Bob Goodlatte

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 975, the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act. This legislation promotes personal responsibility and helps prevent bankruptcy abuse. Bankruptcy filings are at an all-time high. During the 12-month period ending on March 31, 2002, there were 1.5 million bankruptcy filings. When bankruptcy filings increase, every American must pay more for credit, goods and services through higher rates and charges. It is high time that we provide relief to consumers burdened by paying for the debts of others. A key aspect of H.R. 975 is the retention of the income-based means test. The means test applies clear and well-defined standards to determine whether a debtor has the financial capability to pay his or her debts. The application of such objective standards will help ensure that the fresh-start provisions of Chapter 7 will be granted to those who need them, while debtors who can afford to repay some of their debts are steered toward filing Chapter 13 bankruptcies. In addition, H.R. 975 prevents fraud. Under the current system, irresponsible people filing for bankruptcy could run up their credit card debt immediately prior to filing, knowing that their debts will soon be wiped away. What these people may not realize is these debts do not disappear. They are passed along in higher charges and rates to hard-working folks who pay their bills on time. H.R. 975 ends this fraudulent practice by requiring bankruptcy filers to pay back nondischargeable debts made in the period immediately preceding their filing. H.R. 975 also helps consumers. For example, this legislation helps children by strengthening the protections in the law that prioritize child support and alimony payments. In addition, H.R. 975 protects consumers from bankruptcy mills that encourage folks to file for bankruptcy without fully informing them of their rights and the potential harms that bankruptcy can cause. Furthermore, H.R. 975 ensures the fair treatment of those that administer our bankruptcy laws. I strongly support the provisions of H.R. 975 that restore fairness and equity to the relationship between the U.S. trustee and private-standing bankruptcy trustees. Specifically, the bill provides that, in certain circumstances after an administrative hearing on the record, private trustees may seek judicial review of U.S. trustee actions related to trustee expenses and trustee removal. This compromise worked out between the U.S. Trustees Office and representatives of the private bankruptcy trustees will ensure fairness for those who dedicate themselves to their duties as private trustees while ensuring that the U.S. trustees is subject to the same checks and balances as other government agencies. Mr. Chairman, bankruptcy should remain available to folks who truly need it, but those who can afford to repay their debts should repay their debts. H.R. 975 provides bankruptcy relief for those who truly cannot pay, but also clearly demonstrates to those who would abuse our system that the free ride is over. I believe that H.R. 975 strikes the appropriate balance between these two important goals. I want to commend the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) for his tremendous work on this legislation, and, I might add, for his long-suffering perseverance with this legislation. I urge Members to support this fair and reasonable overhaul of the U.S. bankruptcy system.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce today, along with my good friends from Virginia, Mr. Boucher and Mr. Moran, and the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Mr. Sensenbrenner, the Class Action Fairness Act of 2003. This much-needed bipartisan legislation corrects a serious flaw in our federal jurisdiction statutes. At present, those statutes forbid our federal courts from hearing most interstate class actions--the lawsuits that involve more money and touch more Americans than virtually any other type of litigation in our legal system. The class action device is a necessary and important part of our legal system. It promotes efficiency by allowing plaintiffs with similar claims to adjudicate their cases in one proceeding. It also allows claims to be heard in cases where there are small harms to a large number of people, which would otherwise go unaddressed because the cost to the individuals suing could far exceed the benefit to the individual. However, class actions are increasingly being used in ways that do not promote the interests they were intended to serve. In recent years, state courts have been flooded with class actions. As a result of the adoption of different class action certification standards in the various states, the same class might be certifiable in one state and not another, or certifiable in state court but not in federal court. This creates the potential for abuse of the class action device, particularly when the case involves parties from multiple states or requires the application of the laws of many states. For example, some state courts routinely certify classes before the defendant is even served with a complaint and given a chance to defend itself Other state courts employ very lax class certification criteria, rendering virtually any controversy subject to class action treatment. There are instances where a state court, in order to certify a class, has determined that the law of that state applies to all claims, including those of purported class members who live in other jurisdictions. This has the effect of making the law of that state applicable nationwide. The existence of state courts that broadly apply class certification rules encourages plaintiffs to forum shop for the court that is most likely to certify a purported class. In addition to forum shopping, parties frequently exploit major loopholes in federal jurisdiction statutes to block the removal of class actions that belong in federal court. For example, plaintiffs' counsel may name parties that are not really relevant to the class claims in an effort to destroy diversity. In other cases, counsel may waive federal law claims or shave the amount of damages claimed to ensure that the action will remain in state court. Another problem created by the ability of state courts to certify class actions which adjudicate the rights of citizens of many states is that often times more than one case involving the same class is certified at the same time. In the federal court system, those cases involving common questions of fact may be transferred to one district for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings. When these class actions are pending in state courts, however, there is no corresponding mechanism for consolidating the competing suits. Instead, a settlement or judgment in any of the cases makes the other class actions moot. This creates an incentive for each class counsel to obtain a quick settlement of the case, and an opportunity for the defendant to play the various class counsels against each other and drive the settlement value down. The loser in this system is the class member whose claim is extinguished by the settlement, at the expense of counsel seeking to be the one entitled to recovery of fees. Our bill is designed to prevent these abuses by allowing large interstate class action cases to be heard in federal court. It would expand the statutory diversity jurisdiction of the federal courts to allow class action cases involving minimal diversity--that is, when any plaintiff and any defendant are citizens of different states--to be brought in or removed to federal court. Article III of the Constitution empowers Congress to establish federal jurisdiction over diversity cases--cases ``between citizens of different States.'' The grant of federal diversity jurisdiction was premised on concerns that state courts might discriminate against out of state defendants. In a class action, only the citizenship of the named plaintiffs is considered for determining diversity, which means that federal diversity jurisdiction will not exist if the named plaintiff is a citizen of the same state as the defendant, regardless of the citizenship of the rest of the class. Congress also imposes a monetary threshold--now $75,000--for federal diversity claims. However, the amount in controversy requirement is satisfied in a class action only if all of the class members are seeking damages in excess of the statutory minimum. These jurisdictional statutes were originally enacted years ago, well before the modern class action arose, and they now lead to perverse results. For example, under current law, a citizen of one state may bring in federal court a simple $75,001 slip-and-fall claim against a party from another state. But if a class of 25 million product owners living in all 50 states brings claims collectively worth $15 billion against the manufacturer, the lawsuit usually must be heard in state court. This result is certainly not what the framers had in mind when they established federal diversity jurisdiction. Our bill offers a solution by making it easier for plaintiff class members and defendants to remove class actions to federal court, where cases involving multiple state laws are more appropriately heard. Under our bill, if a removed class action is found not to meet the requirements for proceeding on a class basis, the federal court would dismiss the action without prejudice and the action could be refiled in state court. In addition, the bill provides a number of new protections for plaintiff class members including a requirement that notices sent to class members be written in ``plain English'' and provide essential information that is easily understood. Furthermore, the bill provides judicial scrutiny for settlements that provide class members only coupons as relief for their injuries, and bars approval of settlements in which class members suffer a net loss. The bill also includes provisions that protect consumers from being disadvantaged by living far away from the courthouse. These additional consumer protections will ensure that class action lawsuits benefit the consumers they are intended to compensate. This legislation does not limit the ability of anyone to file a class action lawsuit. It does not change anybody's rights to recovery. Our bill specifically provides that it will not alter the substantive law governing any claims as to which jurisdiction is conferred. Our legislation merely closes the loophole, allowing federal courts to hear big lawsuits involving truly interstate issues, while ensuring that purely local controversies remain in state courts. This is exactly what the framers of the Constitution had in mind when they established federal diversity jurisdiction. I urge each of my colleagues to support this very important bipartisan legislation.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to submit for printing in the Congressional Record, pursuant to Rule XI, clause 2(a) of the Rules of the House, a copy of the Rules of the Committee on Agriculture, which were adopted at the organizational meeting of the Committee on February 12, 2003, and modified on this date, February 26, 2003. Appendix A of the Committee Rules will include excerpts from the Rules of the House relevant to the operation of the Committee. Appendix B will include relevant excerpts from the Congressional Budget Act of 1974. In the interests of minimizing printing costs, Appendices A and B are omitted from this submission. Rules of the Committee on Agriculture--108th Congress rule i.--general provisions (a) Applicability of House Rules.--(1) The Rules of the House shall govern the procedure of the Committee and its subcommittees, and the rules of the Committee on Agriculture so far as applicable shall be interpreted in accordance with the Rules of the House, except that a motion to recess from day to day, and a motion to dispense with the first reading (in full) of a bill or resolution, if printed copies are available, are non-debatable privileged motions in the Committee and its subcommittees. (See Appendix A for the applicable Rules of the U.S. House of Representatives.) (2) As provided in clause 1(a)(2) of House Rule XI, each subcommittee is part of the Committee and is subject to the authority and direction of the Committee and its rules so far as applicable. (See also Committee rules III, IV, V, VI, VII and X, infra.) (b) Authority to Conduct Investigations.--The Committee and its subcommittees, after consultation with the Chairman of the Committee, may conduct such investigations and studies as they may consider necessary or appropriate in the exercise of their responsibilities under Rule X of the Rules of the House and in accordance with clause 2(m) of House Rule XI. (c) Authority to Print.--The Committee is authorized by the Rules of the House to have printed and bound testimony and other data presented at hearings held by the Committee and its subcommittees. All costs of stenographic services and transcripts in connection with any meeting or hearing of the Committee and its subcommittees shall be paid from applicable accounts of the House described in clause 1(i)(1) of House Rule X in accordance with clause 1(c) of House Rule XI. (See also paragraphs (d), (e) and (f) of Committee rule VIII.) (d) Vice Chairman.--The Member of the majority party on the Committee or subcommittee designated by the Chairman of the full Committee shall be the vice chairman of the Committee or subcommittee in accordance with clause 2(d) of House Rule XI. (e) Presiding Member.--If the Chairman of the Committee or subcommittee is not present at any Committee or subcommittee meeting or hearing, the vice chairman shall preside. If the Chairman and vice chairman of the Committee or subcommittee are not present at a Committee or subcommittee meeting or hearing the ranking Member of the majority party who is present shall preside in accordance with clause 2(d), House Rule XI. (f) Activities Report.--(1) The Committee shall submit to the House, not later than January 2 of each odd-numbered year, a report on the activities of the Committee under Rules X and XI of the Rules of the House during the Congress ending on January 3 of such year. (See also Committee rule VIII (h)(2).) (2) Such report shall include separate sections summarizing the legislative and oversight activities of the Committee during that Congress. (3) The oversight section of such report shall include a summary of the oversight plans submitted by the Committee pursuant to clause 2(d) of House Rule X, a summary of the actions taken and recommendations made with respect to each such plan, and a summary of any additional oversight activities undertaken by the Committee, and any recommendations made or actions taken with respect thereto. (g) Publication of Rules.--The Committee's rules shall be published in the Congressional Record not later than thirty days after the Committee is elected in each odd-numbered year as provided in clause 2(a) of House Rule XI. (h) Joint Committee Reports of Investigation or Study.--A report of an investigation or study conducted jointly by more than one committee may be filed jointly, provided that each of the committees complies independently with all requirements for approval and filing of the report. rule ii.--committee business meetings--regular, additional and special (a) Regular Meetings.--(1) Regular meetings of the Committee, in accordance with clause 2(b) of House Rule XI, shall be held on the first Wednesday of every month to transact its business unless such day is a holiday, or Congress is in recess or is adjourned, in which case the Chairman shall determine the regular meeting day of the Committee, if any, for that month. The Chairman shall provide each member of the Committee, as far in advance of the day of the regular meeting as practicable, a written agenda of such meeting. Items may be placed on the agenda by the Chairman or a majority of the Committee. If the Chairman believes that there will not be any bill, resolution or other matter considered before the full Committee and there is no other business to be transacted at a regular meeting, the meeting may be cancelled or it may be deferred until such time as, in the judgment of the Chairman, there may be matters which require the Committee's consideration. This paragraph shall not apply to meetings of any subcommittee. (See paragraph (f) of Committee rule X for provisions that apply to meetings of subcommittees.) (b) Additional Meetings.--The Chairman may call and convene, as he or she considers necessary, after consultation with the Ranking Minority Member of the Committee, additional meetings of the Committee for the consideration of any bill or resolution pending before the Committee or for the conduct of other Committee business. The Committee shall meet for such additional meetings pursuant to a notice from the Chairman. (c) Special Meetings.--If at least three members of the Committee desire that a special meeting of the Committee be called by the Chairman, those members may file in the offices of the Committee their written request to the Chairman for such special meeting. Such request shall specify the measure or matters to be considered. Immediately upon the filing of the request, the Majority Staff Director (serving as the clerk of the Committee for such purpose) shall notify the Chairman of the filing of the request. If, within three calendar days after the filing of the request, the Chairman does not call the requested special meeting to be held within 7 calendar days after the filing of the request, a majority of the members of the Committee may file in the offices of the Committee their written notice that a special meeting of the Committee will be held, specifying the date and hour thereof, and the measures or matter to be considered at that special meeting in accordance with clause 2(c)(2) of House Rule XI. The Committee shall meet on that date and hour. Immediately upon the filing of the notice, the Majority Staff Director (serving as the clerk) of the Committee shall notify all members of the Committee that such meeting will be held and inform them of its date and hour and the measure or matter to be considered, and only the measure or matter specified in that notice may be considered at that special meeting. rule iii.--open meetings and hearings; broadcasting (a) Open Meetings and Hearings.--Each meeting for the transaction of business, including the markup of legislation, and each hearing by the Committee or a subcommittee shall be open to the public unless closed in accordance with clause 2(g) of House Rule XI. (See Appendix A.) (b) Broadcasting and Photography.--Whenever a Committee or subcommittee meeting for the transaction of business, including the markup of legislation, or a hearing is open to the public, that meeting or hearing shall be open to coverage by television, radio, and still photography in accordance with clause 4 of House Rule XI (See Appendix A). When such radio coverage is conducted in the Committee or subcommittee, written notice to that effect shall be placed on the desk of each Member. The Chairman of the Committee or subcommittee, shall not limit the number of television or still cameras permitted in a hearing or meeting room to fewer than two representatives from each medium (except for legitimate space or safety considerations, in which case pool coverage shall be authorized). (c) Closed Meetings--Attendees.--No person other than Members of the Committee or subcommittee and such congressional staff and departmental representatives as the Committee or subcommittee may authorize shall be present at any business or markup session that has been closed to the public as provided in clause 2(g)(1) of House Rule XI. (d) Addressing the Committee.--A Committee member may address the Committee or a subcommittee on any bill, motion, or other matter under consideration (See Committee rule VII (e) relating to questioning a witness at a hearing). The time a member may address the Committee or subcommittee for any such purpose shall be limited to five minutes, except that this time limit may be waived by unanimous consent. A member shall also be limited in his or her remarks to the subject matter under consideration, unless the Member receives unanimous consent to extend his or her remarks beyond such subject. (e) Meetings to Begin Promptly.--Subject to the presence of a quorum, each meeting or hearing of the Committee and its subcommittees shall begin promptly at the time so stipulated in the public announcement of the meeting or hearing. (f) Prohibition on Proxy Voting.--No vote by any Member of the Committee or subcommittee with respect to any measure or matter may be cast by proxy. (g) Location of Persons at Meetings.--No person other than the Committee or subcommittee Members and Committee or subcommittee staff may be seated in the rostrum area during a meeting of the Committee or subcommittee unless by unanimous consent of Committee or subcommittee. (h) Consideration of Amendments and Motions.--A Member, upon request, shall be recognized by the Chairman to address the Committee or subcommittee at a meeting for a period limited to five minutes on behalf of an amendment or motion offered by the Member or another Member, or upon any other matter under consideration, unless the Member receives unanimous consent to extend the time limit. Every amendment or motion made in Committee or subcommittee shall, upon the demand of any Member present, be reduced to writing, and a copy thereof shall be made available to all Members present. Such amendment or motion shall not be pending before the Committee or subcommittee or voted on until the requirements of this paragraph have been met. (i) Demanding Record Vote.-- (1) A record vote of the Committee or subcommittee on a question or action shall be ordered on a demand by one-fifth of the Members present. (2) The Chairman of the Committee or Subcommittee may postpone further proceedings when a record vote is ordered on the question of approving a measure or matter or on adopting an amendment. If the Chairman postpones further proceedings: (A) the Chairman may resume such postponed proceedings, after giving Members adequate notice, at a time chosen in consultation with the Ranking Minority Member; and (B) notwithstanding any intervening order for the previous question, the underlying proposition on which proceedings were postponed shall remain subject to further debate or amendment to the same extent as when the question was postponed. (j) Submission of Motions or Amendments In Advance of Business Meetings.--The Committee and subcommittee-Chairman may request and Committee and subcommittee Members should, insofar as practicable, cooperate in providing copies of proposed amendments or motions to the Chairman and the Ranking Minority Member of the Committee or the subcommittee twenty-four hours before a Committee or subcommittee business meeting. (k) Points of Order.--No point of order against the hearing or meeting procedures of the Committee or subcommittee shall be entertained unless it is made in a timely fashion. (l) Limitation on Committee Sittings.--The Committee or subcommittees may not sit during a joint session of the House and Senate or during a recess when a joint meeting of the House and Senate is in progress. (m) Prohibition of Wireless Telephones.--Use of wireless phones during a committee or subcommittee hearing or meeting is prohibited.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to be a cosponsor of this important legislation and am pleased to join the other members of the Virginia Delegation in supporting The American 5-Cent Coin Design Continuity Act of 2003. The strong support this bill has received from the Virginia Delegation is evidence of how important this bill is to preserving important symbols of American History. As you all know, the Nickel currently displays a likeness of Thomas Jefferson on its face in addition to view of Monticello, Jefferson's home, on the reverse. Thomas Jefferson, author of the Declaration of Independence and the Fourth President of the United States, is one of eight great men who rose to become President from Virginia, and is a source of great pride for not only Virginians, but for all Americans. H.R. 258 was introduced to commemorate the 200th Anniversary of the Lewis and Clark Expedition, commissioned by President Thomas Jefferson to explore the new territory acquired through the Louisiana Purchase. Earlier this year I was honored to attend the Commencement Ceremony of the Lewis and Clark Bicentennial at Monticello, the home of Thomas Jefferson outside of Charlottesville, Virginia, where the expedition began in 1803. From 2003 through 2006 our nation will observe the bicentennial of this incredible journey, this will also serve as the 200-year anniversary as the complete nation Jefferson envisioned. H.R. 258 would authorize the Secretary of the Treasury to redesign the Nickel over a four-year period to commemorate the Louisiana Purchase and the Lewis and Clark Expedition. At the end of this period the nickel would revert to being a permanent tribute to Thomas Jefferson and Monticello, which are of invaluable historical importance to our great nation. A similar bill was passed in the 107th Congress by the House on July 22, 2002. The bill was referred to the Senate where unfortunately no action was taken during the 107th Congress. I urge all members to support this important piece of legislation that not only commemorates two brave explorers, but also ensures that a great symbol of American history is preserved.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce today the Security and Fairness Enhancement, or SAFE, for America Act of 2003. This much-needed bipartisan legislation eliminates the controversial immigration program, the visa lottery program, which threatens national security, resulting in the unfair administration of our Nation's immigration laws, and encouraging a cottage industry for fraudulent opportunists. Each year, approximately 50,000 aliens are chosen at random to come and live permanently in the United States via the visa lottery program. This program presents a serious national security threat. Under the program, each successful applicant is chosen at random and given the status of permanent resident based on pure luck. A perfect example of the system gone awry is the case of Hesham Mohammed Ali Hedayet, the Egyptian national who killed two and wounded three during a shooting spree at Los Angeles International Airport in July of last year. He was allowed to apply for lawful permanent resident status in 1997 because of his wife's status as a visa lottery winner. Usually, immigrant visas are issued to foreign nationals that have existing connection with family members lawfully residing in the United States or with U.S. employers. These types of relationships help ensure that immigrants entering our country have a stake in continuing America's success and have needed skills to contribute to our Nation's economy. However, under the visa lottery program, visas are awarded to immigrants at random without meeting such criteria. In addition, the visa lottery program is unfair to immigrants who comply with the United States immigration laws. The visa lottery program does not prohibit illegal aliens from applying to receive visas through the program. Thus, the program treats foreign nationals that comply with our laws the same as those that blatantly violate our laws. In addition, most family- or employer-sponsored immigrants currently face a wait of years to obtain visas. Yet the lottery program pushes 50,000 random immigrants with no particular family ties, job skills or education ahead of these family- and employer-sponsored immigrants each year with relatively no wait. This sends the wrong message to those who wish to enter our great country and to the international community as a whole. Furthermore, the visa lottery program is wrought with fraud. A recent report released by the Center for Immigration Studies states that it is commonplace for foreign nationals to apply for the visa lottery program multiple times using different aliases and other false personal information. In addition, the visa lottery program has spawned a cottage industry featuring sponsors in the U.S. who falsely promise success to applicants in exchange for large sums of money. Ill-informed foreign nationals are willing to pay top dollar for the ``guarantee'' of lawful permanent resident status in the United States. The visa lottery program represents what is wrong with our country's current immigration system. The SAFE for America Act eliminates the visa lottery program from the Immigration and Nationality Act. The removal of this controversial program will help ensure our Nation's security, make the administration of our immigration laws more consistent and fair, and help reduce immigration fraud. I urge each of my colleagues to support this important bipartisan legislation.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, included in this legislation is $1.1 million for the Roanoke River Upper Basin Project. Is it the gentleman from Ohio's intention and expectation that the contract for construction will be awarded only on an open and competitive bidding process?

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 480 I was inadvertently detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the Chairman for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the Spratt substitute. I have great respect for the gentleman from South Carolina, but believe that this resolution is very misguided. It divides, or bifurcates, American foreign policy instead of speaking with one voice. Nothing in the resolution put forth by the committee, led by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), prevents the very course of action outlined by the gentleman from South Carolina, but I fear that if this resolution offered by the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) were adopted, it would have the opposite effect of that intended by the gentleman; and that is because it sends the message that the President, in his efforts to get strong United Nations action and support from our allies, does not have the support of our own Congress. Between the votes on the two resolutions contemplated by the gentleman and while the President seeks international support, we will in effect be a cacophony of voices rather than speaking with one voice. Many Members of Congress have differing opinions on what the U.N. resolution should be. It is time to speak to the U.N. with one voice. Politics must end at the water's edge. In dealing with other Nations and especially with the United Nations, the President must have a strong hand. He must be able to say what he is authorized to do, if necessary, to push the U.N. to do the right thing itself. On the other hand, the Spratt substitute sends the message to Saddam Hussein that we are talk without action. He has relied upon that state of affairs for the past 12 years. This resolution is little different than the 16 U.N. resolutions, all without consequences. This resolution demands the truth, but removes the consequences. This resolution prevents the President of the United States from taking action to protect our national security interests. It ties his hands, even to do the limited things we are already doing. The Congress needs to speak with one voice. The Congress needs to speak now, not later, and the Congress needs to place into the hands of the President the necessary tools to implement a unified and effective foreign policy. I urge my colleagues to reject this substitute.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. On the eve of potential military action abroad, I am reminded of President Reagan's speech before the British House of Commons when he said, ``If history teaches anything, it teaches self-delusion in the face of unpleasant facts is folly.'' Reagan was speaking to a people who knew well the ravages of war and the terrible price of appeasement. Churchill called World War II the unnecessary war. He did not mean that it was unnecessary to rise to the occasion and defeat Nazism, he meant that had we taken early notice of Hitler's clearly stated intentions rather than naively drifting through the 1930s, a world war may not have been necessary. Weary of conflict, some of the allies adopted a policy of peace at any price, but no peace that a freedom- loving people could tolerate. While the circumstances are different, there are lessons to be drawn from the annals of history. Just because we ignore evil does not mean that it ceases to exist. Appeasement invites aggression. Dictators, tyrants and megalomaniacs should not be trusted. Saddam Hussein has used weapons of bioterror against his own countrymen. He has committed genocide, killing between 50,000 and 100,000 people in northern Iraq. His regime is responsible for widespread human rights abuses, including imprisonment, executions, torture and rape. Just in the past 12 years, he has invaded Kuwait, he has launched ballistic missiles at Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, and previously at Iran. Following the Gulf War, he arrogantly defied the international community, violating sanctions and continued in the development of weapons of mass destruction while evading international inspectors. His regime has violated 16 U.N. resolutions devoid of consequences. Most ominously, in the wake of the September 11 terrorists' attacks, Saddam has quantifiable links to known terrorists. Iraq and al Qaeda have had high-level contacts stretching back a decade. We know based on intelligence reports and satellite photos that Saddam is acquiring weapons of mass destruction. He possesses stockpiles of biological and chemical weapons, and he is aggressively seeking nuclear weapons. Every weapon he possesses is a violation of the Gulf War truce. A crazed man in possession of these instruments of death is a frightening prospect, indeed. Had Saddam possessed nuclear capabilities at the time of the Gulf War, we may not have gone into Kuwait. Should he acquire nuclear capabilities, his aggressions would be virtually unchecked. Deterrence can no longer be relied upon. President Bush was accurate to characterize Saddam as a grave and gathering danger. The President challenged the U.N., calling into question their relevance should they leave unchecked Saddam's blatant disregard for their authority. He consulted Congress and made a case to the American people. The President should continue to push for a U.N. resolution with uncompromising and immediate requirements for the Iraqi regime, thereby rejecting the tried course of empty diplomacy, fruitless inspections, and failed containment. Americans looked on in horror as the events of September 11 unfolded. At the end of the day, the skyline of one of our greatest cities was forever changed; the Pentagon, a symbol of America's military might, was still smoldering; and a previously indistinguishable field in western Pennsylvania had suddenly and terribly become an unmarked grave for America's newest heroes. In the aftermath, Americans have been asking questions, some of which we may never have satisfying answers to. But today we know that a sworn enemy is pursuing weapons of mass destruction. It is incumbent upon the free world, led by the United States, to dismantle these destructive capabilities. We have before us a resolution which will authorize, if necessary, the use of America's military to enforce the demands of the U.N. Security Council. There is no greater responsibility for us as elected officials than to provide for the common defense of our fellow countrymen. In voting for this resolution, we send a message to a tyrant that he should not rest easy; that those who would venture to strike at our Nation will encounter consequences. We send a message to the Iraqi people that the world has not forgotten them and their suffering at the hands of a madman. We send a message to the world community that we are unified as a Nation; that the President possesses the full faith and backing of this distinguished body; that we are committed to defending the liberties which are the very foundation of our Republic; and that we are steadfast in our resolve in the war on terror.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's concern about how we manage our time on this side of the aisle, but I would point out to him as a matter of fairness that the manner proposed and being followed by the Chairman of the Committee on International Relations is the only fair way to apportion time on this side of the aisle. If, for example, the preponderance of the speakers on this side of the aisle are in favor of the resolution, to give half of the time to those in opposition of the resolution would be grossly unfair to those who favor the resolution and would have only a small portion of time with which they could express their point of view relative to a very large amount of time that perhaps 10 percent of those on this side of the aisle might choose to exercise. So the chairman of the committee is absolutely right to reserve the time. I commend the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) for his decision to apportion the time on his side of the aisle because there may be greater division over there. But the gentleman should yield to this side of the aisle to determine how we will apportion our time. I thank the gentleman for yielding.

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

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. McHugh), the chairman, for yielding time to me, and also for his work to move this legislation through the Committee on Armed Services. Likewise, I thank the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), the ranking member of the full committee, for his assistance, as well. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the exploits of the officers and crew of the S.S. Henry Bacon, a United States Liberty Ship that was sunk on February 23, 1945, in the waning days of World War II. During World War II, the S.S. Henry Bacon was assigned the task of conveying war materials and supplies to the beleaguered Russian nation via the dangerous Arctic ocean passage known as the Murmansk run. In early 1945, the British Navy, having rescued a number of Norwegian civilians from Norway and transported them to Murmansk, distributed them among the Henry Bacon and certain other merchant ships for transportation to England, with 19 of such refugees being assigned to the Henry Bacon. On February 17, 1945, a convoy carrying these refugees and consisting of 35 ships and naval escorts departed Murmansk amid one of the worst storms ever registered in the Arctic ocean. The Henry Bacon, with a full crew and refugees on board, sailing as part of that convoy, suffered damage from the force of the storms and from internal mechanical problems. Suffering from a loss of steering capacity, the Henry Bacon lost her place in the convoy and became a stray, unable to communicate with the convoy, and required to maintain radio silence. The Henry Bacon was in such dire straits that engine room workers used a sledge hammer and wedge to physically turn the ship. On February 23, the Henry Bacon alone in the freezing sea some 50 miles from the convoy came under attack by 23 junker JU-88 torpedo bombers of the German Luft Waffe. The United States Navy Armed Guard on board and the ship's merchant sailors fought gallantly against the oncoming torpedo bombers. Although sinking, after a German pilot succeeded in scoring a hit with a torpedo to the ship, the crew of the Henry Bacon fought back, shooting down a confirmed three enemy planes and crippling at least two more. As the Henry Bacon began to sink, her captain ensured that all 19 Norwegian refugees on board received a place in one of the undamaged life boats. When the life boat supply was exhausted, crewmen made rough rafts from the railroad ties that had been used to secure locomotives delivered to Russia. The Henry Bacon went down with 28 members of her crew including Captain Alfred Carini, Chief Engineer Donald Haviland, Bosun Holcomb Lammon, Jr., and the commanding officer of the United States Navy Armed Guard Unit aboard, Lieutenant John Sippola, but in its sinking kept the German planes from looking further and locating the main body of the convoy. British destroyers rescued the 19 Norwegian refugees as well as the other survivors. Those refugees were ultimately returned to Norway. I am pleased one of my constituents, Dr. Robert Alotta, authored a book, ``The Last Voyage of the S.S. Henry Bacon,'' along with Donald Foxvog, documenting this heroic event. The actions of the officers and crew of the Henry Bacon were in the finest tradition of the United States Merchant Marine and the United States Navy and have been recognized by the people of Norway and Russia, but until now have not been acknowledged by their own Nation. The fabric of American history is interwoven with countless threads of valor on the field of battle, without which we would likely not enjoy the freedoms we have today. In recognizing these deeds, we preserve the memory of those who came before us for generations of Americans to come. Mr. Speaker, this resolution is a small way to convey the thanks of a grateful Nation.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, one year ago, Americans looked on in horror as the events of September 11 unfolded. At the end of the day the skyline of one of our greatest cities was forever changed, the Pentagon, a symbol of America's military might was still smoldering, and a previously indistinguishable field in western Pennsylvania had suddenly and terribly become an unmarked grave for America's newest heroes. In the aftermath of the Challenger space disaster, when seeking to comfort a shocked and hurting country, President Reagan told us that the “The future doesn't belong to the fainthearted; it belongs to the brave.” Overwhelmed by grief, and reeling from a devastation, attack, some nations would have been crippled to the point of inaction. Our enemies perceived us as weak, soft, unwilling or unable to respond. It is obviously an understatement to say they miscalculated. In a tribute to the excellence of our armed forces and to the leadership of President Bush, we succeeded in swiftly toppling the Taliban, thereby liberating the people of Afghanistan. In this volatile region of the world, America's national security is directly at stake, for when regimes that tolerate terror and disrespect human life are left to their own devices, they export hatred and murder. On the home front we moved swiftly to protect against future attacks. Congress gave law enforcement new tools, restructured the beleaguered INS, and most recently took steps to establish a Department of Homeland Security. Recently, I traveled to New York City for a Commemorative Joint Meeting of the U.S. Congress, which was held at Federal Hall, just blocks from where the twin towers once stood. Federal Hall also served as the site of George Washington's swearing in, the location where the Bill of Rights was drafted and the setting of the first meeting of the United States Congress. In an era when historical significance is often missed and sentimentality is at times scoffed at, the symbolism of this meeting must not be overlooked. Democracy is alive and flourishing and despite the best efforts of those who would seek to destroy us, we remain the ‘shining city on a hill’envisioned by our Founders—as can be attested to by the resilience, courage and selfless sacrifice, which has characterized our national response. On the anniversary of this day, which has been eternally seared in to our national conscience, our thoughts and prayers go out to those Americans whose lives have been forever changed by the loss of a loved one. Winston Churchill once said, “The price of greatness is responsibility.” This September as we mourn the loss and commemorate the lives of our fallen countrymen, we must not forget the raw emotions that marked that day, for they underscore our responsibility and will give us the impetus to continue in the unfinished task before us.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by thanking the gentleman from Iowa for yielding me this time and for his perseverance. I know that his work on this dates back a long time, including to when he was chairman of the Committee on Financial Services. Likewise, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. LaFalce). He and I have had many conversations and have worked on this for a long time. I know his dedication to dealing with this problem. Likewise, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith) of the Committee on the Judiciary, and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley), and the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus) of the Committee on Financial Services for their hard work on this as well. Mr. Speaker, just over 40 years ago, Attorney General Robert Kennedy in the midst of a fight in the war against organized crime sent legislation to Congress targeted at organized crime to crack down on gambling over telephone wires. That legislation was passed by the Congress, signed into law and has become commonly known as the Wire Act. However, because the Internet does not always travel over telephone wires, this law, which was written before the invention of the World Wide Web, has become outdated. Therefore, it is fitting that 40 years after enactment of the Wire Act and in the midst of a new war on terrorism, we are considering legislation to update the Wire Act to clarify the state of the law by bringing the current prohibition against wireline interstate gambling up to speed with the development of new technology. I have long been a champion of the Internet and an advocate of limited government regulation of this new medium. However, that does not mean that the Internet should be a regulatory free zone or that our existing laws should not apply to the Internet. I think we can all agree that it would be very bad public policy to allow offline activity deemed criminal by States to be freely committed online and to go unpunished simply because we are reluctant to apply our laws to the Internet. Gambling on the Internet has become an extremely lucrative business. Numerous studies have charted the explosive growth of this industry, both by the increases in gambling Web sites available and via industry revenues. Almost all of the more than 1,400 Internet gambling sites are offshore. Why? Because they seek to evade the laws of this country. This bill is directly targeted at those scofflaws sucking billions of dollars out of this country who are unaccountable to the people who go online and place bets, not knowing whether they are going to get fair odds, not knowing whether they are even going to get paid. This indeed will be very effective, so I commend the gentlemen from Iowa and New York. Mr. Speaker, it adds three provisions from the Committee on the Judiciary bill, which was a tough bill and which I would love to see passed. But we have spent a long time juggling the interests of all of the various legal gambling organizations, and this approach is the right approach at this time, just targeting the offshore folks. I want to explain to everybody these three provisions. They are very important and valuable additions to the Committee on Financial Services bill. First, there is a provision that will allow law enforcement to obtain the cooperation of Internet service providers to not only deal with the credit cards and other financial transactions, but to require the taking down of those prolific ads on the Internet where you can click here and be at some offshore site. Those ads, if they are involving an entity that is engaged in illegal activity, will be subject to being taken down with a court order by the Internet service providers. Secondly, it increases the penalties for violating the Wire Act from 2 years to 5 years. Finally, it makes it clear, and this is vitally important, it makes it clear that despite the changes in technologies, these new technologies being deployed today do not bypass the Wire Act. It makes it clear that the Wire Act applies regardless of the technology. So I urge my colleagues to support this fine legislation. A study by the research group Christiansen/Cumming Associates estimated that between 1997 and 1998, Internet gambling more than doubled, from 6.9 million to 14.5 million gamblers, with revenues doubling from $300 million to $651 million. More recently, Bear, Stearns & Co. Inc. reported that there were at that time as many as 1,400 gambling sites, up from 700 just a year earlier. Other estimates indicate that Internet gambling could soon easily become a $10 billion a year industry. Almost all virtual betting parlors accepting bets from individuals in the United States have attempted to avoid the application of United States law by locating themselves offshore and out of our jurisdictional reach. These offshore, fly-by-night Internet gambling operators are unlicensed, untaxed and unregulated and are sucking billions of dollars out of the United States. The FBI and the Department of Justice have testified that Internet gambling serves as a vehicle for money laundering activities and can be exploited by terrorists to launder money. The negative consequences of online gambling can be as detrimental to the families and communities of addictive gamblers as if a bricks and mortar casino was built right next door. Online gambling can result in addiction, bankruptcy, divorce, crime, and moral decline just as with traditional forms of gambling, the costs of which must ultimately be borne by society. Internet gambling is especially enticing to youth, pathological gamblers, and criminals. There are currently no mechanisms in place to prevent youth--who make up the largest percentage of Internet users-- from using their parents' credit card numbers to register and set up accounts for use at Internet gambling sites. In addition, pathological gamblers may become easily addicted to online gambling because of the Internet's easy access, anonymity and instant results. Dr. Howard J. Shaffer, director of addiction studies at Harvard, likens the Internet to new delivery forms of addictive drugs: ``As smoking crack cocaine changed the cocaine experience, I think electronics is going to change the way gambling is experienced.'' Finally, Internet gambling can provide a nearly undetectable harbor for criminal enterprises. The anonymity associated with the Internet makes online gambling more susceptible to crime. Gambling is currently illegal in the United States unless regulated by the States. As such, every state has gambling statutes to determine the type and amount of legal gambling permitted. With the development of the Internet, however, prohibitions and regulations governing gambling have been turned on their head. Since 1868, the federal government has enacted federal gambling statutes when a particular type of gambling activity has escaped the ability of states to regulate it. For over one hundred years, Congress has acted to assist states in enforcing their respective policies on gambling when developments in technology of an interstate nature, such as the Internet, have compromised the effectiveness of state gambling laws. The more than 1,400 gambling websites from the Caribbean and elsewhere are unlicensed, untaxed, and unregulated by any state, and thus violate all 50 state laws in which they are available. That is why state attorneys general, pro-family/anti-gambling groups, professional and amateur sports leagues, and the Department of Justice all agree that federal legislation is needed to clarify federal law that offshore Internet gambling businesses are illegal. The National Gambling Impact Study Commission recommended to Congress that federal legislation is needed to halt the expansion of Internet gambling and to prohibit wire transfers to known Internet gambling sites, or the banks who represent them. Under current federal law, it is unclear that using the Internet to operate a gambling business is illegal. The closest useful statute is the Wire Act which prohibits gambling over telephone wires. However, because the Internet does not always travel over telephone wires, the Wire Act, which was written well before the invention of the World Wide Web, has become outdated--it is not clear that it applies to the Internet at all. H.R. 556, as amended by provisions in Internet gambling legislation I introduced, clarifies the state of the law by amending the Wire Act to bring the current promotion against wireline interstate gambling up to speed with the development of new technology. This provision settles the uncertainty about whether the Wire Act applies to the Internet and at the request of the Justice Department, makes the Wire Act technology neutral so that the law applies to both the telephone and the Internet. Language has also been included in H.R. 556 from my bill that provides for further cooperation between law enforcement and Interactive Computer Service Providers to combat illegal Internet gambling. This provision provides for ISPs to respond to injunctions to take down illegal gambling websites or websites containing hypertext links hosted by the ISP. The bill makes clear that such injunctions would issue only after the opportunity for a hearing, would specify the service to which the order applies, and provide enough information so that the interactive computer service could locate the site or hypertext link. As a result of striking this balance between the responsibilities of Internet companies and the needs of law enforcement, the bill has the support of the ISP community. As the National Gambling Impact Study Commission has documented, and Senate and House hearings have confirmed, Internet gambling is growing at an explosive rate. It evades existing anti-gambling laws, endangers children in the home, promotes compulsive gambling among adults, preys on the poor, and facilitates fraud. H.R. 556 will put a stop to this harmful activity before it spread further.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman from Utah for yielding. I would also like to thank Congressman Wolf for his vision and leadership in bringing this legislation to the floor. I am pleased to share a bordering district with Mr. Wolf and share part of the Cedar Creek and Belle Grove properties. I have the distinct honor of representing a significant part of the Shenandoah Valley. The Valley is one of the most diverse and beautiful regions in the country, and is noted for its role in Civil War history--even being referred to by historians as the ``breadbasket of the confederacy'' for supplying food to soldiers. While my district is dotted with national parks, I would like to see added a new national park--the Cedar Creek Battlefield and Belle Grove Plantation National Historical Park to ensure the preservation of the history surrounding this site. This park will also serve as a new model for future development of national parks because it is a collaboration of efforts between public and private entities. What is also unique about this park is that all landowners will continue working collectively for the visiting public while continuing to retain the right to sell their land--whenever and to whomever they choose. In addition, the park will work hand-in-hand with the local community because land use and zoning will continue to be administered by local authorities at the county or municipal level. In addition, there are 9 other Civil War battlefield sites within the Shenandoah Valley that will also benefit from the national involvement in the Shenandoah Valley, while continuing to maintain its rural character and be protected and managed at a local level. Increased visitation to the new park and surrounding battlefields will bring added value and benefits to the local economy and play a significant role in hosting visitors from all over the country. I would also like to take this time to pay tribute to Mr. Carrington Williams. I am deeply saddened by his recent death. It was an honor to work with Carrington in establishing and securing funds for the Shenandoah Valley Battlefields Commission. He was a true leader in the appreciation and preservation of our nation's Civil War Battlefields and his passion for protecting American heritage will be sorely missed. From his military service to this great Nation to his public service in the Virginia House of Delegates and his extensive community service, Carrington was a respected civic leader and visionary. I appreciate the historic value and significance of Cedar Creek and Belle Grove. During my weekly drives through the Valley on my way to D.C. or back home to Roanoke, I am reminded almost every stretch of mile of the historic role the Shenandoah Valley has played during the events of the Civil War. I believe it is important to preserve this battlefield so it will continue to provide a historical lesson and glimpse into our nation's past for future generations. Mr. Speaker, I urge the adoption of this measure and yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4600, which makes health care delivery more accessible and cost-effective in Virginia and throughout America by curbing medical malpractice abuse. In recent years, Americans have witnessed a dramatic rise in the costs of malpractice insurance for doctors and hospitals. This cost is ultimately passed along to patients. Skyrocketing insurance premiums are debilitating America's health care system. Liability insurers are either leaving the market or raising rates to astronomically high levels. This has led physicians, hospitals and other health care providers to severely limit their practices or to leave the practice of medicine all together. Women, low-income neighborhoods and rural areas are among the hardest hit. Fearing bankruptcy or the possibility of endless litigation, some doctors have turned to ``defensive medicine''--which consists of wasteful prescription of medically unnecessary medicine and the performance of unnecessary tests with the intent of limiting liability exposures. These ``defensive medicine'' practices ultimately cost taxpayers billions of dollars. In addition, fearing litigation, some doctors may hesitate to discuss a potential misdiagnosis or medical error, thereby compounding the harm done to patients. A recent survey released by the Department of Health and Human Services revealed that over 76 percent of physicians are concerned that malpractice litigation has hurt their ability to provide quality care to patients. This bill safeguards patient's access to care by limiting the number of years a plaintiff has to file a healthcare liability action. This ensures that claims are brought while evidence and witnesses are available. The legislation allocates damages fairly in proportion to a party's degree of fault, allows patients to recover economic damages such as future medical expenses and loss of future earnings, while establishing a cap of $250,000 on non-economic damages, such as pain and suffering. The bill also places reasonable limits on punitive damages. American health care is still the envy of the world, but unless we act now to curb rapidly rising health care costs, we threaten the future availability of high quality affordable health care. One way to cut costs and improve quality is by curbing excessive lawsuits. This bill is a big step in the right direction to improving patient safety and doctor accessibility.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to introduce an important piece of legislation that will help deal with the spread of insect, rodent and microbiological borne illnesses in the United States. In 1996, Congress passed the Food Quality Protection Act which defined within the existing Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) the term ``public health pesticide'' to ensure that effective products were readily available for the public's protection. However, an error was made as the legislation was being prepared whereby this definition was unintentionally limited to ``minor use pesticides'' used by public health agencies and does not incorporate products which have traditionally been considered public health pesticides, such as consumer pesticide products. FIFRA requires the EPA to consider threats to public health in the registration and reregistration of public health pesticides. The statutory criteria used to establish ``minor use'' eliminates many products from being considered ``public health pesticides''. My legislation would correct this oversight. The effect of this technical correction would be to treat all public health pesticides equally. Specifically, the legislation would make the provisions of the FIFRA applicable to a broader category of beneficial products. These products ensure that the American public has the proper tools to protect themselves against disease. We have been hearing recently about the serious public health dangers of West Nile virus, but there are many insect and rodent borne illnesses and infectious diseases. Lyme disease, Hantavirus, encephalitis, Rocky Mountain Spotted Fever, Colorado Tick Fever, Tick Borne Relapsing Fever and many others threaten the health of all Americans. In addition, microorganisms such as E. Coli, Staphylococcus aureus, Listeria monocytogenes, and numerous species of Salmonella, pathogenic mold, mildew and fungi pose serious threats to public health. With insect borne disease on the increase in the United States, it is vital that EPA look at the benefits in all stages of the process for the products that protect the public from pests that pose a threat to public health. Likewise, antimicrobial pesticides used against human pathogens are vital to public health and benefits of these products also should be considered by EPA. I look forward to working with my colleagues on this issue which is very important to public health in the United States and across the globe.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the leader for yielding me this time, and I commend him for his very strong work in creating the legislation that will allow homeland security to be consolidated in one department of our government and also on his work to make sure that we can effectively make sure that our country is indeed secure. Mr. Chairman, I strongly oppose the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas. Advanced technology companies are developing technologies that can help detect and prevent acts of terrorism. However, these companies are effectively prohibited from making these technologies widely available because they would be subjected to unlimited liability and uninsurable risks. As we sadly learned from the tragic events of September 11, our terrorist enemies will not limit their attacks to government targets. In choosing their targets, terrorists make no distinction between military personnel and civilian men, women and children. Therefore, it is imperative that our local shopping malls, ball fields, schools and office buildings be protected from terrorist attack. One way to do that is to untie the hands of technology companies and allow them to provide the best technologies available to the private sector without fear that they will be put out of business for doing so. The provisions in the bill help ensure that effective antiterrorism technologies that meet very stringent safety and effectiveness requirements are deployed and requires that companies selling such devices obtain the maximum amount of liability insurance possible. It also ensures that victims are compensated for demonstrable injuries as equitably as possible. Opponents argue that the bill provisions provide for immunity to corporations who willfully sell defective products. But they are simply wrong. Nothing in these provisions provide immunity from lawsuits. Further, any person or company who engages in criminal or terrorist acts, including corporate crime such as consumer fraud and government contract fraud, is denied the protections of the act. In addition, under the act, if a company engages in any fraud or willful misconduct in submitting information on product safety to the Secretary of Homeland Security, it will be denied the opportunity to even assert the government contractor defense. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the current provisions of the bill so that Americans may be protected by the best technologies available without sticking American taxpayers with the bill in the case of catastrophe caused by terrorists. Oppose this amendment and support the legislation.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 332, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.'' Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Rangel

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding and I commend him for his leadership in bringing this important resolution before the House. I strongly support it and was pleased to cooperate in seeing it move through the Committee on Agriculture, and I urge my colleagues to adopt it here. The gentleman is quite correct. We are not facing an ordinary situation here. These are not natural forest fires, and as a result, this resolution would clearly establish Congress' commitment and support for a proactive forest management strategy. The strategy cannot simply be to let these fires burn. They consume the entire forest from the ground to the top of the tallest and oldest and most extensive trees. They leave behind bare mineral soil, dead trees and vegetation, hot running streams and rivers, and the threat of more devastation from massive mudslides. The historic efforts of managing fire suppression will only lead to an increase in the forest health crises and the probability of more catastrophic wildfires like the ones we are experiencing today. We must actively manage by focusing on forest health and if we want to protect our firefighters, our communities, or forests, we must work to create healthy, sustainable ecosystems through good stewardship. Healthy forests burn more predictably and can be more easily controlled when necessary. The Western Governors Association comprehensive strategy does this very thing. It calls for moving quickly to plan programs that will reduce hazardous fuels and implementing restoration efforts on fire- ravaged landscapes. Therefore, I strongly urge my colleagues to support House Concurrent Resolution 352, to reinforce Congress' commitment to the health of our forests.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I commend the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary for introducing this very important legislation to hold accountable those corporations and their executives who defraud the American public through manipulative accounting and other fraudulent practices. President Bush has said that corporate America must be made more accountable to employees and stockholders. He was right in calling for tougher penalties for companies who use unethical accounting procedures to falsify profits at the expense of their employees and other investors. As I travel through my district, I hear from many constituents whose confidence in the integrity of our markets has been shaken. Their faith in corporate management has been replaced with a fear of losing their retirement nest egg. They have demanded accountability from our corporate leaders, and we must ensure they have that accountability. H.R. 5118 increases the penalties for activities like mail and wire fraud and provides additional tools for prosecutors to crack down on corporate criminals. This legislation is needed to restore confidence in our markets and hold corporate criminals accountable. Hard-working Americans who save responsibly for their retirement should be able to have confidence in their retirement plans. Congress should enact meaningful reforms that provide safeguards for those who are saving for their retirement years. As I listen to this debate, I see my colleagues on the other side of the aisle attempting to dance on the head of a pin. Instead, it is time to join us in passing this powerful new tool for prosecutors to crack down on crime.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall Nos. 293 and 294, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on both.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The other State that was referenced by the gentleman from Colorado that has been absolutely devastated by wildfires this summer is the State of Arizona, and I thank very much the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) for his contribution to this legislation and his efforts to make sure that firefighting capabilities in the State of Arizona, as well as the rest of the country, are supplemented with foreign firefighters as we need them, and I thank him for that effort. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake). (Mr. FLAKE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. My district in the State of Virginia has been struck by many severe forest fires this season, but thankfully nothing like what has been experienced in the State of Colorado, and I am sure that that accounts for the leadership that the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. McInnis) has shown in introducing this legislation. He also serves as chairman of the Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health of the Committee on Resources. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. McInnis). (Mr. McINNIS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 5017, introduced by my good friend and colleague from Colorado (Mr. McInnis) to facilitate the ability of the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture to enter into reciprocal agreements with foreign countries for the sharing of personnel to fight wildfires. Today, as we debate this issue, large wildfires are burning across the country. Over 3.1 million acres have already been consumed and the worst may be yet to come. This bill provides a safety net for ongoing fire-fighting efforts. During these high levels of fire activity, the wildfire agencies often run out of trained and qualified personnel available to fight these horrific blazes. This legislation would allow the U.S. to bring in skilled firefighters from around the world to aid in the suppression of these overwhelming wildfires. It is important to point out that foreign nationals can only be used when all domestic sources are fully utilized. As I speak, there are over 12,000 personnel committed to fire-fighting duties. Depending on the number and nature of the fires, that number may reach 20,000 personnel in the next couple of weeks. If this occurs, we will most likely deplete our domestic fire-fighting sources. The next step would be to inquire for help from our international neighbors in battling the wildfires or risk losing more property and life. Unfortunately, current law exposes foreign fire agencies to unreasonable liability when responding to requests by the U.S. Government during a national emergency. Consequently, exchanges or requests for assistance during the critical part of fire season will not be honored by foreign firefighters. This bill provides foreign agencies and their firefighters coverage from liability during performance of official duties and will not expose the U.S. Government to liability or death or disability for foreign nationals that are covered under the foreign agencies' normal insurance policies. This bill supplies the protection needed in order for foreign fire management agencies to provide firefighters to the United States. It does not grant special protection to foreign firefighters. It simply provides the same level of protection that we give our own firefighters and the firefighters we use from State, county, volunteer and municipal fire agencies for Federal firefighting efforts. This legislation strives to ensure that we will have the ability to commit more personnel as fire situations escalate. It ensures our Nation's commitment to combating wildfires and provides assistance and relief to our domestic firefighters. I urge the Members of this body to join me in taking this important step today. By passing H.R. 5017, we can renew our efforts for wildfire suppression and build strong working relationships with our foreign counterparts. Join me in declaring a strong commitment to firefighting. I congratulate my colleague from Colorado for this fine legislation and urge my colleagues to support H.R. 5017. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.