Bob Goodlatte

Mr. GOODLATTE

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

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding and also rise in strong support of this amendment. I want to thank the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Hyde) for offering it, and I want to congratulate the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter) for 26 years of service to the Congress and for his leadership on this program. I think it is very, very appropriate that we change the name of the program to add his distinguished name for hereafter, and I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the right to object. Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. GOODLATTE. With that understanding, Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Am I correct that this unanimous consent request would not impair the right of any Member to raise a point of order against authorizing language in the bill?

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, section 751 of the bill rescinds $88 million from the Local Television Loan Guarantee Program account. This rescission terminates this program and is an attempt to authorize legislation in an appropriations bill in violation of clause 2 of rule XXI. I urge that the point of order be sustained and the section be stricken from the bill.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against section 751 of title VII in that it violates House rule XXI, clause 2 by changing existing law and inserting legislative language in an appropriation bill.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Internet Spyware (I-SPY) Prevention Act. This important legislation will punish those that use software to break into consumers' computers to conduct nefarious activities. 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.'' Not only does Spyware provide the tools for criminals to crack into computers to commit crimes, but it can also provide the means to alter a computer's security settings or even take over the memory of a users' computer in order to send spam or conduct other despicable acts. 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 five-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 two-year prison sentence on anyone who uses software to intentionally break into a computer and then either alters the computer's security settings, or obtains 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. In addition, this legislation would not interfere with the ability of companies to continue to develop innovative technological solutions to block Spyware. Any successful solution to Spyware must consist of a combination of tough penalties for the really bad actors and innovative technologies to combat Spyware. This legislation leaves the door open for technology to continue to combat Spyware programs. Mr. Speaker, criminal penalties are necessary to deter the proliferation of the most egregious behaviors associated with Spyware, and I urge each of my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to discuss a government program that presents a serious national security threat and is wrought with fraud and abuse, the visa lottery program. Under the program, each successful applicant is chosen at random and given the status of permanent resident, a green card holder, based on pure luck. A perfect example of the system gone awry is the case of Hesham Mohamed Ali Hedayet, the Egyptian national who killed two and wounded three during a shooting spree at the Los Angeles International Airport in July of 2002. He was allowed to apply for lawful permanent resident status in 1997 because of his wife's status as a visa lottery winner. The State Department's Inspector General has even weighed in on the national security threat posed by the visa lottery program. In a report issued in September of 2003, the Office of Inspector General stated that the visa lottery program contains ``significant threats to national security from entry of hostile intelligence officers, criminals, and terrorists into the United States as permanent residents.'' Usually immigrant visas are issued to foreign nationals who have existing connections with family members lawfully residing in the United States. These types of relationships help ensure that immigrants entering our country have a stake in continuing America's success and have needed skills to contribute to our Nation's economy. However, under the visa lottery program, visas are awarded to immigrants at random without meeting such criteria. In addition, the visa lottery program is unfair to immigrants who comply with the United States' immigration laws. The visa lottery program does not expressly prohibit illegal aliens from applying to receive visas through the program. Thus the program treats foreign nationals that comply with our laws the same as those that blatantly violate our laws. In addition, most family-sponsored immigrants currently face a wait of years to obtain visas. Yet the lottery program pushes 50,000 random immigrants with no particular family ties, job skills, or education ahead of these families and employer-sponsored immigrants each year with relatively no wait. This sends the wrong message to those who wish to enter our great country and to the international community as a whole. Furthermore, the visa lottery program is wrought with fraud. A recent report released by the Center for Immigration Studies states that it is commonplace for foreign nationals to apply for the lottery program multiple times using many different aliases. In addition, the visa lottery program has spawned a cottage industry featuring sponsors in the U.S. who falsely promise success to applicants in exchange for large sums of money. Ill-informed foreign nationals are willing to pay top dollar for the ``guarantee'' of lawful permanent resident status in the U.S. The State Department's Office of Inspector General confirms these allegations of widespread fraud in its September report. Specifically, the report states that the visa lottery program is ``subject to widespread abuse'' and that ``identity fraud is endemic and fraudulent documents are commonplace.'' Furthermore, the report also reveals that the State Department found that 364,000 duplicate applications were detected in 2003 alone. The only penalty for such abuse is disqualification from that year's lottery. The visa lottery program represents what is wrong with our country's immigration system. The serious national security threats, fraud and waste that the visa lottery program present beg the question why is this program still in existence? Last February I introduced H.R. 775, the Security and Fairness Enhancement, or SAFE, for America Act. This important legislation would eliminate the controversial visa lottery program. Not only will the removal of the visa lottery improve our Nation's security but it will also make the administration of our immigration laws more consistent and fair and help reduce immigration fraud and opportunism. I urge each of my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 268 I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.'' Amendment No. 1 Offered By Ms. Roybal-Allard

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Madam Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment for a lot of reasons. In December 2000, the National Park Service, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and the State of Montana finalized a long- term management plan for the Yellowstone bison herd. This plan brought to a close more than 8 years of public rulemaking, court proceedings, and intense negotiations over how the Yellowstone bison herd should be managed. I am not alone in opposition to this amendment. Yesterday, the National Wildlife Federation sent a letter to the author of this amendment saying, ``On behalf of the 4 million members and supporters of the National Wildlife Federation, we are writing to urge you not to offer an amendment to the fiscal year 2005 Interior appropriations bill restricting funding for the National Park Service with respect to Yellowstone bison. In fact, your amendment, if enacted, would lead to the slaughter of more animals than under the current management plan. Your proposed amendment, if similar to the amendment offered in fiscal year 2004, and it is, would effectively block the National Park Service from operating its Stevens Creek facility where more than 100 buffalo are tested for brucellosis, held inside Yellowstone, and ultimately repatriated back in the park if they test negative. It's true that buffalo testing positive for the disease at Stevens Creek are sent to slaughter; but under the terms of your amendment, these animals would be killed when they leave the park, by Montana's Department of Livestock'' which this amendment cannot stop. The InterTribal Bison Cooperative sent a letter yesterday urging the proponents of this amendment to not offer it because it ``may hinder the progress that is being made toward the eventual relocation of Yellowstone buffalo to tribal lands in other locations.'' And the U.S. Sportsmen's Alliance yesterday sent a letter urging opposition to this amendment, saying that this is an anti-management amendment that would supersede the professional judgments of trained wildlife scientists in Federal and State resource agencies. The greater Yellowstone area is one of the last known reservoirs for brucellosis in the United States. Tests indicate that up to 50 percent of the bison in the park are potentially infected. There have also been scientifically documented cases of bison and elk transmitting brucellosis to cattle under both range and experimental conditions. The bison management plan relies on separation of bison from cattle that graze in areas surrounding the park. As bison leave the park during winter, management zones are used to monitor the movement of the bison and ensure that bison and cattle do not intermingle. The bison are phased back into the park at the beginning of the spring season. Bison outside the park's boundaries past the onset of spring are captured or removed. In addition, cattle are not allowed to graze on public land outside the park until enough time has passed after the bison leave to ensure that the brucellosis bacteria is no longer a threat. While it is unfortunate that Park Service employees must sometimes remove bison that have left Yellowstone Park, it is important to note that these operations are targeted and only one component of a much larger effort to preserve the health and viability of the entire bison herd. If left unaddressed, the brucellosis situation in the Yellowstone area represents a threat to livestock health in the United States. In 2002, a cattle herd in Idaho was infected with brucellosis which was linked to elk from the greater Yellowstone area. In 2004, Wyoming lost its brucellosis cattle-free status due to the detection of the disease in two cattle herds that were again infected by elk from the greater Yellowstone area. It is critical that Park Service employees be permitted to carry out their roles under the current management plan. I urge Members to join me; the chairman of the subcommittee; the National Wildlife Federation; the InterTribal Bison Cooperative, which is comprised of dozens of Indian tribes in the western part of the United States; and the U.S. Sportsmen's Alliance in opposing a bad amendment. Bad for bison, bad for Yellowstone National Park, bad for the cattle industry, and bad for the Montana-Wyoming area of this country.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the gentleman from North Carolina (Chairman Taylor) for bringing forth an outstanding bill. I rise in opposition to this amendment. Before I speak on that, I would like to address the concerns raised by the gentleman from Washington earlier about sufficiency of funding. That is just an absolutely false charge. As the gentleman from California (Chairman Pombo) pointed out, this includes an increase of $58 million for the hazardous fuels program, but, furthermore, it is a $70 million increase for fire plan funding above the administration request and an increase of $183 million above the non-emergency funding level for fiscal year 2004. If you look at the track record of this administration and this Congress over the last several years, the amount of money available for Federal hazardous fuels funding is several times what it was in any of the years of the Clinton administration. Now, turning to the Udall amendment, once again we are debating whether the administration should be allowed to complete a long overdue revision to the NFMA planning regulations. This amendment failed last year, and it should be defeated again this year. It would be highly irresponsible to prevent the Forest Service from finishing the revision to the planning regulations now. The Forest Service is drowning in paperwork and red tape. The previous administration proposed rules which would have made the situation worse. Those are the rules referred to by the gentleman from New Mexico. Both the forest industry and the environmental groups sued to block the implementation of those rules. Already, the Forest Service estimates that it spends more than 40 percent of its budget and personnel hours on planning and fighting court battles, rather than in the forests. The previous administration's revisions to the planning rules would have increased this by an additional 30 percent. The current administration withdrew these unworkable regulations and proposed new ones in 2002 which would allow land managers to get more accomplished on the ground. This is especially critical right now, as our public lands are currently in a grave forest health crisis and are in need of active management to restore them. The 2002 proposal protects wildlife and public involvement, the 2002 proposal provides opportunities for public input at every step in the planning process, and the 2002 proposal is intended to encourage early public involvement, rather than focusing on last minute appeals and objections. The new regulations will assure clean air, clean water and abundant wildlife for future generations. This will allow the Forest Service to respond more quickly to changing conditions, like catastrophic wildfires and new scientific information. They require the use of an adaptive management framework, as recommended by scientists and international organizations. They make the planning process easier to understand and easier to participate in. Completing the 2002 regulations should be a priority. Halting the revision process would significantly delay the efforts to implement improvements on the old regulations. It currently takes 5 to 10 years to complete a forest plan under the old planning regulations, which is outrageous and irresponsible. Recent experience with the 1982 regulations has underlined the need to proceed with a revision due to the time and cost involved in planning. The plan revision for the Black Hills National Forest in South Dakota cost $7.5 million and took 7 years to complete. Similarly, the plan revision for the Arapahoe-Roosevelt National Forest in Colorado cost $5.5 million and took 7 years to complete. Seven years to revise a 15-year plan is unreasonable. Under the 2002 proposed revised rules, the time for preparing 15-year plans will be cut from the current average of 5 to 7 years to about 2 to 3 years, with corresponding cost savings. Mr. Chairman, this was a bad idea last year, and it is even worse now. Please join me in defeating this amendment and allow the forest management professionals to complete the effort they have been working on for so long.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. I make a point of order against the final sentence of the sixth paragraph under the heading of Title II, ``Administrative Provisions, Forest Service,'' page 77, lines 6 through 8, in that it violates House rule XXI clause 2 by changing existing law and inserting legislative language in an appropriations bill.

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

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order that the proviso in section 319 fails to comply with clause 2, rule XXI by addressing the conditions under which a court action may be brought. It constitutes legislation on an appropriations bill in violation of the rule. On behalf of the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, I ask the Chair for a ruling on the point of order.

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

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California (Chairman Lewis) for yielding me this time and for undertaking this great opportunity to honor President Reagan. Asked in 1980 what Americans saw in him, Ronald Reagan replied, ``Would you laugh if I told you that I think maybe they see themselves?'' Mr. Speaker, hardly would we laugh. A few years ago I had an opportunity to visit Rancho del Cielo, President Reagan's beloved ``Ranch in the Sky.'' The home reflects the man. It does not feel like a museum; quite the opposite, with Nancy's and his TV trays still standing by their respective recliners, both facing the old black-and-white television. It seems they have just gone out for an afternoon ride and will return at any moment. At purchase the ranch was a mere 600 square feet. Reagan labored diligently with his own hands to remodel and expand it. Even so, the only grand thing about it is the natural surroundings. Asked once to explain the ranch's almost magnetic appeal for him, Reagan replied with a quote from Psalms: ``I look to the hills from whence cometh my strength.'' Mikhail Gorbachev, Margaret Thatcher, and Queen Elizabeth were among the notables that he hosted there. Gorbachev is said to have been disappointed by the humble ranch, knowing the lavish palaces of European leaders. However, it is fitting that the place at which Reagan felt most at ease disarmed the world's dignitaries. He always related best with the common man, yet he was far from ordinary. To the contrary, he lived an extraordinary life which had a profound impact on the landscape of our Nation and the greater span of human history. He left us on the eve of the 60th anniversary of the D-Day liberation, and almost 20 years ago to the day of one of his most beloved speeches on the cliffs overlooking the beaches of Normandy. Looking out at faces wizened by time, calling them the ``boys of Point du Hoc,'' Reagan offered a compelling picture of how these young men, freedom's army, struck a death knell to the nazism and fascism which had a stranglehold on formerly-free Europe. He extended this same moral clarity to the great conflict of his day, possessing a steadfast commitment not just to containing communism, but to transcend it, and transcend it he did. Bursting on the national political scene during the 1964 Presidential campaign with his now famed ``A Time For Choosing'' speech, he spoke to a divided and searching Nation: ``You and I have a rendezvous with destiny. We will preserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on Earth, or we will sentence them to take the first step into a thousand years of darkness. If we fail, at least let our children and our children's children say of us, we justified our brief moment here. We did all that could be done.'' These words reflected his eternal optimism not just in America, this great experiment in self-governance, but in Americans. In 1979, we were in the throes of a nationwide recession, the Soviets had invaded Afghanistan, and the hostage crisis in Iran dominated the nightly news. Yet Reagan saw us as a ``shining city on a hill,'' the hope of the world. Reflecting on his death, may we find consolation in his own words spoken to a grieving Nation in the wake of the Challenger disaster, whose crew perished on his watch. They, and now he, has ``slipped the surly bonds of Earth to touch the face of God.'' In his farewell address from the Oval Office, a place where he refused to remove his suit jacket out of a humble respect for the post he held, Reagan described how he envisioned the shining city he had invoked countless times. He went on to observe this of his time in office: ``We weren't just marking time. We made a difference. We made the city stronger, we made the city freer, and we left her in good hands. All in all, not bad, not bad at all.'' ``Not bad'' reflects the modesty of the man, but not the magnitude of his accomplishments. In rebuilding the military and facing down the tyranny of communism, calling the Soviet Union the evil empire that it was, and calling on President Gorbachev, calling upon him to tear down the Berlin Wall, in restoring our faith in the free enterprise system through cutting taxes and encouraging innovation, and, most importantly, in raising our spirits, he made us proud to be Americans. He set this Nation on a new course that still inspires us today. We have a right to dream great dreams, he said, because after all, we are Americans. Yes, Mr. President, we do see ourselves in you. We still dream great dreams of freedom and opportunity around the world. And I am honored to pay tribute tonight to President Reagan, the greatest President of the last century.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this resolution. On April 22 of this year the House, overwhelmingly passed H.R. 2844 by a vote of 306 to 97, a measure introduced by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, which would provide for the continuation of the House of Representatives in the event of a catastrophic loss of Members of the House. This legislation would also ensure that each Member of the House is elected, just as our Constitution mandates. Ensuring the election of Members of the House is the right approach for structuring legislation to provide for the continuity of government. The direct election of Members of this body by the people is a fundamental principle established by the Founders of our Constitution. Specifically, the U.S. Constitution states, ``The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen by the people of the several States. When vacancies happen in the Representation from any State, the Executive Authority thereof shall issue Writs of Election to fill such vacancies.'' This was not what the Constitution provided for the other body, and ever after we have been known as the People's House. That principle would be severely eroded with the adoption of this resolution. Congress has a duty to set forth procedures to ensure that the government continues to function in the event of a catastrophe. However, Congress also has a duty to protect the direct link to the people that has always characterized the House of Representatives. Especially during the aftermath of a catastrophic event, it is important that we prevent the possibility that the government could consist only of unelected officials. I have some serious concerns about House Joint Resolution 83. Specifically, I am deeply concerned about the idea that every Member of this House would designate two or more other people to effectively shadow Members of Congress under somewhat secretive circumstances. I am also concerned that if one of these officials were appointed to Congress then that person would have an inherent advantage over anyone else in the subsequent election by reason of the implicit endorsement by the former Member of Congress. This provision would chip away at the premise that the people and only the people should have the authority to determine who their representative should be. For these reasons, I urge the opposition of this resolution and urge Members of the House to vote no on House Joint Resolution 83.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, shortly, we will be celebrating Memorial Day, a sacred time of remembrance where we pay tribute to the brave men and women who have sacrificed their lives to protect the freedoms we hold so very dear. I believe that it is especially fitting at this time to share a poem written by my constituent, Mr. Cordell A. Dickey of Roanoke, Virginia. Mr. Dickey is a veteran of Word War II where his unit was part of the division that invaded Guadalcanal on August 8, 1942. The poem was written in the Southwest Pacific in 1943 to honor a fallen friend, Hiram DiAlfordi, who was killed in New Caledonia in 1942. The commemoration of Memorial Day will likely be a trying time filled with vivid memories of the son or daughter, husband or wife, mom or dad who will never come home. It is the hope of Mr. Dickey that his poem will bring comfort to the family of those who sacrificed for a cause greater than one's self. Lost Vigilance (By Cordell A. Dickey) Twas here I stepped, here I fell, and here On this far, unfriendly shore, A dream was lost and shattered forever: Leaving only fragments scattered on the sands. To you who loved my life: Whose heart knew pain when earth's cold bosom Embraced and held me fast; I would not have you grieve too much! Sing no more sad songs for me . . . Wipe away your last falling tear. For when I quietly slipped into the void, To keep with destiny my final rendezvous; I did not fear to face Infinity, Or plunge into a dark abyss. To you who still have life: Whose shattered spirit needs a healing balm To make you whole again; I would that you should know much joy; Find new faith and hope again! This above all: Learn to laugh and sing again . . . The world is filled with beauty.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, it is with great honor that I recognize the Salem Times-Register, the community newspaper that has served the good people of Salem, Virginia, for the past 150 years. While big city daily newspapers and television stations jostle to see how many stories they can cover about war, murder, mayhem and people who have done things they shouldn't, community newspapers such as the Salem Times-Register put on their front pages articles about a hometown student who scored a perfect 1600 on the Scholastic Aptitude Test; what the family of an autistic child is doing at home to help him be as much of a regular kid as possible and Air Force Capt. Matt Stephens' visit while home from Iraq to West Salem Elementary School where he was a fourth-grader and met his future wife. And so it has been since The Salem Weekly Register was founded in 1854. Today there are eight papers in the chain, all printed on the company's press in the plant at 1633 W. Main Street in Salem. Wilson Koeppel and Jeff Stumb purchased the Salem Times-Register and its then-three sister papers in March 2001. The two men had already bought the Christiansburg News Messenger and the Radford News Journal in November 2000. Koeppel's son, Lawson Koeppel, is the bright young general manager of the Salem paper and the five others in Main Street Newspapers that serve communities in the Roanoke Valley. Today the Salem Times-Register continues as ``The only paper that puts Salem first,'' concentrating on news of Salem and Salem people. In addition, in 2004 the Times Register went online, along with its sister papers, giving former Salem residents across the world a way to keep up with their hometown news. In 2003 the Times-Register distinguished itself by winning the Virginia Press Association's Sweepstakes Award as the best newspaper out of all the newspapers its circulation size in the state. The staff continues to bring the people of the Salem area the best in local news, sports coverage, photographs, items about accomplishments by Salem students and adults, business news and advertisements. Koeppel and Stumb purchased the Salem paper, The Fincastle Herald, The Vinton Messenger and The New Castle Record from Ray and Jeanne Robinson. For more than 30 years, Ray Robinson, who remains as publisher emeritus, never missed being there when the newspaper rolled off the presses each Wednesday. Because there were only five people in the early years, everybody had to do a little bit of everything. ``The delivery boy was me. The photographer was me. The design and makeup of the papers was me. The assistant pressman was me,'' Robinson recalled. Shortly after the Times-Register was founded, like many others it was a casualty of the Civil War and quit publishing in 1861. It was reincarnated as the Roanoke Times, a weekly, in 1866. The paper's name changed with subsequent owners, with more than 14 different publishers and editors over the next few years. The Register officially merged with the Roanoke Times weekly in 1883. Salem wasn't a one-newspaper town, though. The Salem Sentinel was founded the following year, and according to author Woody Middleton, the two were intensely competitive. ``The Times-Register was published each Friday in a two-story frame building on College Avenue adjacent to the Town Hall. The Sentinel came off the press each Tuesday.'' Like most small newspapers in the early 1900s, front pages of both papers were filled with national and international news. Readers had to look inside, where coverage of social events and who visited whom got equal space with community developments. Subscribers paid $1 a year for their papers. The Sentinel merged with the Times-Register in 1903 after about six months of the respective editors sniping at each other through their columns. For 33 years the name of the paper was The Salem Times-Register and Sentinel. Sentinel was dropped from the masthead in 1936 and since then, it has been the Salem Times-Register. It is with great pride that I congratulate the talented staff that puts out the Salem Times-Register on reaching this milestone and I wish them continued success.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, it is with great honor that I recognize Stonewall Jackson Hospital and the over thirty physicians, more than 80 consulting physicians and 200 dedicated employees who provide the warm professionalism and the personal touch that patients have come to expect from their local hospital. Stonewall Jackson Hospital is located in the historic city of Lexington, Virginia and they are celebrating their fiftieth anniversary in the same location. Since this week is National Hospital and Healthcare week, I think it is only fitting to recognize the important contributions that Stonewall Jackson Hospital and their employees have made to our community. Stonewall Jackson Hospital (SJH) is the primary healthcare provider, serving the communities of Lexington, Buena Vista and the surrounding Rockbridge County. Stonewall Jackson Hospital is a non-profit, critical access hospital dedicated to quality care and patient comfort. Stonewall Jackson Hospital began in 1907 with the dedication of a group of local women--The United Daughters of the Confederacy--and the financial and logistical support of the local community. Mary Anna Morrison Jackson, widow of Thomas ``Stonewall'' Jackson wanted to start a nursing home for older ladies. This was an effort to preserve the only home ``Stonewall'' had ever owned; it was being considered for demolition and replacement with a community building. The United Daughters of the Confederacy (UDC), looking for a fitting memorial for T.J. Jackson, approached Mrs. Jackson in 1901 about buying the home for use as a hospital. Mrs. Jackson consented and Stonewall Jackson Memorial Hospital officially opened in 1907. The UDC held a ``shower'' to provide linens and pantry items to the new hospital. For the next fifty years the women of the UDC financed, supported, and managed the affairs of the hospital. It was a struggle for the hospital to survive. At this time, doctors made house calls. No one went to the hospital for treatment unless they were very seriously ill. Hospitals were thought to be for the insane and the desperately ill only. In the first five years of operation, Stonewall Jackson Hospital saw only 26 patients. The increase of knowledge pertaining to infection and the growth of the community, eventually prompted doctors to centralize their services at the hospital, requiring patients to come to them, rather than the other way around. Commitment and support through the last century allowed the hospital to grow, expand, and move to its current location. In 1954, Stonewall Jackson Hospital moved across town to its present site. An enhanced structure was completed on the same site in 2002. The recently completed, state-of-the-art medical facility blends modern technology with comfort, cutting-edge equipment with small-town hospitality. Stonewall Jackson Hospital truly redefines healthcare in the community.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3717, the Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act of 2004, and I commend the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton) for his leadership on this issue. Like many Americans, I was appalled to see the lack of enforcement of our Nation's Federal obscenity laws after the incident at the Golden Globe Awards program last January. Since that incident, the media has been engaged in an escalating race to the bottom to shock viewers. Most recently, this race took the form of the brazen display during the Super Bowl halftime show, an event watched by millions of men, women, and children. That shameless exhibition was disgraceful and had no place on the public airwaves. Thankfully, the FCC has started to take its enforcement responsibilities seriously. However, it has become frighteningly clear that the penalties currently on the books are not sufficient to deter this behavior. Those in the media who choose to air these obscene materials will not feel the sting of enforcement until the punishment is considered to be more than a simple cost of doing business. H.R. 3717 strengthens the penalties at the FCC's disposal to punish those that pollute the public airwaves with obscene and indecent materials. By increasing the fines that the FCC can impose from $27,500 to $500,000, this legislation hits the violators where it hurts the most, their pockets. In addition, under current law, if an individual willfully violates indecency standards, the FCC must first warn the violator. However, this bill eliminates the warning requirement and increases the maximum penalty for individuals from $11,000 to $500,000 for the first offense. Furthermore, the bill requires the FCC to act in a timely manner. It requires the FCC to make a determination of whether an alleged offense constitutes obscene, indecent, or profane material within 180 days from date of the complaint. It is time to take a stand against the constant bombardment of obscene and profane materials into our living rooms. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 339, the Personal Responsibility in Food Consumption Act and in strong opposition to the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews). 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 it should be liable for the misuse or overconsumption of its legal products by others. Frivolous lawsuits require businesses to devote crucial resources to litigate unmerited claims. In order to help ensure that America continues to be an advantageous 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. Simply put, businesses in the food industry should not be held responsible for the bad eating habits of consumers. The people of America agree. According to a recent poll, approximately 89 percent of Americans oppose holding the fast-food industry legally responsible for the diet-related health problems of people who eat fast food on a regular basis. H.R. 339 will help prevent frivolous lawsuits against the foods industry while preserving State and Federal laws. Specifically, the bill would prevent frivolous lawsuits that claim that the consumption of lawful food products cause injuries resulting from obesity or weight gain. While the bill would prohibit frivolous lawsuits, it would protect legitimate ones. For example, the bill would not protect businesses that knowingly or willfully violate a State or Federal statute when the violation is a proximate cause of an injury. In addition, the bill would not protect those that violate State or Federal food labeling laws or those that offer adulterated food products. H.R. 339 is a commonsense bill that will protect legitimate businesses from frivolous lawsuits. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation. But the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews) runs the risk, if it is passed, of gutting this legislation. The reasons set forth by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), who has done an outstanding job bringing this legislation to this point, are all valid reasons for opposing this amendment; but in addition there are more. There is absolutely no reason why we have to draw a distinction between two different types of perfectly legitimate products that the appropriate regulatory agencies have found to have no ill effect upon consumers. There would be no difference whether it was a natural product or whether it was one that had been changed through hybridization and all the other ways that we have improved food through the decades, in fact through the centuries, or through biotech-enhanced foods either. And so for that reason, I strongly oppose this. If the amendment were to pass, it is a back-door way to try to impose labeling in this country. We have opposed this for a long time because there is no distinction between foods that contain biotech crops and those that do not. And the issue is very clear that if you will require it, virtually every product produced in this country made with corn, virtually every product made in this country using soy beans, virtually every product grown in this country with any kind of livestock that have been enhanced, and virtually any kind of product that may be developed in the future, there would become a disincentive to produce these improved products, as the gentleman from California (Mr. Dooley) just correctly noted. This is a huge problem. It would effectively gut this important legislation. H.R. 339 generally prohibits obesity or weight-gain- related claims against the foods industry. This amendment would require manufacturers to label genetically engineered material before being afforded the protections of the underlying bill. The irony is that, as the gentleman from California (Mr. Dooley) noted, the opportunity exists with genetically modified food to improve the problem for people who have obesity, not to make the problem worse. So I do not understand how this amendment relates to H.R. 339. Biotech crops do not lead to obesity. In fact, biotech research may lead to food products that help combat the obesity problem in America and nutrition problems in the developing world. Farmers have been growing hybrid and other genetically engineered crops safely for decades. Biotechnology is as safe as conventionally bred crops, according to numerous studies by the National Academy of Sciences, the American Medical Association, and other scientific bodies. Furthermore, before biotech foods can be sold to consumers, their safety is reviewed by three government agencies: the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the Food and Drug Administration. The Andrews amendment runs counter to long-standing U.S. Government food labels policy which preserves food labels for help safety and nutritional information. This amendment is just another ill considered attempt to discourage consumption of biotech foods, which every American, every American consumes on a daily basis and encourages frivolous lawsuits. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. This bill is a good bill and 89 percent of the American people support the concept that somebody should not be able to go to a restaurant, to a food processor or food distributor and be able to sue them because they became obese because of their bad eating habits. Let us get back to the subject at hand. What is wrong with this amendment is that the gentleman from New York (Mr. Ackerman) would completely gut the purpose of the bill. He keeps talking about deliberately and willfully putting into the meat supply diseased animals. We have laws against doing that now. But the gentleman's amendment does not say what he talks about. The amendment says manufactured or distributed for human consumption. It does not say anything about willfully. It says manufactures or distributes. That means the processing plant, it means the distribution company, it means somebody who imports from another country where we have no control over what their laws are on downed animals. It means the restaurant or cafeteria that distributes the food. It means the grocery store that distributes the food. It does not address the specific concern of one particular instance. This bill completely covers somebody who may be specifically suing because they ate tainted meat. But all the gentleman from New York is saying is if we have one instance from here on out where meat was sold that came from any downed animal, then that company loses the protection for all time under this bill. That is outrageous. It obviously completely guts the purpose of this legislation.