Bob Goodlatte

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. We mentioned this earlier. It is indeed disappointing that the opportunity would exist for anyone to jump the gun, if you will, to get an opportunity to do the right thing, and we are glad that the State of South Dakota has the tools that they need to protect the Black Hills National Forest, a precious resource. Why we would not also have the opportunity to do that in the 49 other States where all of the States in one way or another have problems with protecting forests, why we would not get that, I do not know. But we stand here and we wait for the opportunity.

Mr. GOODLATTE. I thank the gentleman. The gentleman's point is very well taken. A healthy forest means safe communities. That is what we are really talking about here. If we get to the root cause of this problem, which is our unhealthy forests, we will not see the kind of disasters that we have seen in recent years that have taken lives, taken homes, taken families away from their communities. It has been a disaster of the highest order. While these disasters have taken place, the Congress has watched the burning and has been inactive. The gentleman is correct. In the subcommittee that I used to chair, we held many, many hearings. In the full committee that I chair now, we are holding those hearings. We moved forward with legislation. We worked closely with the Committee on Resources and the Committee on the Judiciary. We passed a bipartisan bill. Forty-one Democrats in the House joined with the overwhelming majority of Republicans to pass this bill. The ranking member of the Committee on Agriculture has been a real pleasure to work with on this issue, even though he has acknowledged today in his district in Texas there is so little forestland. But he recognizes this problem in other parts of Texas and in other parts of the country. We have worked together to move this far. Why we cannot see the same response from other quarters where we need to have cooperation to get this done and to move the final bill to the President, I do not know. But nonetheless, we stand here and wait for the opportunity to finish what we have started.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce) for some very commonsense observations. Just looking across the spectrum of Members who have spoken here tonight and who spoke here today on the motion to instruct conferees, we had Members from Oregon, California, Colorado, Montana, Idaho, New Mexico, Arizona, all across the West they experience this problem; and then Georgia, Virginia, North Carolina, they experience this problem. And folks from Michigan and Pennsylvania have spoken about forestlands. We are blessed in this country with great and bountiful forests all across America, but we need to take care of them. And when we have to manage them because people live in and around them and we have to fight forest fires, that fuel density builds up. When it does, we have to give our forest managers, the professional people, the ability to step in and do what needs to be done. We are doing it in such a way that we expedite the process so that it does not go for so long that the problem overtakes the solution, but at the same time we do it in such a way that the ability of concerned citizens to have their input in the process, to even appeal the decisions that they think are inappropriate, to have that opportunity to do that but do it in a way that is expedited because that is what is needed for a problem as serious as this one. I see that we are now joined by another Member of Congress who has experienced this problem firsthand in his State of Montana. I would be pleased to yield to the gentleman from Montana for him to also give his observations about the problem with the state of forests in his State and around the country.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Burns) for his comments. Now, somebody who has experienced this problem firsthand in the State of New Mexico has joined us. I yield to the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce). New Mexico last year suffered some devastating fires which we thought would be just the thing that would cause Congress to get over the top and get this issue resolved. Unfortunately, we fell short; but we are back again this year, and we are as close as we have ever been to getting this legislation through both bodies so we can send it to the President.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Hayes) is correct. There have been catastrophic fires in South Dakota, but there was even more importantly a recognition that there were vast areas, not just the so-called beauty strips immediately around communities, but vast areas of the Black Hills National Forest that were at risk of catastrophic wildfire. We are not talking about the wildfire that burns along the ground and gets rid of the brush and things out of the area and leaves the larger trees; but we are talking about fires that, because of the buildup of fuel density, the trees continuing to grow, the fires being suppressed over a long period of time, when they finally do occur, they stair-step up from the brush into the smaller trees, into the larger trees, into the overstory of all of the trees in an area and devastate the whole area. Then when it comes up to a community, no small narrow band of treated area will keep that kind of massive fire that can sometimes leap over long distances because of the enormous height that the flames reach and the burning pieces. In the California fire, there was a report last week of an instance in which a 4 by 8 piece of plywood was spotted by one of the planes combating the fire flying through the air in flames at 2,800 feet of altitude. Now, when these things can reach that kind of proportion, a small strip around a community will not protect the community. So wisely, the legislation that protects South Dakota does not include that type of restriction. The Forest Service there can use their judgment with proper notice to the public and with fair hearing for people who have, as we all do, a concern that these things be done properly, the ability to treat various parts of the forest not simply limit it to those areas. That is one of the things that is apparently holding up our progress here. I think it is a serious mistake. Mr. Speaker, we should be allowed to go in and work with the other body to fashion legislation that will address this problem in the other 49 States.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Speaker, I hope that what was done by this Congress for the State of South Dakota 2 years ago will be done for the other 49 States as well. In fact, we do not even ask quite as much. We simply ask for fair treatment, and we hope that we will get it soon. It is very, very important. Madam Speaker, I think it is interesting to note that of the speakers we have had down here tonight, the furthest west is the gentlewoman from Colorado. And I think this reflects that this is not simply a Western problem; this is a problem that affects the whole country. Because in the East while we have different types of forests, they also suffer forest fires; but the greatest threat in the eastern forests are the insects, and the disease, many of which are nonnative species that have come into this country from one source or another around the world. And we do not have the natural enemies of these species to combat in our forests. So often times they run rampant: the pine bark beetle that the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Hayes) mentioned, the wooly adelgid which attacks our hemlocks, the gypsy moth which attacks our hardwoods, and the emerald ash borer which attacks our ash trees. Madam Speaker, at this time I yield to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Burns).

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman. Her observations are very true. One of the areas that we overlook not only are the water pollution problems that occur, but also air pollution. The fires in California have emitted so many toxic fumes and other forms of air pollution that some are saying that more emissions have occurred from just those fires in California in the last few weeks than occur from all of the automobiles, all of the trucks, and all of the buses emitting all year long in the country. And we saw so many evidences of it. I have a sister who lives in southern California and experienced the difficulty with breathing and so on. Literally millions of people were exposed to this enormous problem. It is not simply a natural wildfire that burns along the ground and the large trees are preserved and so on; these fires consume everything in their path: large trees, small trees, homes, businesses, automobiles, and even some people's lives. And, in doing so, the devastation is truly enormous. Yet, we ignore it as we continue to neglect our forests and not give the professional forest managers the ability to manage those forests. At this time, it is my pleasure to yield to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Hayes), a member of the Committee on Agriculture and chairman of the Subcommittee on Livestock and Horticulture who knows something about this from problems in North Carolina.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Hayes) is correct. It is regrettable but nonetheless true, that legislation was passed a couple of years ago that included a provision placed into an appropriations bill that creates a different standard for South Dakota. I am quite glad that the Black Hills National Forest in South Dakota has that different standard, because they have the ability to allow the Forest Service employees, the district rangers, and others in that national forest to prepare the land in environmentally sensitive ways, to protect that forest from the kind of catastrophic wildfires that we have seen in California and Oregon and Arizona and New Mexico and Colorado and Idaho and Montana and other States as well. But there is absolutely no reason why the provisions in either the bill passed by the House or the bill passed by the other body, neither of which contain the same level of authority granted to the Forest Service folks in South Dakota, could not be made available to the other 49 States as well. We are not even asking for as much as what South Dakota has right now. And, yet, we are being impeded from being able to bring this issue to a resolution. We are so very close; the differences between the House and Senate can be worked out. There are differences. We should not minimize them. They are important differences. But we passed today here on the floor of this House a motion to instruct conferees offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm), the ranking democrat on the Committee on Agriculture, a motion to instruct that says we will have an open conference with participation by all of the conferees appointed. And, by the way, the Speaker went ahead today and appointed those conferees. We are ready to act. We have committed to an open process. We have committed to a speedy process. The motion to instruct calls for reporting back a bill to the House by next Thursday. And that is possible if we would be able to go to conference. But if action is not taken promptly, we will lose that timetable. Time will slip away from us. And, of course, we are nearing the end of this Congress. And if time slips too much, we may be unable to complete this legislation, which President Bush very anxiously wants to sign, supported by so many bipartisan Members of both the House and the other body.

Mr. GOODLATTE. I thank the gentleman. I want to thank the Speaker of the House, Speaker Hastert, for the opportunity to discuss this important issue tonight. I also want to thank my ranking member, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm), without whom we would not have come so far this year. The other committee chairmen who helped hone the bill also deserve high praise for their efforts. I wish that I were not here on the floor of the House pleading the case to start formal negotiations. This issue has dragged on needlessly for the entire legislative session. We need to discharge our duty, follow regular order, and conduct open, fair conference processes called for by the House this morning.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo), the chairman of the Committee on Resources who has worked so closely with us and has provided so much leadership. Being from the State of California, he knows full well the nature of the problem out there and knows this is a problem that exists across the country.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the Nation is well aware of the problem we have with our national forests. The wildfires in California for the past 2 weeks have made it all too painfully clear that we need to take measures to protect our forests. The legislation that is before the House, H.R. 1904, that the House passed with strong bipartisan support, accomplishes that goal. The Senate has also passed legislation to address this matter. There are substantial differences between the House and the Senate on this matter, and it is vitally important that we address this as quickly as we possibly can. There is a lot of work that needs to be done. We will be entering another fire season starting next spring. We can see from the California fires that these fires can occur any time of year in different parts of the country, and so it is vitally important that we get this matter resolved as quickly as possible. Because there are substantial differences between the House and the Senate and because there is substantial agreement here on the House side that some of the measures in the Senate legislation do not adequately address the concerns that we have raised, we need to have a conference on this, and we are prepared to do that and act very, very quickly. It is my hope that the House will pass this motion and will move to appoint conferees, and then we will turn to the Senate and ask that they take the same steps over there. There has been some slowness in the movement in the other body on this, and we hope that will be rectified by the action taken here on the House side today. It is our hope that legislation that was included in an appropriations bill a few years ago to address this problem in the State of South Dakota, which has far more leniency in terms of the flexibility given to the Forest Service to address the measure, address the concerns in the State of South Dakota, should be extended to other States around the country. Neither the House bill nor the Senate bill has language that goes as far in giving that authority as already exists in the State of South Dakota, but we would certainly like to have the opportunity to pass a measure worked out between the House and the Senate to give our national forests and other national lands the same type of management tools to expedite what is necessary to protect our national forests from wildfire, from disease and insect infestation, and we can accomplish that and accomplish it expeditiously if we move forward to appoint conferees and the Senate does the same thing. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support our efforts to move forward. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the motion. The previous question was ordered.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. McInnis), the original chief sponsor of this legislation. We thank him for his efforts.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 1 of rule XXII, and by direction of the Committee on Agriculture, I move to take from the Speaker's table 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 the 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, with Senate amendments thereto, disagree to the Senate amendments, and request a conference with the Senate thereon.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds just to say to the gentleman from Washington, I appreciate his comments; but I would point out that with regard to the old-growth forests and the 5-foot- diameter trees that the gentleman referred to, nothing in the legislation that the House passed, much less anything in the Senate bill, would override the Northwest Forest Plan that protects every old- growth tree in the entire Northwest. It does not override any forest plan anywhere in the country. So the gentleman should rest assured that this legislation is not going to affect the type of tree that he described to us a few minutes ago. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bartlett).

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, I will just say very briefly that this motion to instruct conferees offered by the gentleman from Texas is very welcome. It is exactly what we need. We hope the message is received, not only here on the House side, but also on the Senate side, that we will work together in an open conference, across party lines, and we will work together with the Senate to accomplish that. But it is absolutely essential that the Senate take the same step that we are taking here today and do it as quickly as possible so we can meet the timetable put forward by the gentleman from Texas. Secondly, it is absolutely important that the message go out that this Congress on this issue has worked together, and worked together very well. The place where we find the extremism that some have expressed concern about has been on the outside, the organizations like Greenpeace and the Sierra Club and Earth First!, extremists who send the mail to so many people. We have all seen it. It is designed to raise money for these organizations. If they said that the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) was meeting with the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. McInnis), who has very different points of view, to work out their differences, do you think that would generate a lot of revenue for these organizations? I think not. What they do is try to portray this legislation and this Congress as being extremist. That is wrong, and that is where the problem lies. We need to reject that. We need to reject the falsehoods that are being portrayed about the legislation on the outside, to work together in the interests of the American people, work together in the interests of our national forests here on the inside to produce a final product that will really address a severe crisis that we have. It is time to stop that kind of game playing, and it is time to get serious about addressing this problem. We are so close to something that we have sought for so long that we should not allow that outside rhetoric, that outside pressure, to deter us from what needs to be done. What needs to be done is exactly what the gentleman from Texas has described in his motion to instruct. We need to meet, we need to meet openly, we need to meet now, and we need to produce a product that works out the differences between the House and the Senate by next Thursday. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to endorse and support this motion to instruct conferees. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will provide the mesquite, we will provide the chickens.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of House Resolution 425 honoring those who fought the devastating fires that have struck Southern California. In particular, I want to mention Steven Rucker, 38 years old and the father of two young children, who died fighting the Cedar fire, which began on the Cleveland National Forest and moved over 25 miles in less than 10 hours. He joins the roll of 29 other wildland firefighters who perished this summer across this country. Every wildland firefighter who takes up this occupation knows that on the next fire, they could face a similar fate. Brave men and women choose the profession of firefighting with a keen awareness of the dangers inherent in the job. What they do requires bravery similar to that required of our armed forces. However, they fight a foe that isn't driven by ideology, or religion, or a lust for power. Wildfire has none of these motivations, and is something altogether more unpredictable as a result. If not for the efforts of our firefighters, many more homes and businesses, not just in California but across the country, would be lost, and many more civilians would have lost their very lives. House Resolution 425 focuses on the Southern California fires, which are fresh in our memories. However, I think it's important that we recognize that wildland firefighters face these dangers in many states across the country. Wildland firefighters have died on the fire ground in States as diverse as Florida, Arkansas, Indiana, Montana, New York, Wisconsin, Texas, Louisiana, and Oregon over the last ten years. Moreover, when wildfires strike anywhere in the United States, wildland firefighters from across the country--Federal, state, and local-- mobilize to defend our forests, our homes, our families, from the devastation brought about by catastrophic fire. The firefighters who bravely face these infernos also understand something that many here in Washington are just beginning to grasp; that these wildfires are getting worse because we've tied the hands of our Federal land managers and prevented them from addressing hazardous fuel buildups. We have a bill that begins to address this issue, and I hope we can work with the other body to finish that important work soon. I am saddened by the loss of life and the destruction of our resources that we witnessed in the last weeks. I am humbled by the bravery of our wildland firefighters and the tenacity of all our first responders without whom the disaster in California would have been far worse. I am honored to join my colleagues whose constituents have suffered so much in recent weeks in passing this resolution. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall Nos. 535 and 536 I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the conference report on S. 3, the ban on the procedure known as partial birth abortion. I was appalled when I learned of the partial birth abortion procedure and have been working diligently to abolish it ever since. This heinous procedure involves partially delivering fully formed babies, and then killing them. It is one of the most horrible forms of abortion practiced. The difference between abortion and murder is literally a few inches. I believe that there is no justification for this brutal and heartless procedure, and only the most calloused among us can hear the description of this procedure and not react with disgust. We must act now to ban this appalling procedure and protect the innocent unborn from violent deaths. A vote in favor of the conference report on S. 3 will stop the killing of innocent children and will send a message to the world that our Nation views life as a sacred and precious gift. The overwhelming majority of the American people want to ban partial- birth abortions and no matter what your position is on abortion, this grisly procedure is indefensible in a civilized society. Thus, this vote on the conference report on S. 3 gives all of us an opportunity to join together in protecting innocent children from this horrific and gruesome procedure. S. 3 is effective legislation to ban an unbelievably gruesome act. I urge each of my colleagues to support this legislation and to protect those who cannot protect themselves.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce today, along with my good friend Mr. Boucher, the Business Activity Tax Simplification Act of 2003. This important legislation provides a ``bright line'' that clarifies state and local authority to collect business activity taxes from out-of-state entities. Many states and some local governments levy corporate income, franchise and other taxes on out-of-state companies that conduct business activities within their jurisdictions. While providing revenue for states, these taxes also serve to pay for the privilege of doing business in a state. However, with the growth of the Internet, companies are increasingly able to conduct transactions without the constraint of geopolitical boundaries. The growth of interstate business-to-business and business- to-consumer transactions raises questions over where multi-state companies should be required to pay corporate income and other business activity taxes. Over the past several years, a growing number of jurisdictions have sought to collect business activity taxes from businesses located in other states, even though those businesses receive no appreciable benefits from the taxing jurisdiction and even though the Supreme Court has ruled that the Constitution prohibits a state from imposing taxes on businesses that lack substantial connections to the state. This has led to unfairness and uncertainty, generated contentious, widespread litigation, and hindered business expansion, as businesses shy away from expanding their presence in other states for fear of exposure to unfair tax burdens. In order for businesses to continue to become more efficient and expand the scope of their goods and services, it is imperative that clear and easily navigable rules be set forth regarding when an out-of- state business is obliged to pay business activity taxes to a state. Otherwise, the confusion surrounding these taxes will have a chilling effect on e-commerce, interstate commerce generally, and the entire economy as tax burdens, compliance costs, litigation, and uncertainty escalate. Previous actions by the Supreme Court and Congress have laid the groundwork for a clear, concise and modern ``bright line'' rule in this area. In the landmark case of Quill Corp. v. North Dakota, the Supreme Court declared that a state cannot impose a tax on an out-of-state business unless that business has a ``substantial nexus'' with the taxing state. However, the Court did not define what constituted a ``substantial nexus'' for purposes of imposing business activity taxes. In addition, over forty years ago, Congress passed legislation to prohibit jurisdictions from taxing the income of out-of-state corporations whose in-state presence was nominal. Public Law 86-272 set clear, uniform standards for when states could and could not impose such taxes on out-of-state businesses when the businesses' activities involved the solicitation of orders for sales. However, like the economy of its time, the scope of Public Law 86-272 was limited to tangible personal property. Our nation's economy has changed dramatically over the past forty years, and this outdated statute needs to be modernized. That is why we are introducing this important legislation today. The Business Activity Tax Simplification Act both modernizes and provides clarity in an outdated and ambiguous tax environment. First, the legislation updates the protections in PL 86-272. Our legislation reflects the changing nature of our economy by expanding the scope of the protections in PL 86-272 from just tangible personal property to include intangible property and services. In addition, our legislation sets forth clear, specific standards to govern when businesses should be obliged to pay business activity taxes to a state. Specifically, the legislation establishes a ``physical presence'' test such that an out-of-state company must have a physical presence in a state before the state can impose franchise taxes, business license taxes, and other business activity taxes. The clarity that the Business Activity Tax Simplification Act will bring will ensure fairness, minimize litigation, and create the kind of legally certain and stable business climate that encourages businesses to make investments, expand interstate commerce, grow the economy and create new jobs. At the same time, this legislation will ensure that states and localities are fairly compensated when they provide services to businesses with a physical presence in the state. I urge each of my colleagues to support this very important bipartisan legislation.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, animal medicines are used to assist livestock producers raising and maintaining healthy, high quality stock and ultimately, in delivering safe and wholesome food to American dinner tables. They are also used to keep pets healthy, which contributes to the quality of life for millions of companion animal owners. The Food and Drug Administration's Center for Veterinary Medicine (CVM) is currently experiencing unprecedented delays in its review of new product submissions. The delays are severe and problematic for the submission sponsors, for CVM, and for veterinarians, livestock and poultry producers, and pet owners in need of new and innovative products to combat animal disease--at a time when animal disease around the world is capturing headlines. The deadlock at the Center also has a chilling effect on the animal health industry's investment in important research and development, threatening the pipeline of products that will be important to livestock and poultry producers in managing their production in the future. The lack of these tools imperils not only animal health but also has implications for the food supply and food safety. In 1966 Congress, with industry support, enacted the Animal Drug Availability Act to streamline drug review and approval procedures. Contrary to Congressional intent and despite additional resources, it is now more difficult than ever to get new products approved. Unfortunately, this situation is detrimental to veterinarians, to livestock and poultry producers, to food producers and to the public. As a result, it is important for Congress and the Administration to take action to ensure that the CVM can better manage its resources and personnel and make institutional changes to fulfill its mandated mission and responsibilities. Modeled after the successful Prescription Drug User Fee Act, the Animal Drug User Fee Act will increase efficiencies in review times for new animal pharmaceuticals by providing CVM with additional resources to allow for improved communication between FDA and product sponsors and more expeditious FDA actions on applications. Mr. Speaker, I congratulate Congressman Upton for his leadership and that of the full Committee on Energy and Commerce for bringing this important legislation to the floor today and urge all Members to support it.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. GOODLATTE. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, as the chairman knows, it is my intention that anybody be able to bid on this contract. That is what the city of Roanoke desires and so on. However, if the understanding is with the other side that they will at least strike this language that does not clarify that, I would ask unanimous consent at this time to strike the language at page 121, lines 5 and 6, carrying to the end of that section.