Bob Goodlatte

Mr. GOODLATTE

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

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

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to thank the gentleman from Texas for his support and leadership on this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Emerson), who has carried on the fight against hunger here in the United States and around the world that her late husband, Bill Emerson, was so well noted for. I thank her for that work.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I rise in support of H.R. 2474, a bill that provides for the continuation, for 2003 and 2004, of a fellowship program honoring our colleagues, the Honorable Bill Emerson and the Honorable Mickey Leland. Last year, Congress authorized the Congressional Hunger Fellows Program as a part of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002. This provision was included in both the Committee on Agriculture bill and the law as a memorial to the Honorable Bill Emerson, a former member of the Committee on Agriculture, and the Honorable Mickey Leland. The purpose of the fellowships is to develop and train future leaders of the United States in humanitarian service. The law establishes an independent agency in the legislative branch of the U.S. Government, creates a board of trustees to supervise and direct the program, establishes a Congressional Hunger Fellows trust fund in the Department of the Treasury that will provide funds from the interest to help run the program, and authorizes $18 million for the fund. While the necessary process to establish a congressional Hunger Fellows Program has begun, the process is not complete. H.R. 2474 allows the current process to continue utilizing the Congressional Hunger Center just until the program authorized by the farm bill is completed. These fellowships provide a way to continue the legacy established by our former colleagues Bill Emerson and Mickey Leland and move towards achieving the valued goal of training future leaders of the United States in humanitarian service, goals I know Members share with me. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague, the wife of the late Congressman Bill Emerson, the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Emerson), and his successor, for introducing this legislation; and I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 2474. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2474) to require that funds made available for fiscal years 2003 and 2004 for the Bill Emerson and Mickey Leland Hunger Fellowships be administered through the Congressional Hunger Center, as amended.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 2474, the bill just considered, and on S. 858, the bill considered immediately previously.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. This recognition of the Foreign Agricultural Service is well deserved. The work that they conduct around the world in promoting American agriculture is vitally important. It is even more important following the passage of the Trade Promotion Authority in the last Congress. I urge my colleagues to support the resolution. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I have no request for time; I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House Joint Resolution 49. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) and I introduced this resolution to recognize the important service of the Foreign Agricultural Service of the Department of Agriculture on the occasion of its 50th anniversary. USDA's Foreign Agricultural Service was established to develop and expand markets for United States agricultural commodities and products. Our farmers and ranchers are the most productive in the world and produce much more than we in the United States can consume. Therefore, a vibrant export market is very important to the success of U.S. agriculture. FAS has contributed to that success; and as of 2002, the United States agricultural exports exceed imports by more than $12 billion. Our exports have grown significantly over the history of the FAS and now exceed $50 billion per year. The FAS fosters the public and private partnership that is needed to promote United States agricultural exports and to develop and expand markets around the world. At this important time when free trade negotiations are ongoing, both in the WTO and through bilateral negotiations, the FAS is essential to represent United States agriculture and ensure that the challenges facing our agricultural producers are thoroughly addressed. Another responsibility of the FAS is to provide food aid to needy people in developing countries and to help those countries to eventually become trading partners of the United States and buy our agricultural products. The FAS and its employees provide a significant service to the farmers and ranchers here at home so they can compete in worldwide markets. I congratulate them on their achievements and look forward to working closely with the FAS as the committee continues its work to expand markets for United States agriculture. I thank the members of the Committee on Agriculture for their support of this resolution. I also appreciate the support of the Committee on International Relations on this matter. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) has been very cooperative in helping to expedite House Joint Resolution 49. I also thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm). I urge Members to support this resolution. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. GOODLATTE

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

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the substitute bill. This substitute bill commissions studies, creates new advisory panels, and even allows State court judges to voluntarily consolidate class actions. However, the substitute bill fails to accomplish one thing: to prevent the current abuses in the class action system. Welcome to Madison County, Illinois. It is hard to imagine why the bizarre system of delegations, panels and transfers in the substitute system is preferable to a system allowing parties to utilize the existing Federal removal procedure to have their cases heard in Federal Court through a process that has existed and served this country well for over 200 years. The substitute bill authorizes a group of State court judges to think about the class action problem and to propose a solution, if they wish. The bill, however, H.R. 1115, offers real change. It moves large interstate class actions to Federal courts, which have a better track record of dealing with these cases and more resources to handle them efficiently, and it offers real consumer benefits that will apply to real cases and makes sure that lawyers do not sell their clients short and take home all the money. Like the Blockbuster case, where the plaintiffs got $1 coupons and the plaintiffs' attorneys got $9.2 million in attorneys' fees. Like the Bank of Boston case, where the lawyers got $8.5 million and the plaintiffs paid money. They did not get anything. Like the frequent flier case, where the lawyers got $25 million, and the plaintiffs got coupons for discount air fares on the same airlines that the plaintiffs' attorneys alleged had performed some sort of wrongdoing. Like the Coca-Cola sweetener case, the lawyers got $1.5 million. That was a real sweetener for them. The plaintiffs only got 50-cent coupons for their sweetener. That is what is wrong. That is what the substitute does not cover. The transfer provision in the substitute bill is meaningless. The substitute would also authorize State courts to develop a procedure for transferring certain cases to Federal courts. But, once again, State courts that do not want to participate do not have to. It is a safe bet that the courts, like the ones in Madison County, are not going to exercise that option. They are giving class actions a bad name, and they are not going to voluntarily send their class actions to Federal Court. Thus, this provision is a sham, and I urge my colleagues to defeat the substitute and support the underlying bill.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. This is the ``if you cannot win the argument, try to change the subject'' amendment. This amendment would preclude companies opened by foreign or offshore companies from using the jurisdictional provisions in H.R. 1115. The amendment would make for bad policy, and I urge my colleagues to reject it. Apparently the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) believes that the State class action abuse problem is so bad that companies forced to litigate in State court will move back onshore. Well, I think that belief tells us a lot about how unfair some of these select magnet State courts are around the country where these abuses occur to defendants and to consumers in this country. Nonetheless, this bill is not the proper vehicle for debating tax policy. Our goal today is to curb class action abuse, to stop coupon settlements that rip off consumers, and to make sure that county courts do not dictate our Nation's economic policies. If this body wants to debate the problems regarding foreign ownership of companies, let us do that in the appropriate context. Let me add that one of the important things that we need to understand and that the other side of the aisle keeps trying to target here is that somehow there are certain companies that are bad actors, and that we should write Federal policy based on that rather than having one fair, across-the-board treatment of one type of lawsuit. That is exactly what this legislation is attacking and why they are objecting to it.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time and for his leadership in moving this legislation to the floor. The reason why the interlocutory appeal allowed in the bill expedites the process and does not make it longer is that that issue is going to be heard on appeal anyway at the end of the trial, and, as you know, that takes years and years. Interlocutory appeals have historically been heard on average faster than appeals at the end of the trial, and, therefore, this will speed up the bringing of whatever allows the process to come to a conclusion. Now, here is what we are talking about. Cheerios. What justice is done when the plaintiffs' attorney gets $2 million in attorney's fees and his clients get a box of Cheerios, the very product they allege was defective in the first place? What kind of justice for the plaintiffs is done there? I see the justice for the attorneys. By the way, I say to the gentleman from Michigan, most trial lawyers are embarrassed by this abuse. Only a small cartel of very wealthy class action attorneys benefit from the current system. Most trial lawyers who represent most plaintiffs in America are embarrassed by this kind of abuse in the current system. Abuses like $8.5 million in the Bank of Boston case for the plaintiffs' attorneys. The plaintiffs wound up having to pay money to their attorneys. Why did the attorneys get fees in a contingent fee case when their plaintiffs wound up having to pay them? They did not get anything. Or the Blockbuster case that the gentleman from Wisconsin cited: $9.25 million to plaintiffs, $1 off on your movie ticket. The great airline case, the frequent flier case. A 10 percent discount on your plane flight, if you buy another ticket on this so- called defective airline for $250 or more. The attorneys got $25 million. The Coca-Cola case, the lawyers got $1.5 million, the plaintiffs got a 50-cent coupon. Of course, my favorite case, the case of Chase Manhattan Bank, the attorneys got $4 million, the plaintiffs got 33 cents. Here is one of the checks, 33 cents. There is a little catch though, because you had to use a 34-cent stamp in order to send in the acceptance to get the 33 cents. That does not sound like a good deal for me either. This restores federalism. It removes to our Federal courts the cases that involve the complexity and the diversity that our Founding Fathers created diversity jurisdiction for. A simple change in the law does not change the substance of class action, does not take away the right of anybody to bring a class action, but it does protect our system and the integrity of justice in America.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, it is not a delay, it is an expedition. Quite frankly, they have no different treatment in Federal courts than State courts.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman, our excellent conference chairman, for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, this is a good and fair rule. I would urge my colleagues to adopt it. It makes in order important amendments that should be considered and debated carefully. It makes in order an amendment offered by the gentleman from the other side of the aisle, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Boucher), along with the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) and myself, which will take into account some of the provisions that were considered in the Senate. We are pleased to do that because we are certainly interested in making the bill better. I would urge my colleagues to defeat the other amendments that are going to be offered because they do not make this legislation better; they would gut it, they would harm it. I would urge Members' opposition to it. In response to my good friend, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), this is not tort reform; this is court reform. As a result, we are not harming the ability of any of those cases that the gentleman cited to be considered carefully and fairly. In fact, because this legislation improves the court process, it is court reform, and it will make those cases heard better in courts more capable of hearing them. We will address some of those specific cases as the debate proceeds. With regard to his comments about coupon settlement reform, let me point out that while the gentleman may laud coupon settlements, most of us think they are a considerable abuse. The reason is very simple: The plaintiffs' attorney sues a company and then settles the case for millions of dollars, not for the plaintiffs but in attorneys' fees. The plaintiffs, the people he is supposed to be protecting, supposed to be representing, get a coupon to buy more of the product that he alleged was defective in the first place. Coupon settlements are a gross abuse, and what this bill does to correct the problem is to require greater scrutiny of those cases. It also cuts out the abuse of that plaintiffs' attorney going to his or her secretary or friend or neighbor and saying, hey, help me bring this case because you fit into this class, and I will give you $100,000 for doing that when we settle the case; but the rest of the plaintiffs will get a coupon. That is an abuse. It ought to be ended. To the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost), I would point out that while he may cite the newspaper of the gentlewoman from Ohio criticizing this legislation, that newspaper is by far in the minority in this country on this issue. America's newspapers know that this is a class act when they see it, and that is what this legislation is. The Washington Post called it ``Making Justice Work.'' They said, ``This'', the current system, ``is not justice. It's an extortion racket that only Congress can fix.'' Newsday, not a newspaper that ordinarily endorses legislation from this side of the aisle, they said, ``Congress should stem abuses of class-action lawsuits. Class-action lawsuits are ripe for reform.'' The Christian Science Monitor: ``Reforming Class-Action Suits.'' ``Class-action suits have also become an ATM for unscrupulous lawyers . . . '' USA Today: ``Class-action Plaintiffs Deserve More Than Coupons.'' `` . . . lawyers, who put their own welfare ahead of their client's needs,'' under the current system. The Hartford Current: The Class-Action Racket.'' They described the current system. `` . . . the Class Action Fairness Act would help eliminate some of the worst abuses.'' It does not stop there. The Buffalo News, the Indianapolis Star, the Des Moines Register, the St. Louis Post Dispatch, the Omaha World Herald, the Wall Street Journal, the Providence Journal, the Financial Times, the Chicago Tribune, the Oregonian, Cedar Rapids Gazette, the Akron Beacon Journal, the Albany Times Union, the list goes on and on of newspapers endorsing what we are trying to do. Why? Because of the abuses. Here is a great case: A settlement with Cheerios over food additives produced a $2 million settlement in attorneys' fees, while class members only received coupons for more Cheerios. Here is another one: After being named in 23 class action lawsuits, Blockbuster agreed to provide class members with only $1-off coupons; buy one, get one free coupons; and free Blockbuster Favorites video rentals. And those are the old videos you come back and hope they will rent more of, not the latest ones. Attorneys for the plaintiff received $9.2 million in fees. It gets better. A settlement of a suit against an airline gave class members $25 coupons off to use when they purchased an additional airline ticket of $250 or more from the same airline from which, I presume, there was some complaint regarding the service they were providing. You get a 10 percent discount if you buy another ticket for $250 or more. What did the plaintiff's attorneys get? Sixteen million dollars. The Bank of Boston, a settlement over disputed accounting practices produced an $8.5 million attorneys' fee and actually cost the class members they were representing. Why? Because they had to pay an additional $80. Later, the plaintiffs' attorney came into the case and sued the class members, the people they were representing, for an additional $25 million. You did not pay them enough. Even though you had to pay $80 in the settlement of the case and you did not get a coupon, they had to get more. Here is my favorite. This is the case where consumers were awarded a 33-cent check in a class action against Chase Manhattan Bank, 33 cents. Great. There was a catch, though. At that time, in order to accept your 33-cent check, you had to use a 34-cent stamp to send in the acceptance. Sounds like a 1-cent net loss. The attorneys in the case, well, they came out all right, $4 million in attorney fees. Here is one of the checks: 33 cents. Now, some have said that there is an issue of federalism here, that somehow we are taking away rights from the States. But under current law, a simple slip-and-fall lawsuit involving a Virginia defendant and a Maryland plaintiff can be brought in Federal district court today. Yet, a nationwide class action lawsuit worth $100 million, $1 billion, with plaintiffs in the hundreds of thousands from all 50 States, with multiple defendants from more than one State, that winds up in a State court in Illinois. It cannot be removed to Federal court because of the antiquated class action laws. Now, do people understand this? You bet they do. Here is a USA Today poll. Opinions on class action lawsuits. Who benefits most from class action lawsuits? Is it the plaintiffs? Is it consumers? No, they know. Lawyers for the plaintiffs, 47 percent of the public says that. Who is second? Lawyers for the defendants. They come out all right, too. They are going to get paid. How about the plaintiffs themselves? Nine percent. Sixty-seven percent say the lawyers benefit. Nine percent say the plaintiffs themselves are benefiting. And, again, I remind you, there is broad bipartisan support for this legislation. The clients get token payments while the lawyers get enormous fees. This is not justice. This is an extortion racket that only Congress can fix. Who said it? The Washington Post. I urge my colleagues to support this rule and to support the underlying legislation. This has great prospect for success this year. We are very close in the Senate to passage of this legislation as well. The President anxiously awaits it on his desk. Let us support this bipartisan simple tort reform that will make it possible for class actions to be heard and dealt with fairly throughout this country.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Michigan for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, this is an important resolution and I hope all of the Members of the House will support it. Earlier this year, as the chairman of the Committee on Agriculture, I had the opportunity to meet with Pascal Lamy, the European Union Commissioner for Trade, and to strongly make the case that this moratorium that Europe has imposed upon U.S. biotech products should be dropped and a reasonable system should be administered in its place; not what they are currently contemplating, which is a tracing and labeling requirement, which will make it in some instances even harder for us to sell our products into Europe. I pointed out to them that people have been starving in Africa because of their policies. He took great umbrage at my suggestion that the Europeans were in fact promoting such a policy in Africa, but it turns out that that is exactly the case. Through the organizations that they hire to distribute their own European food aid in African countries, they have spread the word that if they feed U.S. biotech grapes to their livestock, they will not be able to sell that livestock into Europe. It turns out that the Spanish, who agree with us on this position, by the way, grow thousands and thousands of acres of biotech crops in Spain, feed it to livestock, and sell it all over Europe anyway. So the European policy on this issue is clearly nothing more than an artificial trade barrier. It is against the interests of their people, their consumers, to have the opportunity to have greater quality foods, foods that have greater vitamin retention, foods that are more environmentally sound, foods that can be grown in places like subSaharan African that are more drought-resistant. All of these things are important for us to promote, and that is what biotechnology does. I commend the Bush administration for taking this case to the World Trade Organization, and I urge my colleagues to support this resolution. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H. Res. 252. America's farmers and ranchers deserve to have the best technologies available at their disposal and I am hopeful that an end to the EUs illegal and longstanding moratorium on agricultural biotechnology may be near. Agricultural biotechnology is one of the most promising developments in modern science. This science should be embraced and not banned, for it can help to provide answers to the problems of hunger around the world. It would be a shame if developing countries in Africa continue to deny food aid containing biotechnology because of the antibiotechnology attitudes in Europe. The politicizing of agricultural biotechnology should end so that we can return to providing food aid to the hungry as soon as possible. I commend the Bush administration for taking this case to the World Trade Organization. The EU moratorium on biotech approvals has been spreading beyond Europe. In the fall of 2002, some famine stricken African nations refused U.S. food aid because it contained biotech corn. These countries were ill informed on the health and environmental impact of biotechnology and were also concerned that their own agriculture exports to Europe would be denied if they accepted the product. Zambia, Mozambique, and Zimbabwe refused United States food aid made of the same wholesome food that Americans eat every day. Zimbabwe and Mozambique eventually accepted United States food aid after making costly arrangements to mill the corn so that African farmers could not grow it. Zambia continues to refuse United States corn. As noted by the French Academy of Sciences, more than 300 million North Americans have been eating biotech corn and soybeans for years. No adverse health consequences have ever been reported. Many biotechnology products are being developed that will have unlimited benefits to vitamin deficient children. Research continues on a gene to add to rice which will contain more beta carotene, a precursor to vitamin A. Up to half of a million children per year go blind due to vitamin A deficiency. Another product being developed could also help reduce iron deficiencies, thus reducing anemia among millions of women and children worldwide. The United States is not trying to force consumers to buy these biotechnology products. Consumer choice is the key and the moratorium is an example of the European government denying their consumes a choice. The moratorium is not based on science, but it is a blatant protectionist trade barrier. American farmers and ranchers are merely asking that their safe, sound and affordable product be allowed on the shelves in Europe. America's farmers and ranchers produce the safest and most bountiful food supply in the world. Their goal is to share this bounty with those who need it most, while at the same time having access to markets around the world. While United States farmers have utilized many of the new technologies, some farmers are hesitant to use biotechnology because of the moratorium in Europe. The European Union's (EU) illegal and unscientific moratorium should be lifted and a WTO case against the EU will send a message to the rest of the world that illegitimate, non-science based trade barriers will not be tolerated. I urge my colleagues to support H. Res. 252.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman, the gentleman from Alabama, for his leadership on this legislation, which is a big step forward in the fight against Internet gambling. This amendment, as the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) described, is indeed a poison pill. The reason is, it does not have any effect on the lawfulness or the unlawfulness of gambling, the provision that they want to pull out. That provision simply protects the rights of States to regulate gambling. Historically, that is what we have always done in this country. Gambling has always been the province of the States. They regulate gambling, and this amendment would change that. This amendment would take away from the States the right to do that. We are simply attempting to maintain the status quo with respect to underlying Federal and State substantive law on gambling. We are not tilting the playing field one way or another unfairly, we are simply trying to address the problem of unlawful gambling, as the title of the bill suggests. I would love to do more on these other issues, but this is not the bill, this is not the place to do it. The term ``lawful'' is included in this provision of the bill to indicate that no transaction will be exempted from the effect of the bill unless that transaction complies with all other State and Federal laws. The amendment already adopted offered by the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Kelly) makes that even clearer, so the complaints of the gentleman from Utah, whose State I have great admiration for in terms of their efforts to combat gambling, need have no fear of this legislation. This does not open up Utah to any new forms of gambling. It will tighten it down. There are plenty of people in Utah today who pull up a chair in front of their computer in their living room and go on and place a bet, using a credit card or wire transfer or some other form of financial transfer, that this legislation will stop. We should not allow a poison pill to prevent this legislation from moving forward to accomplish that. In addition, States have traditionally had the power to decide whether to allow gambling within their borders. We should not put into question the authority of those States to decide these matters for themselves. Utah, Virginia, or any other State in the country, they ought to be able to make that decision, and we ought not interfere with it. Striking this provision of the bill would eliminate a provision that reinforces the rights of the States to decide whether or not to prohibit gambling, and I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus) for his leadership on this issue. He has been fighting this for a long time, and I appreciate his efforts to bring forth this legislation. I am pleased to support it, the Unlawful Internet Gambling Funding Prohibition Act, because it is an important first step in the fight against Internet gambling. It hits illegal gambling institutions where it hurts the most: their pockets. By shutting off the financial lifeblood of this illegal industry, this bill will help to starve out unlawful Internet gambling sites and in the process close off opportunities for money launderers, terrorists, and organized crime. Gambling on the Internet has become an extremely lucrative business. The Internet gambling industry revenues grew from $445 million in 1997 to an estimated $4.2 billion this year. Furthermore, industry analysts estimate that Internet gambling could soon easily become a $10 billion a year industry. The problems with Internet gambling are many. The instant access to online gambling is particularly disturbing. This illegal activity is available to adults and children alike with the simple click of a mouse. In addition, the social problems associated with traditional forms of gambling have increased with the proliferation of Internet gambling. Online gambling results in more addictions, more bankruptcies, more divorces, more crime, the cost of which must ultimately be borne by society. I do believe that more needs to be done in the fight against Internet gambling, including creating stiffer criminal penalties for violators and updating the Federal Wire Act to make it clear that it covers new technologies such as the Internet. However, H.R. 2143 is an important first step in this fight and I am pleased to support this bill. I urge my colleagues to join me in this effort. I want to thank the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach), the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley) and others, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), who have helped to lead this effort. This is a great opportunity for us today and I thank the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus) for it.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 760, 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 H.R. 760 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 H.R. 760 gives all of us an opportunity to join together in protecting innocent children from this horrific and gruesome procedure. H.R. 760 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 thank my chairman for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution to amend the Constitution to give the Congress the authority to prevent the physical desecration of the American flag, and I would note the comments of the gentleman from New York, citing some dictators who have prohibited destroying flags, and would point out that many others of a very different mind-set have strongly supported this, including President Abraham Lincoln. Many justices of the Supreme Court, as disparate in their views as Earl Warren and William Rehnquist and Hugo Black have found that the laws of the many States prohibiting the desecration of the flag to be constitutional, and it is only because of a narrow five- four majority at one moment in time in our Court's history, finding these laws to be unconstitutional and overturning the work of 48 States and the District of Columbia, that it is necessary for the Congress to address this. I would argue to the gentleman from Texas, for whom I have respect, that we are turning away from the rule of law when we do not recognize that with freedom comes responsibility, and we have always recognized in the first amendment that there are a number of instances in which free speech is limited. A person cannot shout fire in a crowded theater. They cannot engage in slander or libel. They cannot engage in fighting words. There are a number of such restrictions, and certainly, the prohibition on the physical act of destroying a flag should be included amongst them because it is the equivalent of fighting words to burn a flag in front of a group of veterans who put their lives on the line for their country and fought for the freedom which that flag represents. This is a very basic, very straightforward amendment supported by the overwhelming majority of the American people, and I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I would like to direct to the chairman of the committee, the gentleman from California, the concerns that I have as chairman of the Committee on Agriculture and the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo) has. He is the chairman of the other committee of concurrent jurisdiction with regard to this issue. We want to raise our strong concerns to the way this amendment has proceeded to the floor, as well as the way that the amendment is drafted. We have some grave concerns about the necessity of it and about the scope of it. It may go well beyond what both the Committee on Armed Services and the Forest Service think is appropriate and necessary. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Hefley/Gallegly amendment to H.R. 1588, the National Defense Authorization Act For Fiscal Year 2004. This amendment creates a pilot program to improve the use of Air Force and Air National Guard Modular Airborne Fire-Fighting systems to fight wildfires. It should come as no surprise to anyone that I support strengthening our ability to fight wildfires but this amendment is ill- considered. The U.S. Forest Service tells me that this authority is not necessary and they oppose it as does the Office of Management and Budget. This will disrupt decades of contractual services provided by competent private sector participants. This amendment is identical to bills that were referred primarily to the House Agriculture Committee. As Chairman of the committee of jurisdiction on this issue, I intend to address this issue in conference as a conferee. However, I would note, notwithstanding the comments of the gentleman from Colorado, that he has never discussed this issue with me or members of the committee staff or asked that any action be taken by the Committee on Agriculture.

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

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, that was a tragedy about the shooting of the 18-year- old young man, Mr. Hernandez, who was shepherding his family's goats. But let me tell you a little bit more about the story. He had a .22 rifle. He fired twice at the Marines and was aiming to fire a third time, and only then was fire returned and, regrettably, he was killed with a single shot. We need to pass this amendment today. We need to send a message to the illegal drug traffickers, hey, we are going to have the authority to put troops on the border. We need to send a message to illegal aliens coming into this country that we are going to put troops on the its border and stop it. And to those terrorists who are in Mexico, such as that reported by the Washington Times that al Qaeda is there, we need to send them a message: We are going to stop you at the border; you are not getting in. Let us put troops on the border and vote yes for this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. I want to respond to the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall). This bill, far from closing the courthouse door, opens it wide, makes it effective for those who seek redress in the courts to address the issue at hand. Right now, under current procedures, individuals who want no activity to take place in our forests at all will use our judicial system to delay action on our forests for 2, 3 years. If we have a forest that is prime for a forest fire because of the fuel density that is built up in it or because disease or insects have destroyed it, we need to take action promptly. That is what this does. In no other area of the law that I know of is one allowed on appeal in the judicial process to raise issues that they did not raise at the outset, and that is also done commonly by extreme environmental groups who wait until the end. This cures that. It opens it up. The public is able to participate in the process throughout public comment, in the administrative process and in the appeals process, but it gets it done in a timely fashion. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Burns).