Bob Goodlatte

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I reclaim my time.

Mr. GOODLATTE. I am referring to a very foolish amendment, the gentleman is correct.

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

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I never once said that this is redundant. What I said was there is language in the bill that protects an individual from being sued, a business from being sued by an individual, if they ate tainted meat. But the gentleman's amendment would prohibit a company from having the protection of this bill if at any time they ever sold one single downed animal or bought from a company that had processed one downed animal. That covers every single circumstance of every single company that is engaged in food processing in the country. So obviously the gentleman's amendment, no matter what his underlying intent is, and his underlying intent has nothing to do with obesity, whatever the gentleman's underlying intent is, the effect of his amendment is to kill this bill because it would remove protection that is desired by 89 percent of the American people that we are coming forward with to do today from every single company in the food process because it does not require a willful and malicious intent; it just says all you had to do was distribute it once in the entire history of your company from this day forward, and you lose that protection under the law. This is a foolish, ridiculous amendment, and I urge my colleagues to reject it. The purpose of the legislation before us is to protect the food industry from having to defend themselves from frivolous obesity- related lawsuits. No one has ever argued that downed animals caused obesity differently than non-downed animals. This bill does not in any way relate to the issues of food safety, animal health or animal welfare. Products that do not meet the standards of our laws relating to food safety, animal health or animal welfare will not be protected by this legislation. Mr. Chairman, the bill before us today is a very carefully thought out effort to address the growing problem of frivolous and costly lawsuits that do nothing but harm American consumers. These lawsuits have the consequence of adding unnecessary cost to the food industry and consumers to the sole benefit of trial lawyers. The Ackerman amendment has nothing to do with this issue. It simply creates confusion about who should be afforded protection from obesity- related lawsuits. Because it is so loosely drafted, so carelessly drafted, not addressing anything to do with malicious or willful action, but anybody who manufactures or distributes, any restaurant, any grocery store, any wholesale business, any processor who has had any downed animal at any time, that business would, for all time, be denied the protection of this legislation. I urge my colleagues to oppose this outrageous amendment.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. I rise today in strong support of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Fee Modernization Act. America's commitment to protecting intellectual property gives America a distinct competitive advantage in the global marketplace. When a country provides an atmosphere that is conducive to innovation and encourages the aggressive enforcement of intellectual property rights, businesses will seek the protection of that country and will make conscious decisions to innovate there. America must continue to be the world leader in protecting intellectual property so that it will continue to be the world leader in innovation. H.R. 1561, the U.S. Patent and the Trademark Fee Modernization Act, would codify a revised fee schedule that would give the USPTO the resources it needs to increase the quality of issued patents and trademarks, to hire additional examiners, and to reduce the backlog of applications that is currently pending. In addition, H.R. 1561 represents an important compromise that effectively ends ``fee diversion,'' the current practice of diverting the excess fees collected by the USPTO to the Federal Government. Under the compromise, if the USPTO collects more in fees than it is appropriated, the balance would be rebated back to the users. Furthermore, the bill protects small businesses by reducing the filing fee for any small entity or independent inventor by 75 percent if those entities file their applications electronically, in addition to other protections for small businesses. This legislation is an important step in the ongoing effort to enhance the quality and timeliness of patent and trademark processing. Our Nation's investors deserve nothing less than the most efficient and accurate patent and trademark office in the world. I urge each of my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, and I thank Representative Hart for introducing this important legislation, as well as Chairman Sensenbrenner for bringing this important legislation to the floor. This bill will convey to violent criminals the important message that when they inflict harm on a pregnant woman and her unborn child, those criminals will be accountable for the harm done--not only to the expecting mother, but also to the unborn child. It is unthinkable that under current Federal law, an individual who commits a Federal crime of violence against a pregnant woman receives no additional punishment for killing or injuring the woman's unborn child during the commission of the crime. Where is the justice when a criminal can inflict harm upon a woman, even with the express purpose of harming her unborn child, and not be held accountable for those actions? The American public knows that this bill is necessary--recent polls have shown that approximately 80% of registered voters believed that prosecutors should be able to separately charge the violent attacker of a pregnant woman for the death of her unborn child. In addition, most States have recognized this problem by passing laws to protect unborn children--29 States, including my home State of Virginia, have seen the wisdom in holding criminals accountable for their actions by making violent criminals liable for conduct that harms or kills an unborn baby. Unfortunately, our Federal statutes do not sufficiently provide for the protection of unborn children and as a result the Federal punishment for these heinous crimes amounts to little more than a slap on the wrist. Criminals are held more liable for damage done to property than for intentional harm done to an unborn child. This discrepancy in the law is appalling. It's time for Congress to Act. Regardless of whether you are pro-choice or pro-life, those of us who are parents can identify with the hope that accompanies the impending birth of a child. No law passed by Congress could ever heal the devastation created by the loss of a child, or ever replace a child lost to violence. However, we can ensure that justice is done by making sure that criminals who take the life of an unborn child pays for their actions. I urge each of my colleagues to join me in voting for the Unborn Victims of Violence Act.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the chairman, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), for yielding me this time, and as chairman of the House Committee on Agriculture, I thank him for his leadership in bringing this legislation to the floor to help not only America's farmers and ranchers, but all small businesses dealing with the problems that exist in our current Bankruptcy Code. The Baldwin amendment seeks to pick apart the comprehensive reforms by addressing farm and ranch bankruptcy only, which may be a popular proposal at first glance to many of us who represent farm country, but it is one the House should turn down this afternoon. If the House wants to enact full Chapter 12 reforms, including a permanent authorization, then Members should adopt the Sensenbrenner substitute, which contains these reforms. Unfortunately, the Baldwin amendment is another cynical attempt to pit farmers and ranchers against other small-business owners and consumers. The bottom line is, adopting the Sensenbrenner comprehensive package protects family farmers, single moms, small businesses and millions of consumers. I would ask Members to vote ``no'' on the Baldwin amendment and keep bankruptcy reforms in a single bipartisan package of long overdue reforms to the Bankruptcy Code.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Temporary Agricultural Labor Reform Act of 2003, 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. 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 labor certification process while also creating a wage standard that is more fair and realistic. 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 between 8 and 11 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 illegally in the hopes that they, too, will be rewarded for their illegal actions. Amnesty is not the answer to our Nation's illegal immigration problem. My bill would not grant blanket amnesty. Instead, it would allow the large population of illegal farm workers one chance to come out of hiding and participate legally in the guest worker program. Potential workers would be required to return to their home countries and apply for the program legally from there. 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 the problems in the current guest worker program, and I look forward to working with all of the Members in this body to reform this program and make it a more viable process for everyone involved.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Washington for yielding me this time and for bringing this rule to the floor and I thank the Committee on Rules for very expeditiously moving this process. I know that when I left the Committee on Rules last night it was close to 9:30 and they were still going on to other legislative business. So often the members of the Committee on Rules have to do that. Of course part of the reason for that is that we are so very near the end of this session of Congress. So it is critically important given what happened in California just a few weeks ago and what is going to happen again next year that we pass this legislation promptly so we can begin the process. It is going to take a long time. The gentleman from Oregon is correct. There are not enough resources nor are there enough acres being addressed in this legislation, but nonetheless this is a very important first step and this is the first major piece of legislation related to forestry to be passed out of a House-Senate conference committee in more than 20 years. This is a very, very important development. We have a tremendous opportunity today, and when the Senate acts to send to the President a good bill that will give us the first step in this process. It has been a fair process that has involved everybody in it. Over 2 weeks ago, we came to the floor to appoint conferees. The ranking Democrat on the House Committee on Agriculture who has worked with us every step of the way, and I might add that I believe 19 of the 24 House Democrats on the Committee on Agriculture voted for the original House-passed legislation, very strong bipartisan support in crafting this legislation. He made a motion to instruct conferees calling for the prompt action at an open conference to report back a bill a week ago. Unfortunately, the other body did not respond in that fashion and did not appoint their conferees until yesterday morning. Nonetheless, in the meantime there was a tremendous amount of bipartisan and bicameral discussions going on about how to move the House and the Senate closer together on these pieces of legislation and we achieved that. Then yesterday we did have in the short period of time after the Senate appointed conferees the opportunity for an open conference, Members were given the opportunity to offer amendments, there was clearly a tremendous amount of consensus on both sides of the Capitol and in both parties on the need to move forward with this and we had a very expeditious conference. Nonetheless, I think we kept the commitment made by the House on the motion of the ranking member, the gentleman from Texas, to have an open conference and to move as expeditiously as the process allowed us to do. This bill is going to allow us to take major steps to let the Forest Service do the job they are charged with doing, protecting our national forests. This will also allow us to make absolutely certain that we have a process that is open and fair to everybody who is concerned about our national forests from any perspective. We are accelerating the process so that when ideas about what needs to be done to protect our forests take place, they can take place promptly, but we are not excluding the public in any way from this process. They will have the opportunity from start to--a judicial review if that becomes necessary--finish to have input in the process, but it will be done in such a way that the system can no longer be rigged to stretch out these decisions for many years and have our forests destroyed in the meantime. That is vitally important. I want to thank everybody who has been involved in this process. The gentleman from California (Chairman Pombo), the Committee on Resources, made important contributions. The gentleman from Colorado (Mr. McInnis), the subcommittee chairman, was also vitally important. He introduced the legislation. And certainly the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden) has been with us every step of the way as well. The same thing has been true on the other side of the aisle, whether they have agreed with all the measures or not. We thank them for their input. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying bill.

Mr. GOODLATTE

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

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht), chairman of the Department Operations, Oversight, Nutrition, and Forestry Subcommittee of the House Committee on Agriculture.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Montana (Mr. Rehberg).

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Burns).

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Colorado (Mrs. Musgrave).

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Let me start by thanking the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) for yielding me 2 additional minutes for this close, but more importantly for the very cooperative way in which the House Committee on Agriculture has produced this legislation. This is truly the example of why this bill will pass by an overwhelming margin here today. It passed out of the House Committee on Agriculture originally on a voice vote; and when it came to the floor, I believe, 19 of the 24 Democrats on the committee, Members who represent rural areas, Members who represent areas that are forests, voted for this legislation, nearly 80 percent. Had we had that kind of support elsewhere in the Congress, this legislation would have been adopted a long time ago. It has been 8 years that we have been working on it. And I would have to say to the gentleman from Washington State (Mr. Inslee) that if we were not to pass this conference report, not to send it to the President, we would be working on this for many more years. We would see more years like this year where 6\1/2\ million acres of forest land in this country were burned to the ground. That is what we are faced with. That is why we need to begin this first step of solving this problem by giving the Forest Service the tools that it needs. It is absolutely incorrect that these forest fires are not related to the problems that the Forest Service is presented with. Certainly, money is a problem. Certainly, we are going to have to deal with that, but in addition, massive parts of the Western part of this country are tied up in legal cases, including the entire southern California area that is tied up over litigation related to the spotted owl. This is clearly, clearly needed to address the problems that we face across the country. I want to thank also the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo). He recognizes very clearly the nature of this problem, and the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. McInnis), I want to congratulate him on his leadership in bringing this bill to the floor as well. He is leaving the Congress at the end of this term, and this is his signature bill. This is his legacy in the Congress. So I commend him as well. I also commend Members who have fought against this process like the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) and the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio). They have seen the light. They understand what it takes. They understand that it is time to get about the business of solving the problem, rather than another 8 years of fighting, and I would say to those few remaining who do not understand, get on board, get this done. Yes, there is additional work that needs to be done. Yes, we will look forward to working with them in future Congresses, but now is the time to give the President the ability to sign a bill that will put our Forest Service to work, to get this problem underway. We will come back for additional legislation because this problem is going to persist, and this is only a beginning. Support this conference report. It is a good one.

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

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I will clarify a point that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) is interested in. Let me state that the projects authorized by title IV are primarily scientific efforts, and scientific methods should be the primary means of assessing them. While we encourage multiparty monitoring, it is not our intent to require it, particularly for projects conducted under title IV.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Today, we are finally able to bring the Healthy Forests Restoration Act, H.R. 1904, for a vote. In spite of a severely flawed process to arrive at this point, we have driven a hard bargain, and we have got a bill that the President will sign. I believe it will make a difference on the ground, but it is only a first step towards fixing what is wrong with the management of our public lands. I worked with two other distinguished full committee chairmen, the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo) of the Committee on Resources and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) of the Committee on the Judiciary, to craft a bipartisan bill that passed earlier this year by an overwhelming, and bipartisan, majority. I also want to note the outstanding efforts of my counterpart in the other Chamber, Agriculture Committee Chairman Cochran, and our distinguished ranking member, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm), for their efforts. This bill seeks to address the issues that have tied the hands of our forest managers: National Environmental Policy Act analysis that drags on for months, administrative appeals that spring up at the last minute, and court actions that stall projects for so long that areas proposed for treatment frequently are destroyed by fires long before the judicial process concludes. The conference process has produced a bill that does not do as much as I would like to address on these issues. I understand there are many in both Chambers who would like to have seen a stronger product. But this bill creates the first real relief from bureaucratic gridlock after over 8 years of legislative effort. It sends a clear signal that the Congress favors results over process and that protecting our communities, our watersheds, and our people is more important than producing mountains of paperwork. There are over 190 million acres of forests and rangelands which remain at risk of catastrophic wildfires, insect and disease, a landmass larger than New England. Our bill takes the modest step of addressing the hazardous conditions on only 20 million acres of this total. This bill also takes an innovative approach to forest health on private lands, creating new nonregulatory, incentive-based approaches to promote conservation on private lands. In short, it takes a national approach to a national problem. H.R. 1904 has enjoyed broad support from groups such as the Society of American Foresters, the National Volunteer Fire Council, the International Association of Fire Chiefs and others. Professional wildlife managers, sportsmen, and serious conservation groups all support this bill. We as a Congress have more work to do to perfect our forest management laws. Forest fires are a symptom of a land management system that suffers from procedural, managerial, and practical gridlock. Our forest management laws, environmental laws, and procedural laws do not work well together. They create a process that only highly trained legal minds can comprehend; and while claiming to encourage citizen participation, they often achieve just the opposite. So we need to do more, but we should be proud of what we are doing today. We are taking a bipartisan step toward better management of our forests. We are saying that protecting our communities, our watersheds, and our people comes before protecting the dilatory tactics of those who oppose any type of sensible land management. I applaud President Bush for helping to bring this about. We would not be on the verge of passing this bill without his leadership. I hope he continues to exert leadership in this field to ensure that the Federal land managers act aggressively to implement this program as quickly as possible. I will do my utmost to ensure that bureaucratic inaction does not delay implementation. I urge my colleagues to support this conference report. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo), chairman of the Committee on Resources, be recognized for 10 minutes for the purposes of controlling debate.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 457, I call up the conference report on the bill (H.R. 1904) to improve the capacity of the Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of the Interior to plan and conduct hazardous fuels reduction projects on National Forest System lands and Bureau of Land Management lands aimed at protecting communities, watersheds, and certain other at-risk lands from catastrophic wildfire, to enhance efforts to protect watersheds and address threats to forest and rangeland health, including catastrophic wildfire, across the landscape, and for other purposes.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin, chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, and the gentleman from Louisiana, chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, for their leadership in pulling these two committees together. We have been working on this for a long time. It is that kind of teamwork that has resulted in this legislation today as well as a great deal of cooperation on the other side of the aisle. We really appreciate what it takes to write good legislation. Spam is not just a nuisance anymore. Over half of the e-mail sent today is spam. Unsolicited e-mail, such as advertisements, solicitations, or chain letters is the junk mail of the Information Age. At best these unwanted messages burden consumers by slowing down their e-mail connections. At worst these messages bombard American families with unsolicited, sexually explicit materials and fraudulent information. It is time to can spam. The bill before us makes it a criminal offense to send a commercial e-mail that falsifies the sender's identity. In addition, the House amendments which have been incorporated into this bill strengthen the provisions that punish spammers for failing to place warning labels on sexually explicit materials. This bill makes the necessary changes to the Senate's ``can spam act'' to establish clear, uniform guidelines for those who send commercial e-mail and to criminalize fraudulent conduct. The bill provides State attorneys general, ISPs, the FTC, and the Department of Justice with the appropriate tools to enforce the bill against bad actors. Because no legislation can provide a cure-all for spam, this bill is technology-friendly. It protects the ability of ISPs and small businesses to develop innovative technological solutions to combat spam and to protect consumers, such as filtering and blocking technologies. This bill establishes clear guidelines for legitimate businesses and punishes fraudulent conduct, not going after the good guys. It accomplishes these objectives without overregulating and without taking the information out of the Information Age. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden), who has been a leader on this issue as well.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I want to say to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm), the ranking member of the Committee on Agriculture, that the gentleman is correct, this is an unusual motion to instruct. It is also a very welcomed motion to instruct. This is exactly the approach that we need to take in resolving a very, very important piece of legislation and the differences that exist between the House and the Senate on this legislation. We can do it exactly because, as the gentleman notes, the House Committee on Agriculture, the committee of primary jurisdiction over this legislation, has a long history of working together across the aisle between the parties, Member to Member, on all kinds of important and complex legislation. The farm bills that we pass are obviously the greatest example of that. Farm bills bring together every region of the country, every political ideological difference, every type of farm commodity, and we have to agree upon one piece of legislation to send to the President for signature so American agriculture can plan ahead for 5, 6, 7 years. That requires intense cooperation. We have the same problems with our Nation's forests and our forest policy. It is in disrepair. It is not working. The forest fires that we are seeing in California now that we have seen all across the country, the infestation of our forests in the east and south from disease and insects require proper management and proper management policy. We do not have an effective working policy today that allows us to promptly address these major problems that in California have taken more than 3,500 homes, taken the lives of 20 people, have scorched the earth. These are not natural fires that occur that thin out our forests, these fires take the entire forests. In some places, the heat is so intense it turns the ground to glass. Water cannot permeate the soil. The devastation lasts for decades. Proper management of these forest will yield the correct result. So I agree fully with the motion to instruct offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) because it calls on the conferees to be appointed here, led by the Committee on Agriculture, to do what we have always done. And we will work with the Committee on Resources and the Committee on the Judiciary to make sure that we have an effective conference, and we look forward to working with the Senate. They have put forward a work product that we are interested in. We think there are many things in the House bill not included in the Senate bill, and some things in the Senate bill that are not included in the House bill that are problematic. But we are confident, given our history of working together, that this will be a conference that includes, as the gentleman requires in his motion to instruct, meeting in open session with fair discussion. How do we know that will take place, because it has always taken place with the Committee on Agriculture. It took place in the farm bill just last year, and it will again. We have a good working relationship, and we intend that that carries over into the passage of this legislation. The proof of it is how we worked this bill through the committee. It passed the committee by overwhelming support. On the floor of the House, I believe of the 24 Democrats on the committee, I think 19 of them voted for the legislation on the floor. There was very strong, overwhelming bipartisan support for the legislation that the House passed. That calls for us to have a conference with the Senate, to not simply accept the premise that somehow the Senate should dictate to the House as they so often try to do time and time again. This matter is too important; this House is too important to accept that premise. It is time that we go to conference. We should go quickly. This instructs us to act quickly, to report back a conference report within a week. We are very prepared to undertake that ambitious agenda and to work it through with the Senate, with Members of the House on our committee, with Members of the House not on our committee, and work this out as quickly as possible. This is important legislation that we should send to the President for his signature. He is anxious to sign it. I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to accomplish a very fine healthy forests final product that is worked out fairly between the House and the Senate for the President's signature. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, today the House asked for conferees to meet with the other Chamber to work out differences on the Healthy Forest Restoration Act, H.R. 1904. This evening, I am pleased to be joined by some of my colleagues on the House side to talk about the importance of this legislation that passed the House of Representatives nearly 6 months ago and, yet, has still not been resolved. This issue has been debated for literally years. Former Committee on Agriculture Chairman Bob Smith of Oregon attempted to address this issue after the Sierra Grande fire which destroyed hundreds of homes in New Mexico in the year 2000. The other Chamber considered similar measures. Last year, a similar bill was reported out of the Committee on Resources. This year, I worked with two other distinguished full committee chairmen, the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo) of the Committee on Resources and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) of the Committee on the Judiciary. We crafted a bipartisan bill that garnered 90 cosponsors. The bill went through three full committee markups before coming to the floor. Our bill takes a truly national approach to a national problem. We passed this bill on May 20 of this year by an overwhelming and bipartisan majority. I think it is critical to note that we appointed conferees today. We also unanimously accepted a motion from the minority to instruct our conferees to finish work on this bill within 1 week. The fact that the whole House agreed to these instructions shows the urgency of starting these negotiations but, because of a small group in the other Chamber, the essential step of appointing conferees is being delayed. Any further obstruction from the minority party in the other body thwarts the will of not only the 80 members of the other Chamber who voted in favor of their version, but of the entire U.S. House of Representatives. Since we passed this bill, almost 6 months have elapsed. While H.R. 1904 languished in the other Chamber, 169 days have gone by, over 3.5 million acres have burned, 30 firefighters have died, and 20 civilians have perished as a result of the fury of catastrophic wildfires. The California wildfires of the last 2 weeks provided a stark reminder of the need to act to prevent future disasters. It was only when the California wildfires were dominating the nightly news that the other Chamber saw fit to take up this critical bill, with an 80 to 14 vote on the measure, which seemed to indicate a sense of urgency on the part of the other Chamber. Unfortunately, the minority party of the other Chamber is still not allowing the naming of conferees. They are refusing to do so in spite of the fact that they know the differences between the two bills are not insurmountable. They are refusing to do so in spite of the fact that an agreement that could result in real action to improve forest health is easily within reach. The goals of the two bills are strikingly similar. Both seek to address the issues that have tied the hands of our forest managers: NEPA analysis that drags on for months, administrative appeals that spring up at the last minute, and court actions that stall proposed projects for so long that they are moot long before the judicial process concludes. Now, I do not want to downplay the fact that there are differences. Their version of the bill added over 100 pages of text and five whole new titles that were not in our version. While there is obviously a good deal of work to be done, we owe it to the people who have fought these fires and the neighbors of our Federal forests who have been threatened, evacuated, or left homeless, to finish the job and produce a bill that the President can sign. All of these issues can be resolved. The only thing preventing us from beginning this resolution is the refusal by the minority in the other Chamber to allow the appointment of their conferees. This action negates the legislative process which calls for a bicameral conference committee to work out any differences between two versions of the same bill, and it is the only thing preventing us from taking steps to protect our communities, our forests, and our watersheds from catastrophic wildfires. It is important to remember that the House bill received widespread support when it came to this floor. The Society of American Foresters praised it for giving new tools to forest managers to protect our forests. The National Volunteer Fire Council praised it for reducing the threat faced by their members when they are on the fire line. Many of the same groups, as well as the International Association of Fire Chiefs, have asked us to go to conference to address specific issues and finalize a bill. That is my strong desire as well as the desire of the vast majority of those in this House. There are over 190 million acres of forests and rangelands which remain at risk of catastrophic wildfire, insect, and disease, a landmass larger than New England. Our bill takes the modest step of addressing the hazardous conditions on only 20 million acres of this total. At the same time, it takes an innovative approach to forest health on private forestlands, creating new programs to detect and suppress such forest pests as the Hemlock Wooly Adelgid, the Emerald Ash Borer, and the Gypsy Moth. In short, it takes a national approach to a national problem. It is time to put partisan politics aside, so that we can bring forth a bill before the end of the session which can prevent future catastrophic forest fires and to begin improving the health of our Nation's forests. It would compound the tragedy still unfolding in California if last week's vote in the other Chamber was just for show. A tiny minority should not be allowed to continue the dilatory tactics that have caused this bill to languish until the end of the session. Time is short. The fires are smoldering in California, and the conditions that created these infernos will only get worse unless Congress acts now. I would now like to recognize several of my colleagues who have supported our bill as it moved quickly through the House and whose districts badly need the attention H.R. 1904 would provide. First, someone who understands this problem exceedingly well, because the State of Colorado has experienced some very difficult problems with forest fires this year and in previous years, particularly last year. I recall the devastation to the water supply for the City of Denver, something that is of great concern to us that our bill addresses, but that some would like to delete from it because they only want to allow work being done in what are called ``beauty strips'' around urban areas, overlooking the fact that the watersheds for many, many communities around the country are protected by our national forests and ruined when those forests go up in flames, and mud and ash and everything else goes down into these important reservoirs and other water supplies. So at this time I am pleased to yield to the gentlewoman from Colorado (Mrs. Musgrave).

Mr. GOODLATTE. The gentleman is absolutely right. There is absolutely no question that we have to fight forest fires. We do not want to send the message that when people go into our national forests or when natural lightning strikes occur that we should not be getting those firefighters out there. That is a part of saving the forests from disastrous wildfires, not the natural fires that burn along the ground, but the kind that stair-steps up and consumes the entire forest. We also know that it is important to do that, to keep the communities and people who live around those forests safe. But we also know that when you do that, when you intervene like that, you also have to take the responsibility to keep the forests healthy in other ways, to use prescribed burns where it is appropriate to do so. These have minimal consequences when they are done properly. They accomplish the goal of burning out the brush on the ground. They do not emit the kind of massive amounts of air pollution that these catastrophic, uncontrolled wildfires have. They do not cause the same kind of devastation to our water resources that these kinds of fires we have seen in Colorado and California and Montana and elsewhere have. But we need to give the Forest Service the tools to take the proper steps. And so I am glad the gentleman has made that observation that this legislation that we have passed through the House with strong bipartisan support and similar legislation that has passed through the other body but has not yet been conferenced, has not yet had the opportunity to resolve the differences, stands waiting for that final resolution. We stand here waiting for the opportunity to conference this.