they go through today. So I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. It is not in the best interest of America's horses, it is not in the best interest of America's horse owners, and it is not in the best interest of the fiscal concerns that we must have if we are confronted down the road with the possibility of having to take care of these many, many horses.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time, and I join him in rising in strong opposition to this amendment. This amendment is foolhardy just like the underlying provision that was placed in the farm bill at the last minute. We debated this thoroughly in the House Agriculture Committee prior to the writing of that farm bill and the committee members, 51 members, all from agricultural districts, overwhelmingly rejected this amendment as not in the best interest of America's farmers and ranchers. The Senate held no hearings, insisted on this provision, and it was put into law. What we found after it was put into law was that it does harm. It does exactly the opposite of what farmers and ranchers intended. It increases the cost an estimated $10 per head for cattle, $1.50 for hogs, a similar amount for sheep; and it has the effect, the opposite of what was intended. It will make our products less competitive with foreign meat products, not more competitive. That is wrongheaded. Secondly, it imposes unbelievably stringent liability on the retailers, and every one of them is writing their own separate set of regulations, so that if this law is allowed to take effect, and I commend the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla) for postponing that because we need to have a voluntary system, if it goes into effect, we are going to have a separate set of regulations for each retailer that farmers and ranchers will have to comply with in order to get their products sold. Once again they will say no liability risk if we buy the foreign product, no problem complying with additional regulations, they are going to buy more foreign product, not less. Finally, last year I offered in the Committee on Agriculture legislation to do this the right way, to make it voluntary. When we did so, again the committee members overwhelmingly voted not to do this mandatory system, but to make it voluntary. That is what we should continue to work toward today. The way to do that is to keep the provision of the gentleman from Texas in this bill and delay the implementation of this very bad legislation.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Chairman, I make a point of order to the provision in title V Public Law 480 title I Direct Credit and Food for Progress Program Account, that begins with the colon on page 54, line 4 through ``overseas'' on line 9 of H.R. 2744, the Agricultural, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2006, and for other purposes. I make a point of order against the provision that begins with the colon on page 54, line 4 through ``overseas'' on line 9 in that it violates House rule XXI, clause 2 by changing existing law and inserting legislative language in an appropriations bill.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Chairman, I raise a point of order.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I also rise in opposition to the amendment. This is not the time for unilateral disarmament when you are talking about the trade competition that we face in the world. The gentleman mentions it is a $140 million program. The European Union alone spends $2 billion each year on export subsidies. So the opportunity for us to promote exports by giving companies an incentive to buy American agricultural products when they then provide sales and services overseas is well worth it, if indeed you are facing that kind of competition. The European Union has a trade surplus in agriculture with the United States. One of the reasons they do is because they provide far more of this type of support than we do. So to take away what little we have while we are in the midst of intense negotiations with the World Trade Organization is, to me, unilateral disarmament. What this program does is promote the export of American agricultural products. It is estimated that for every $1 billion of U.S. agricultural exports, we create 15,000 jobs in this country. Last year we exported over $60 billion worth of agricultural products, creating nearly 1 million jobs. Taking away this program is going to take away some of those jobs. It is not a good idea. I urge my colleagues to reject the amendment.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Blumenauer- Flake amendment which calls for reductions of the loan rates established in the 2002 farm bill for both sugar beets and sugarcane. Farmers have crafted their business plans based on the assurances of the 2002 farm bill. Much of the crop of sugar that will be placed under loan in fiscal year 2006 is already in the ground. Farmers have invested time and money in that crop, often with capital borrowed from the bank. It is unfair now to reduce the returns that farmers counted on when planning, financing and planting that crop. This debate concerning the sugar program is an important one. However, it is a debate we should conduct at the appropriate time: during authorization of a new farm bill. As chairman of the House Agriculture Committee, I have announced my intention to hold hearings, and the committee will begin work on a new farm bill this fall. During that process and not when we are on the House floor debating an appropriations bill is the correct time for discussing and possibly making important changes to U.S. sugar policy. Mr. Chairman, in my capacity as chairman, it is my responsibility to look at all of agriculture and consider what is best for the United States and our farmers and ranchers. However, I must note that the U.S. sugar industry does not take the same view when it comes to CAFTA. That free trade agreement is good for U.S. agriculture, but U.S. sugar is the only major agriculture group opposing it. I am disappointed that we do not have total agricultural support for that FTA. I hope that sugar interests will look to help us with that legislation and find a way to close the gap and see that it is passed. But regardless, the policy that was put in place by the 2002 farm bill must remain intact. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 32) to amend title 18, United States Code, to provide criminal penalties for trafficking in counterfeit marks, as amended.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Internet Spyware I-SPY Prevention Act and thank the gentleman from Wisconsin, the chairman of the committee, for moving this legislation to the floor. This bipartisan legislation which I was pleased to introduce with the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Zoe Lofgren) will impose tough criminal penalties on the truly bad actors without imposing a broad regulatory regime on legitimate online businesses. I believe that this targeted approach is the best way to combat spyware. Specifically, this legislation would impose up to a 5-year prison sentence on anyone who uses software to intentionally break into a computer and uses that software in furtherance of another Federal crime. In addition, it would impose up to a 2-year prison sentence on anyone who uses spyware to intentionally break into a computer and either alter the computer's security settings or obtain personal information with the intent to defraud or injure a person or with the intent to damage a computer. In addition to strong penalties, enforcement is crucial in combating spyware. The I-SPY Prevention Act authorizes $10 million for fiscal years 2006 through 2009 to be devoted to prosecutions and expresses the sense of Congress that the Department of Justice should vigorously enforce the law against spyware violations as well as against online phishing scams in which criminals send fake e-mail messages to consumers on behalf of well-known companies and request account information that is later used to conduct criminal activities. The bill also directs resources to the Department of Justice to combat pharming scams in which hackers intercept Internet traffic and redirect unknowing Internet users to fake Web sites where they often trick consumers into giving their account information and passwords. I believe that four overarching principles should guide the consideration of any spyware legislation: first, we must punish the bad actors while protecting legitimate online companies; second, we must not overregulate but, rather, encourage innovative new services and the growth of the Internet; third, we must not stifle the free market; and, fourth, we must target the behavior, not the technology. The targeted approach of the I-SPY Prevention Act will protect consumers by punishing the bad actors without imposing liability on those that act legitimately online. In addition, this legislation will avoid excessive regulation such as one-size-fits-all notice and consent requirements prescribed by the Federal Government. A targeted approach will avoid red tape that hampers the creation of new and exciting technologies and services on the Internet. By encouraging innovation, the I-SPY Prevention Act will help ensure that consumers have access to cutting-edge products and services at lower prices. Increasingly, consumers want a seamless interaction with the Internet, and we must be careful to not interfere with businesses' ability to respond to this consumer demand with innovative services. The I-SPY Prevention Act will help ensure that consumers, not the Federal Government, define what their interaction with the Internet looks like. As we move forward, I look forward to continuing to work with all stakeholders to further ensure that bad actors are punished while legitimate businesses are protected including working with the Department of Justice which has expressed an interest in working with our office on this issue. In addition, technological solutions are crucial in winning the fight against spyware. As the spyware debate continues, I look forward to working to ensure that antispyware technologies are fostered and that they are not subjected to frivolous lawsuits from spyware providers. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.