Bob Goodlatte

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support S. 2856, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the Senate bill (S. 2856) to limit the transfer of certain Commodity Credit Corporation funds between conservation programs for technical assistance for the programs.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation, which extends an important program until September 30, 2005. As many of my colleagues know, authorization for the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Mandatory Price Reporting Program, which was passed in the 1999 agriculture appropriation, expired on October 23. This program requires USDA to operate a mandatory price reporting system for beef, pork and lamb, which provides useful information for everyone engaged in the buying and selling of these products. In the absence of authority to enforce mandatory reporting, the USDA has contacted the companies to encourage them to continue reporting data during the gap in program authorization. It is my understanding that everyone has been cooperating. This is because they recognize the important role this data plays in price discovery and in the operation of marketing agreements. There is also a clear agreement that the current program should be extended for an additional year to provide livestock producers, the packer community and other interested parties additional time to identify and agree upon these technical improvements to the law. The administration has recently written to the leadership of the House and Senate in support of this simple 1-year extension. In order to extend mandatory price reporting in a timely manner, we need to act today. Mr. Speaker, I urge the adoption of this measure. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to adopt this important legislation to extend this program for a year. 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 Senate bill (S. 2965) to amend the Livestock Mandatory Price Reporting Act of 1999 to modify the termination date for mandatory price reporting.

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. 2965, the Senate bill just considered.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds to say to the gentleman from Virginia that this is freestanding legislation which I have introduced. It has nothing to do with the so-called PATRIOT Act II the gentleman refers to. It is a good measure. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Green).

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time, and I say to the gentlewoman that I appreciate her comments, but I would also point out that we are engaged in the midst of a war against terror right now and a lot is going to happen in the next year, including the apprehension of people who, under appropriate circumstances meet this standard, and we should have the opportunity for the court, and this is a decision by the judge, not something that is a mandatory decision, but the judge should have the discretion to allow that the individual be held pending trial without bond. Secondly, there will be people who have been convicted of terrorist acts potentially released during that period of time, and if the court finds it appropriate to authorize lifetime supervision, we ought to get that supervision started now to keep track of people who have engaged in terrorist acts and give the court the authority to undertake that now, without waiting an additional year and expose our country to greater risks that will occur during that time. So I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote. The CHAIRMAN pro temore. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) will be postponed. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 12 printed in House Report 108-751. Amendment No. 12 Offered by Mr. Green of Wisconsin

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would simply create a rebuttable presumption that no amount of bail or other conditions would assure the appearance in court of a defendant when he is charged with a terrorist offense and there is probable cause that the defendant committed certain terrorist acts. This bill simply creates a rebuttable presumption which can be overcome by evidence that the defendant would appear in court. This presumption that a defendant would not show up in court already applies to those who are charged with major drug crimes and certain violent crimes. If it is good enough for drug dealers and violent criminals, it should be good enough for terrorists. It is simply too risky to trust terrorists who have been charged with terrorist offenses to return to court to be tried. We should not allow these criminals to roam free in our streets while they await trial. In addition, this bill would help prevent further terrorist attacks by giving judges the discretion to impose a term of supervised relief up to life for terrorists who have been convicted of terrorist offenses. Currently, the law provides that only those who committed terrorist offenses which either resulted in or created a foreseeable risk of death could be supervised for a term of years up to life after being released. This bill would make clear that post-trial supervision is available for all victim terrorists, not just those whose terrorist acts happen to result in death. This amendment only authorizes a court to impose the supervised relief of a terrorist. It does not mandate any particular term of supervised relief for any particular criminal, nor does it mandate that any supervised release be imposed at all. It leaves that decision up to the courts based on the facts and circumstances of each individual case. In addition, current law already gives courts the authority to modify or end the period of supervised release if the court determines that the criminal's conduct and circumstances so warrant. This safeguard is not changed by this amendment. Mr. Chairman, this amendment makes simple changes to current Federal criminal law to ensure that those who have committed terrorist acts will not attempt to harm our citizens again. I urge my colleagues to support this important amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, yes, that is correct. For producer payments, such transfers for these crops will be taken into account as they are for the other tobaccos. The payments will be based on the actual amount available on the farm after those transfers.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for the time, and I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm).

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman, and I also would like to thank the Chair and the members of the Committee on Ways and Means who worked with the Committee on Agriculture so diligently to finally accomplish something that has been badly needed for a long time, and that is, to buy out a bad program that has been working against America's tobacco farmers for a long period of time. I thank the gentleman.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a leader in the field of medicine and an outstanding citizen of the Commonwealth of Virginia, Roger W. Litwiller, M.D. Dr. Litwiller soon will complete his term as national president of the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA). It is my pleasure to recognize one of the Roanoke Valley's own as the 2003-2004 president of this prestigious national organization that is recognized world-wide for its outstanding work in improving patient safety. Founded in 1905, ASA is the predominant professional organization representing more than 39,000 anesthesiologists. Since its founding, ASA has been the leader in the development of patient safety standards and guidelines for the delivery of safe patient care before, during and after surgery. Efforts on the part of the organization and its members are recognized throughout the scientific and medical communities. The Institute of Medicine, in its 1999 report on medical errors, recognized the successes of organized anesthesiology in improving patient outcomes. Anesthesiologists either directly administer or supervise 90 percent of all anesthetics performed throughout this country, in hospitals and outpatient surgical centers, and in urban and rural areas. Besides the operating room, anesthesiologists are often found treating patients' pain and delivering critical medical care to patients in hospital intensive care units, emergency rooms and diagnostic facilities. Dr. Litwiller received his medical degree from the University of Florida College of Medicine in Gainesville, Florida, and completed his anesthesiology residency at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, Ohio, and the University of Virginia in Charlottesville, Virginia. He is currently a staff anesthesiologist for Carilion Roanoke Memorial Hospital, Roanoke, Virginia; Montgomery Regional Hospital, Blacksburg, Virginia; and Carilion Brambleton Ambulatory Surgery Center. He has worked in the private practice of anesthesiology in Roanoke, Virginia for more than 30 years. Dr. Litwiller has served the Virginia Society of Anesthesiologists as president, newsletter editor and member of the Board of Directors. For ASA, Dr. Litwiller has served as president-elect, first vice president, delegate, director, and chair of the committees on Finance, Governmental Affairs and Physician Resources. During his tenure as ASA president, Dr. Litwiller has made unparalleled strides in bringing together the various practitioners in medicine--from the operating room to the critical care suite and beyond--who share patient safety as their common goal. He has worked tirelessly with other organizations representing those who care for patients, and has involved ASA in numerous campaigns to improve surgical care. Through the ASA Expert Witness Review process, he has also worked to ensure the accuracy of testimony given in malpractice suits, thereby helping to address the medical liability crisis. He has spoken to countless groups all over the country to promote ASA's work, to ensure the future of academic programs in anesthesiology, and to tackle any threat to the continued development of science and research held so dear by this specialty. Over the last year he united the professional associations providing the vast majority of anesthesia care in this country by identifying common goals. This cooperation between anesthesiologists and certified registered nurse anesthetists resulted in efforts such as joint statements on clinical issues, visits to regulatory officials in Washington, D.C., and work with the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations on patient safety matters. He has been guided by a vision of compassion, science, and political involvement as the cornerstones of the practice of anesthesiology, and in so doing has set an enduring example and created a legacy for his colleagues. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me today in recognizing Roger W. Litwiller, M.D., for his notable career achievements, his exemplary leadership, his dedication to patient safety, and his legacy which will benefit the patients of today as well as tomorrow.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for her comments. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith), chairman of the Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property Subcommittee of the House Committee on the Judiciary and a real leader on technology issues in the Congress.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I want to particularly thank the gentlewoman from California for her help in making this legislation possible. This is truly a bipartisan effort that has been broadly supported in the Committee on the Judiciary and by other Members of Congress. I think it is a very appropriate approach to a very serious problem. I also want to thank the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble), chairman of the Subcommittee on Crime, and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith), chairman of the Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property, who also were very helpful and very supportive as we moved this legislation forward. There are a number of organizations. The gentlewoman from California mentioned some. I would like to call Members' attention to others that have indicated their strong support of this legislation, including the Information Technology Association of America; the Information Technology Industry Council; the Business Software Alliance; the Center For Democracy and Technology; NetChoice, a coalition representing e- commerce companies and thousands of e-consumers from across the Nation; the Internet Commerce Coalition; the Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America; the Software Information Industry Association; and a host of individual companies and individuals who have been in touch with us about the ravages that occur with spyware and the phishing scam. These are things that are great threats to consumers. We want them to feel confident when they use the Internet. The Internet holds great promise for people to be able to use the Internet for education, for commerce, for communicating with families and friends and people who share a common cause with them; but people increasingly know of the dangers they face on the Internet, from hackers and spam and pornography and people attempting to participate in various types of fraudulent schemes. Many of those center around the use of spyware and phishing. These are threats to people's use of the Internet. We need to crack down on the people who perpetrate these actions. This is the legislation to do that, to make sure that people feel comfortable, that they themselves and their children can go online and have the opportunity to use the Internet with confidence that their personal information is not being stolen, that they are not becoming the victim of identity theft, that they are not confronting what looks like a Web site of a legitimate company using all of the technology available. Some of these criminals will actually create a duplicate Web site that looks exactly like the original, but then attempt to use that Web site to extract information from you by suggesting that they need to update their account information or need your Social Security number or need your driver's license or some other personal information which they then intend to use to steal from your bank account, run up credit card bills, whatever the case might be. This legislation is designed to come down hard on those people. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in support of H.R. 4661, the Internet Spyware (I-SPY) Prevention Act. This bipartisan legislation which I introduced with the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith) will impose tough criminal penalties on the most egregious purveyors of spyware without imposing a broad regulatory regime on legitimate software providers. I believe that this targeted approach is the best way to combat spyware. Spyware is a growing and serious problem. The Federal Trade Commission has testified that spyware appears to be a new and rapidly growing practice that poses a risk of serious harm to consumers. Spyware is software that provides a tool for criminals to crack into computers to conduct nefarious activities, such as altering a user's security settings, collecting personal information to steal a user's identity, or to commit other crimes. The I-SPY Prevention Act would impose criminal penalties on the most egregious behaviors associated with 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. By imposing stiff penalties on these bad actors, this legislation will help deter the use of spyware and will thus help protect consumers from these aggressive attacks. Enforcement is crucial in combating spyware. The I-SPY Prevention Act authorizes $10 million for fiscal years 2005 through 2008 to be devoted to prosecutions and expresses the sense of Congress that the Department of Justice vigorously enforce the laws against spyware violations as well as against online phishing scams in which criminals send fake e- mail messages to consumers on behalf of famous companies and request account information that is later used to conduct criminal activities. In addition, the I-SPY Prevention Act is technology-friendly. It would not interfere with the development of technological solutions to block spyware. Many technologies are currently available to help consumers detect and rid their computers of spyware. As these technologies progress, we must be careful not to impose unnecessary burdens on these innovators who are helping to fight against spyware. Furthermore, by targeting the truly bad actors, this legislation would protect the ability of legitimate software companies to innovate and develop new and exciting products and services in response to consumer demand instead of imposing a one-size-fits-all regulation on the entire industry. The I-SPY Prevention Act is a targeted approach that protects consumers by imposing stiff penalties on the truly bad actors without imposing excessive red tape and regulations on legitimate technology companies. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation. I thank the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary for bringing this legislation forward. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 4661, the bill currently under consideration.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 4661) to amend title 18, United States Code, to discourage spyware, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 3242, the Specialty Crop Competitiveness Act of 2004. The specialty crop sector is comprised of a diverse group of commodities produced across the Nation and is a vital portion of our agricultural community. Because of their hard work, Americans have access to a healthful and wholesome diet which includes fruits and vegetables. The 6th District of Virginia, which I represent, is home to a wide variety of these producers. They are part of the larger specialty crop sector, which makes the United States the second largest importer and exporter of fruits, nuts, vegetables and other horticultural products. I would like to take the opportunity to commend Mr. Ose of California for his commitment to the fruit and vegetable sector. His hard work with the industry, as well as his colleagues here in Congress, has been fundamental to moving this bill forward. Mr. Ose has diligently represented his constituents and I am sure they will miss his leadership upon his retirement. H.R. 3242 is the culmination of many months of hard work in developing a consensus document. While the markup of this legislation proceeded quite smoothly, it did outline some issues that need additional attention. However, it is clear from the quality of the discussion among Committee Members, that we understand the importance of the specialty crop sector in production agriculture. I believe this bill represents a first step in what will undoubtedly be a lengthy conversation leading up to the next Farm Bill. Some issues in this bill will likely be revisited as we proceed forward with this process. For example, I still have some reservations about the block grant system and whether or not it is the best way to address the long term goals of the agriculture community. However, I remain open to further consideration of this point and I believe this is a good faith effort to begin the conversation about improving the competitiveness of specialty crop producers in the context of the Farm Bill. Again, I'd like to thank Mr. Ose for his commitment to this complex effort and would like to reiterate my support for passage of H.R. 3242. Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Speaker I rise in support of H.R. 3242, the ``Specialty Crop Competitiveness Act''. While I remain concerned about the funding levels--my colleagues from California, Mr. Ose and Mr. Dooley, must be commended for their dedication and hard work over the past year on this legislation to bring the specialty crop industry long overdue recognition from Congress. I especially want to mention my strong support for provisions in the bill that address methyl bromide use by specialty crop growers. Continued use of methyl bromide as a fumigant is of utmost importance to a number of crops in my district and throughout California and I greatly appreciate the House Agriculture Committee bringing this issue to the forefront of the debate. As you may know there are over 250 specialty crops produced in the United States and the industry as a whole is vitally important to the continued prosperity of our farm economy. In 2002, specialty crops had a collective value of nearly $52 billion or about 53 percent of the value of all agricultural crops. Their farm-gate value continues to rise as growers throughout the United States consistently produce the most abundant, highest quality crops of their kind in the world. Currently however, specialty crops do not enjoy the same support from the Federal Government as do traditional ``program'' crops. Their main source of government assistance is not through marketing loans, direct payments, or counter-cyclical payments but instead they are supported--albeit in much smaller proportions--through programs like the Market Access Program, conservation programs like EQUIP, and through research funding. The honest truth is that the majority of the specialty crop industry does not want a traditional subsidy program as cotton, corn, rice and others enjoy. Instead, they simply desire a seat at the table and recognition for their hard work and contribution to the farm economy. H.r. 3242 does just that, it improves upon previous Farm Bill programs aimed at specialty crops and proposes a reinvigorated block grant program that will allow each State Department of Agriculture to apply for, and administer, marketing assistance programs tailored specifically to the needs of their respective crops. This legislation could not come at any better time. As many of you know, specialty crop growers across the United States are currently in the midst of an industry crisis. They are facing a number of challenges in international trade, caused by lack of market access, rapidly increasing import competition and efforts by our trading partners to keep our products out of their markets. Additionally, our foreign competitors routinely employ considerably cheaper labor and liberally use pesticides that are banned here at home. In my home State of California, the situation worsens. Growers are constantly dealing with new environmental regulations, which often require costly compliance measures such as purchasing new equipment and machinery or applying for Federal and State permits. Furthermore, the cost of land, water, labor and pesticides are significantly higher in California compared with other larger specialty crop States. It is no wonder that prime agricultural land is disappearing at such a rapid rate, right before our eyes. H.R. 3242 will finally direct Federal support to specialty crop growers in a proactive manner, to promote consumption of specialty crops at home and abroad and increase the competitiveness of growers in the aggressive global market. One of the key components to H.R. 3242 is Title 1, the Specialty Crop Block Grant program. In 2001, Congress approved a block grant program from which California received roughly $64 million and one of the first things I did as a member of Congress was to convene a forum of California's specialty crop industry to determine how the program was implemented and what the benefits were. The results were outstanding-- milk vending machines were placed in schools, the California Grown program was a success, research programs for pest disease and prevention were completed and countless other important programs were funded for the first time in decades. Block grants worked in California and they will work in the United States but they only work if we adequately fund them. There is no doubt in my mind that my colleague from California, Mr. Ose, fought the good fight to retain the full authorization included in the original Specialty Crop Competitiveness Act but the bill we are voting on tonight falls pathetically short of what is needed for this industry. The original H.R. 3242 allocated $470 million for the specialty crop block grant program, a number that may seem substantial at first but that one that is dwarfed by the billions of dollars spent annually on program crops. It is unfortunate that important legislation such as H.R. 3242 was not adequately funded and I remain committed to rectifying this inequity in the future. Regardless of my concerns, I will be support H.R. 3242 tonight. I firmly believe that H.R. 3242 is an important first step in acknowledging the strength and important of our Nation's specialty crop industry and I urge my fellow members of the House of Representative to join me in approving this important legislation.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, obviously we would prefer to provide assistance without offsets, but the reality of the situation is that there will be no disaster money before we go home unless we provide budget offsets. We will not touch the farm commodity programs that are the heart of the farm bill. The savings we are making will cap the Conservation Security Program at $6 billion. That is three times the amount of money that was put into this program. It was a new program when the farm bill was created. This is a new program still in its start-up phase. The gentleman suggested that some people might be at risk for this program. This year, this program will spend $175 million. With the 3 years remaining in the farm bill and $9 billion to spend, nothing is at risk in the rest of the farm bill. We should make sure we accomplish two things here: use this money, as we did 18 months ago with support from the folks on the other side of the aisle, to do exactly what we are doing today; and make sure that we put a cap back on this program so that it does not raid other parts of the farm bill. We can accomplish both of those goals here tonight. I urge my colleagues to support this vital amendment. I want to thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Neugebauer) for his leadership on the issue of disaster assistance for producers. We have been working for several weeks to find a way to help farmers and ranchers from west Texas to Minnesota to Colorado, as well as those devastated by hurricanes in the Southeast. With the tight budgets we now face, it has been a difficult task, but we believe the Neugebauer amendment provides the path to secure assistance our producers need. I urge my colleagues to support this sound amendment.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time, and I rise in support of this rule. I want to thank the Committee on Appropriations for their hard work, and I want to call the attention of my colleagues to the opportunity that we expect to have, the opportunity to put in place a way to provide the kind of assistance that America's farmers and ranchers need and deserve all across this country. For weeks, we have been working on this problem, and we have come upon a solution, and a solution that will work. It is a solution that is very, very, very similar to one that this Congress joined together in a bipartisan fashion, across the aisle, to support just about 18 months ago to help farmers in the 2001-2002 disaster period. That was to take funds from a program that had funds available, took them off the back end of it and went ahead and paid it. Now we find that this program has in it four-and-a-half times as much money as was in the program when the gentleman from Texas and my predecessor, the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Combest, wrote the farm bill and put money in for this new program; but after that work was done, others, apart from those here today, went in and took the cap off that program. So, in addition to being able to meet the needs of farmers all across this country from Florida to Texas to Minnesota, we will have the opportunity to do the same thing. We will have the opportunity to pay for it, and we will have the opportunity to have money in that program in a greater amount than was in the program when we did this the last time. We will have the opportunity to put a cap on that program because I think those on the other side of the aisle would agree that the future of farm programs is very dependent on one program not being uncapped, not having the opportunity to spend these enormous amounts of money. So I am pleased to join with the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Neugebauer), who is going to have, if this rule is passed, the opportunity to offer an amendment to take care of this problem for every American and end this problem. I would ask my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to join us in the same bipartisan effort that helped America's farmers and ranchers when we did this in the beginning of 2003 in a very, very similar circumstance with a very, very similar solution.