Bob Goodlatte

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from South Dakota (Mr. Thune).

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble).

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is correct. CFC is specifically eligible to participate under the terms of the revised bill, and CoBank is an eligible participant for loans made in accordance with the regulations of the Federal Farm Credit Administration and its governing statute.

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

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, like many of my colleagues here today, I represent a congressional district that is not near a large urban center. The largest city in my district, Roanoke, has a population of slightly more than 100,000 people. However, folks in cities as large as Roanoke, Virginia; Honolulu, Hawaii; and Springfield, Missouri, are unlikely to benefit from the most important parts of legislation enacted last fall known as the Satellite Home Viewer Act. This legislation, which I served as a conferee on with many of my colleagues here today, was designed to address a problem experienced by thousands of Americans who are frustrated that they either could not receive their local network signal or had to receive a poor quality local network signal through a rooftop antenna rather than receive a network signal through their satellite provider. The bill addressed this by allowing direct broadcast satellite providers to immediately begin retransmitting local television broadcast signals into the broadcast station's area. Consumers across the country expressed their support for this legislation and the availability of ``local-into-local'' technology. I know my office received thousands of letters and calls from constituents concerned about this issue. This new law allows satellite providers to become more effective competitors to cable operators who have been able to provide local over-the-air broadcast stations to their subscribers for years. It will also benefit American consumers in markets where local TV via satellite is made available by offering them full service digital television at an affordable price. More importantly, these consumers will benefit from local news, weather reports, information such as natural disasters or community emergencies, local sports, politics and election information as well as other information that is vital to the integrity of communities across the country. Local TV via satellite is already available to satellite subscribers in America's 20 largest television markets. In these markets, DirecTV and Echostar, the existing satellite platform providers, have begun retransmission of affiliates of the ABC, CBS, NBC, and Fox broadcast networks. DirecTV and Echostar have also announced their intention to begin retransmission of local TV stations in an additional 20 or 30 television markets over the next 24 months. Ultimately, the two existing satellite platform providers will provide local TV via satellite to households in most if not all of the 50 largest television markets in the United States. However, there are 211 television markets in the United States, and in excess of 100 million U.S. TV households. As this chart illustrates, the red dots indicate cities that have been served effective January 31 of this year, and the yellow dots are announced or probable cities. The rest of the country, including 161 television markets, is not going to be served by the legislation we passed last fall. Therefore, if matters are left solely to the initiative of the existing satellite platform providers, more than 50 percent of existing satellite subscribers, over 6 million households, will continue to be deprived of their local TV stations; more than 60 percent of existing commercial television stations, over 1,000, will not be available via satellite; and more than 30 million U.S. TV households will remain beyond the reach of local TV via satellite. Put another way, local TV via satellite will not be available in 27 States. So while the law enacted last fall has eliminated the legal barriers to delivery of local TV via satellite, it alone will not assure delivery of local TV via satellite to the majority of local TV stations and satellite subscribers. For that reason I have joined with my colleagues in the House to introduce legislation that will assure that all Americans, not just those in the most profitable urban markets, did receive their local TV signals in a way that provides local information in a competitive environment for consumers. This legislation represents a hard-fought compromise between versions reported by the House Agriculture and House Commerce Committees. I want to express my appreciation to members of both committees for their willingness to work together to reach this agreement. The substitute authorizes the administrator of the Rural Utilities Service, with the approval of the National Telecommunications and Information Administration, to administer loan guarantees not exceeding $1.25 billion for providing local broadcast TV signals in unserved and underserved markets. The loan guarantees will be approved by a board consisting of the Secretaries of Agriculture, Commerce and Treasury. The loan guarantee may not exceed 80 percent of a loan, and the board may not approve a loan guarantee for a project that is designed to serve primarily one or more of the top 40 markets. The substitute also includes restrictions on which lending institutions can qualify for loan guarantees. Under this compromise, the board should give priority consideration first to unserved areas, then to underserved areas. Unserved areas are defined as areas outside Grade B where there is no access to local signals from a for-profit multichannel video provider. Underserved areas are defined as those areas outside Grade A where there is no more than one for-profit multichannel video provider. In addition, the compromise requires that the value of collateral provided by the applicant must be at least equal to the unpaid balance of the loan amount covered by the loan guarantee. The loan guarantee may not be used for the acquisition of spectrum and funds cannot be used by incumbent cable companies in their own franchise territories. In addition, under the compromise, the system providing local signals shall not be required to carry in a market a greater number of local broadcast signals than the number of such signals that is carried by the cable system serving the largest number of subscribers in that market. This is different than the version of the legislation that I introduced which applied full must-carry rules to the program. Mr. Speaker, legislation similar to this bill was sponsored by Senators Gramm and Burns and passed the Senate on March 30 by a vote of 97-0. I want to particularly thank Senator Gramm and Senator Burns for their help. Senator Burns represents the State of Montana, a rural area that is vitally impacted by this legislation; and he is to be commended for his leadership in the Senate as is Senator Gramm for his leadership in getting this, legislation passed through the United States Senate. The bill is crucial for Americans in rural and smaller markets who rely on their local television stations for news, politics, weather, sports, and emergency information. Local television is often the only lifeline folks have in cases of natural disasters such as hurricanes, tornadoes, blizzards, earthquakes, or flooding. The bill's language to encourage the delivery of local television signals to these constituents in America will not only benefit consumers, it will save lives. Mr. Speaker, in closing, I want to thank several individuals here, most importantly my colleague from my adjoining district in Virginia (Mr. Boucher) whose leadership both in the conference last year and getting us to this point in this legislative process today has been absolutely vital. He too has a district like mine that badly needs this legislation, but he too recognizes the importance of this to all of America. I also want to thank the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin), the chairman of the subcommittee, who has been vitally important in crafting good legislation in the Committee on Commerce and his full committee chairman, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bliley), for their input. In the Committee on the Judiciary, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble) and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) have made a great contribution. And then the primary committee, the Committee on Agriculture, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Combest) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm), have also provided valuable support for this legislation. I thank them all. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is correct.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus).

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moran).

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the time. Mr. Speaker, in addition to all of those I thanked earlier, and there are just too many to recite everyone, I want to also recognize the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Clayton), the ranking member of my subcommittee; as well as the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey); and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), from the Committee on Commerce, for their assistance in helping get this legislation to this point. But what I really want to do is thank the American people, because they are the ones who have driven this legislation more than anyone else. Many Members of Congress have received more mail, more phone calls, more e-mails on this issue than any other legislative issue in the time that they have served in Congress. The reason is very simple. Look at the map. The red and yellow dots, they are going to get taken care of. The rest of the United States is not. Tulsa, Oklahoma is not going to get a local into local service without this legislation; Lexington, Kentucky; Roanoke and Lynchburg, Virginia, my communities in my district; Austin, Texas; Richmond, Virginia; Knoxville, Tennessee; Honolulu, Hawaii; Des Moines, Iowa; Green Bay, Wisconsin; Omaha, Nebraska; Spokane; Shreveport, Louisiana; New Orleans, Louisiana; Rochester; Tucson; Springfield, Missouri; Springfield, Massachusetts. The list goes on and on. More than 160 television markets, more than 30 million households, nearly 75 million Americans, more than 1,000 television stations in those markets will not be served without the passage of this legislation. I urge my colleagues to join me in passing this bill.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the order of the House of today, I call up the bill (H.R. 3615) to amend the Rural Electrification Act of 1936 to ensure improved access to the signals of local television stations by multichannel video providers to all households which desire such service in unserved and underserved rural areas by December 31, 2006, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment in the nature of a substitute considered as adopted to H.R. 3615 under the order of the House of earlier today be an amendment in the nature of a substitute that I have now placed at the desk which shall be considered as read.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I would like to commend the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley) for introducing and pushing this legislation and the gentleman from Louisiana for his leadership in bringing it to the floor today. In January, the five member Federal Communications Commission issued rules creating this new low-power FM radio service with two members dissenting, two of the five, in whole or in part dissenting. In his comments, Commissioner Powell focused on the economic repercussions of low-power FM and the possibility that many independent and minority owned full-power stations could be forced out of business. Commissioner Furchtgott-Roth's dissent focused on interference and the Commission's uncharacteristic alacrity in considering low-power FM. This matter has not been properly reviewed by the FCC, and this legislation is vitally needed to stop this action from taking place. Existing broadcasters oppose the FCC's decision, with good reason. In establishing low-power FM, the FCC significantly relaxed its interference standards, meaning increased interference with existing radio services and a devaluation of the investments of current license holders. There is no question that eliminating the third adjacent channel safeguard, as the Commission is doing, will lead to increased interference. While the FCC claims that the weakened standards will not result in unacceptable, watch that word, levels of interference, this assertion is challenged by private sector studies. While the desire to provide a forum for community groups is laudable, a multitude of alternatives exist. Groups may obtain non-commercial licenses, use public access cable, purchase broadcast air time, publish newsletters and utilize Internet web sites and e-mails, among many other options. This is a country in which there are many ways to express yourself, but we should not do it at the expense of those who have already made investments and are already providing valuable services to citizens in this country. I urge the Members to support this legislation.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would join in urging my colleagues to support this legislation. It is very true that farmers in many respects are some of our best users of computer technology and the Internet, and it is time that the Department that is designed to support their efforts moves into the 21st century, as the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. LaHood) indicated. So I strongly support this bill. I thank the gentleman for his efforts in this matter.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the Senate bill (S. 777) to require the Department of Agriculture to establish an electronic filing and retrieval system to enable the public to file all required paperwork electronically with the Department and to have access to public information on farm programs, quarterly trade, economic, and production reports, and other similar information, as amended.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the Freedom to E-File Act, introduced by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. LaHood), requires the United States Department of Agriculture to establish an electronic filing and retrieval system to enable the public to file with the Department all required paperwork electronically. In doing so, the act would allow producers, farmers, and rural America to have access to information on farm programs, quarterly trade, economic and production reports and other similar information. The bill of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. LaHood) allows farmers to do business with the Department of Agriculture over the Internet. The rapidly evolving e-commerce economy of the 21st century continues to assert itself as the future of worldwide commerce. Like any business today, farmers are using computers and the Internet for a variety of purposes, including financial management systems and market information. It is becoming increasingly important to ensure that all segments of our economy are technologically efficient. Currently, the United States Department of Agriculture operates in a progressively antiquated computer environment. The continued use of such a system threatens to disable producers and farmers from access to a maturing information technology market. Rural Americans face the very real potential of being left behind in this era of sweeping technological advances. It is vital to empower producers and farmers by providing them with the technological tools to do business via the Internet with the U.S. Department of Agriculture. The continued absence of a viable common computing environment at the Department will result in the failure to assist the very constituency it is obliged to serve. The Freedom to E- File Act achieves the most important objective of allowing the public the access and freedom to do effective, better business with the U.S. Department of Agriculture via the Internet. The globally integrated e-commerce economy demands that private and public entities move quickly to establish efficient avenues of commerce. This legislation forces the USDA in the right direction, the direction of enabling producers, farmers, and rural Americans to benefit in an age of technological revolution. Mr. Speaker, as chairman of the Congressional Internet Caucus, I want to commend the gentleman from Illinois for his leadership on this issue. This legislation is badly needed. Changes at the Department of Agriculture to get up to speed, even with other government agencies, much less with what is happening in the private sector, is long overdue. I also thank the gentleman from Texas for his support of this bipartisan legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. LaHood), the author of the legislation. (Mr. LaHOOD asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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 S. 777, the Senate bill just considered.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, every once in a while, we as elected leaders are asked to take a stand on an issue that touches the inner- core of our moral obligation to protect the innocent from violent death. Today I rise in support of a reasonable bill to ban a heinous procedure to partially deliver fully formed babies, and then kill them. The ongoing debate over the ``partial-birth'' abortion procedure gives all of us an opportunity to join together in protecting innocent children from a horrific and gruesome procedure. Only the most calloused among us can hear the description of this procedure and not react with disgust. 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. According to Ron Fitzsimmons, executive director of the National Coalition of Abortion Providers, the occurrences of partial-birth abortions is much more frequent than was once admitted, further calling into question the defensibility of this procedure. Clearly, a pattern of deception has emerged regarding how and when this procedure is performed. We do now know that thousands of partial-birth abortions are performed annually, the vast majority of which are performed in the fifth and sixth months of pregnancy, on healthy babies of healthy mothers. We must put an end to this barbaric procedure where the difference between abortion and murder is literally a few inches, and the moral implications for our society of allowing such a procedure are profound. This is effective legislation to ban an unbelievably gruesome act. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation to protect those who cannot protect themselves.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, the American Freedom Train departed Cameron Depot, Virginia, on its inaugural run 25 years ago today. The American Freedom Train headed for Wilmington, Delaware, to make its premier to the American public and help mark our country's bicentennial. During 21 months of travel across our great land, the American Freedom Train traveled more than 24,000 miles and visited 138 cities where it became the focal point of local 200th birthday festivities. Nearly 700 million people toured the train's 10 exhibit cars and saw 510 historical documents, works of art, and items of memorabilia that portrayed our country's heritage. The American Freedom Train, the idea of Mr. Ross Rowland, became one of the greatest events of America's bicentennial. My deepest thanks to my constituents, John and Mary Jayne Rowe, of Covington, Virginia, for the work they have done to preserve the memories of the American Freedom Train. The sign at the train's exit is as appropriate today as it was 25 years ago: ``And now let us celebrate America, its heritage and strength, and together let us build a meaningful tomorrow.''

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, in today's rapidly growing technology and information markets, the need for maintaining an accounting system that is best suited to handle the growing trend of technology sector mergers is key. The ``pooling'' system of accounting has made possible some of the largest mergers of our time; without this system the unifications of Netscape/AOL, Citicorp/Travelers, NationsBank/Bank of America, and Daimler/Chrysler quite possibly would have never taken place, reducing innovation and benefits to consumers. Current regulations allow many high-tech companies to take advantage of this ``pooling'' system of accounting, which allows corporations to easily merge without attaching a goodwill accounting charge. This is the amount paid in an acquisition that is added to the fair market value of a company's tangible assets. If the Financial Accounting Standards Board has its way, it would require that all mergers be viewed not as the melding of separate entities, but as a direct purchase, forcing companies to accept the purchase method of accounting. This system worked for the bricks and mortar corporations of the past, but in the age of high-tech companies whose value lies in information, the purchase method of accounting has no place. Forcing these high-tech/high performance companies to use the direct purchase accounting system will only serve to stifle growth and limit our country's edge in this information age. We should take every opportunity to support and ensure continued innovation and expansion in this technology sector that has done so much to energize our economy. This can be accomplished if we say yes to the continuation of pooling mergers, and no to attempts to further regulate this important sector of our economy.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege and an honor to stand before you today and pay tribute to the celebrated cartoonist Charles Schulz. His legacy will be remembered around the world for years to come. For 50 years, Mr. Schulz gave us the lovable characters that we could identify with, the Peanuts Gang. I would also like to inform my colleagues of Schulz's generous contributions to the National D-Day Memorial Foundation in Bedford, Virginia. The Foundation is a group of veterans and volunteers designated by the U.S. Congress to build and maintain a memorial to Allied Forces who invaded the Normandy coast of France on June 6, 1944. The Foundation is charged with designing, building and operating a national memorial that will provide a place of reverence and solemnity honoring those who sacrificed so much on D-Day. The Foundation is committed to educating citizens of the world, especially young people, about the scope of the invasion; the role of individual American service men and women; the sacrifices made by the families and communities on the home front; and the critical importance and significance of D-Day. Since its creation, Charles Schulz provided great support to the Foundation and the advancement of its goals. All donations in Charles Schulz's name should be directed, per Mr. Schultz's request, to The Campaign to Build The National D-Day Memorial and Education Center. Again, I ask my colleagues to join me in recognition of this man's support for such a worthy cause.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I congratulate him for his outstanding work on this issue which is so important to small businesspeople across this country but to others as well. Small businesses create more new jobs in this country than all of the large corporations in America combined. Small business, the millions of small businesses we have, are the engine that drives our economy. They are so often the ones that create the new jobs, new enterprises that grow later into larger businesses that provide more jobs. But for a company that provides 10, 15, 20 jobs, it is the employees of those businesses as well as the businessmen and women who own them that will find this legislation important, and also consumers will benefit from this legislation as well because it will help to hold down the cost of goods and services provided by those small businesses. Many small businesses are in some of the most competitive industries that there are. When they are faced with unfair legal costs, it often either puts them out of business or forces them to raise their prices and make themselves uncompetitive or to pass those charges on to the consumers that do business with them. Putting a cap on punitive damages for small businesses, this is something that I think we should provide in every lawsuit, no matter what the size of the corporation or business or individual who is in business; but we certainly should do it for small businesses, for companies with fewer than 25 employees. To face a fine of more than $250,000 could easily put 10, 15, or 20 people out of work when a small company or an individual employing them cannot meet that kind of punitive damage liability, and joint liability. Again, so many instances where lawsuits are filed against a whole host of people. The small businessperson who might be the distributor, the manufacturer's representative, might be engaged in a part of a transaction but have only a small amount of the responsibility for the damages that are caused; and if the manufacturer has gone out of business or somebody who misused the product in installing it or some other involvement in it goes out of business, that small businessperson can be left with an enormous amount of liability and should not face that if they only cause a small portion of the damages involved. And then finally, we know about all of these lawsuits that are filed where a shotgun approach is used where a whole host of defendants are made a party to the suit and somebody is brought in as a defendant in a suit and they really have a very limited liability for it; but there is not a clear definition of what that liability might be. And so when we have the provision in title II that establishes a uniform liability standard that would be applied to nonmanufacturers or product sellers in product liability cases, a standard that would allow the product sellers to be liable only for the harms caused by their own negligence, intentional misconduct or when the manufacturing supplier is culpable but judgment-proof, it seems to me that setting a definite national standard when so many of these transactions involve interstate commerce is entirely appropriate for the Congress to do. I commend the gentleman for his support for this legislation. I commend him for garnering the kind of bipartisan support that he has and support from a whole host of organizations concerned about small businesses like the National Federation of Independent Businesses. This is truly good legislation. I would call upon my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to join with us in giving some relief to the people who do the most for job creation in this country.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to state that Congressman Jerry Moran of Kansas was meant to be listed as an original cosponsor of important legislation, H.R. 3615, The Rural Local Broadcast Signal Act, which I introduced on February 10. I have added him as a cosponsor today.