Bob Goodlatte

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce on this first day of the 105th Congress the National Right to Work Act of 1997. This act will reduce Federal power over the American workplace by removing those provisions of Federal law authorizing the collection of forced-union dues as a part of a collective bargaining contract. Since the Wagner Act of 1935 made forced-union dues a keystone of Federal labor law, millions of American workers have been forced to pay for union representation that they neither choose nor desire. The primary beneficiaries of Right to Work are America's workers-- even those who voluntarily choose to pay union dues, because when union officials are deprived of the forced-dues power granted them under current Federal law they'll be more responsive to the workers' needs and concerns. Mr. Speaker, this act is pro-worker, pro-economic growth, and pro- freedom. The 21 States with Right to Work laws, including my own State of Virginia, have a nearly three-to-one advantage over non-right to work States in terms of job creation. And, according to U.S. News and World Report, 7 of the strongest 10 State economies in the nation have Right to Work laws. Workers who have the freedom to choose whether or not to join a union have a higher standard of living than their counterparts in non-Right to Work States. According to Dr. James Bennett, an economist with the highly-respected economics department at George Mason University, on average, urban families in Right to Work States have approximately $2,852 more annual purchasing power than urban families in non-Right to Work States when the lower taxes, housing and food costs of Right to Work States are taken into consideration. The National Right to Work Act would make the economic benefits of voluntary unionism a reality for all Americans. But this bill is about more than economics, it's about freedom. Compelling a man or woman to pay fees to a union in order to work violates the very principle of individual liberty upon which this Nation was founded. Oftentimes forced dues are used to support causes the worker does not wish to support with his or her hard-earned wages. Thomas Jefferson said it best, ``* * * to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves is sinful and tyrannical.'' By passing the National Right to Work Act, this Congress will take a major step towards restoring the freedom of America's workers to choose the form of workplace representation that best suits their needs. In a free society, the decision of whether or not to join or support a union should be made by a worker, not a union official, not an employer, and certainly not the U.S. Congress. The National Right to Work Act reduces Federal power over America's labor markets, promotes economic growth and a higher standard of living, and enhances freedom. No wonder, according to a poll by the respected Marketing Research Institute, 77 percent of Americans support Right to Work, and over 50 percent of union households believe workers should have the right to choose whether or not to join or pay dues to a labor union. No other piece of legislation before this Congress will benefit this Nation as much as the National Right to Work Act. I urge my colleagues to quickly pass the National Right to Work Act and free millions of Americans from forced-dues tyranny.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join with a number of my fellow colleagues in commenting on the EPA Cluster Rule for the pulp and paper industry. Specifically, I wish to comment on EPA's July 15 Federal Register notice as it relates to the two technology options for final guidelines for bleached papergrade kraft and soda mills based on best available technology [BAT]. First, I want to note that this industry is extremely important to the economy of my Congressional District and to much of the Commonwealth of Virginia. Many of my constituents are employed in a paper mill located in the district. This particular facility employs approximately 1,900 men and women and contributes nearly $400 million annually to the economy of western Virginia in payroll, taxes and purchases of raw materials and services. Included in this figure is an expenditure of $30 million for the annual operating expense of the mill's various environmental systems. Since this rule is so important to a major industry in my district, I have closely monitored EPA's progress on its development. On several occasions, I have urged the Agency to seek creative ways to provide the fullest possible protection to the environment while at the same time ensuring that the final rule will not place an unreasonable cost burden on this industry. I am therefore pleased with the direction that EPA has taken and commend them for the work that has been accomplished to present a more balanced approach to the Cluster Rule. In their July 15 notice, EPA notes that their data supports complete substitution of chlorine dioxide for elemental chlorine used in the pulp bleaching process. They identify complete substitution as Option A. The Agency also notes that Option A should be given equal weight with the so-called Option B-- process known as oxygen delignification coupled with complete substitution--as the possible technology basis. According to EPA, Option B could cost this industry $1 billion more than Option A with only minuscule additional environmental benefit. Option A makes good environmental sense and accomplishes the desired environmental objective without imposing more expensive technology. In commenting on the Cluster Rule, I want to express my very strong support for Option A and to urge the EPA move forward as quickly as possible to promulgate the final Cluster Rule.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding, and I thank the gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum], the chairman of the Subcommittee on Crime, for including the legislation which I introduced, H.R. 4095, in this unanimous-consent request. With the benefits created by the explosion of computer networks comes a very serious concern: Network computers also provide new opportunities for criminal activity. The computer emergency response team, known as CERT, based on the Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh, reports that the number of reported intrusions into U.S.-based computer systems rose from 773 in 1992 to more than 2,300 in 1994. Once into a computer system, hackers have the ability to steal, modify, or destroy sensitive data, thus the potential cost to users, including businesses, are staggering. That is why the Justice Department and the FBI support this important legislation. It will help stem the on-line crime epidemic and increase protection for both government and private computers. The bill would allow Federal prosecution for those who misuses computers to obtain government information and, where appropriate, information held by the private sector. The bill would also penalize any person who uses a computer to cause the transmission of a computer virus or other harmful computer program to government and financial institution computers not used in interstate communications, such as intrastate local area networks used by government agencies. The NIA Protection Act would provide much needed protection for our Nation's important information infrastructure and help maintain the privacy of electronic information.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this legislation, and I commend the gentleman from Texas for his outstanding work, in working so hard to put together a bill that has had very, very difficult times getting different pieces of legislation included. I agree with some of the Members on the other side that I would like to see legal immigration reforms. I would like to see an employer verification system that really will help employers screen out fraudulent documents. But it is time for us to do and see the good things that are in this bill. So I strongly disagree with those who did not get one piece of legislation into this bill that they would like or dislike and are going to vote against the entire bill, which they admit has dozens and dozens of positive, good illegal immigration reforms dealing with cracking down on illegal entry at our borders, dealing with illegal overstays in the country, dealing with cutting off access to government benefits for people who are not lawfully in this country. Mr. Speaker, I urge the support for this legislation.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing crime legislation which will bring out criminal code into the computer age. The NII Protection Act, would strengthen the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, 18 U.S.C. 1030, by closing gaps in the law to better safeguard the confidentiality, integrity and security of computer data and networks. The Senate companion to this legislation, S. 982, has already cleared the Senate and now the House must act to send this legislation to the President's desk. With all the benefits created by the explosion of computer networks comes a very serious concern--networked computers also provide new opportunities for criminal activity. The Computer Emergency Response Team, known as CERT, based at the Carnegie Mellon University, in Pittsburgh reports that the number of reported intrusions into U.S. based computer systems rose from 773 in 1992 to more than 2,300 by 1994--a 197-percent increase in 2 years. Additionally, CERT reported the number of sites attacked rose more than 89 percent during the same period. Once into a computer system, hackers have the ability to steal, modify, or destroy sensitive data--thus the potential costs to users, including businesses, are staggering. That is why the Justice Department and the FBI support this important legislation. It will help stem the on-line crime epidemic and increase protection for both Government and private computers. The NII Protection Act improves the current Computer Fraud and Abuse Act by providing additional protection for computerized information and systems, by designating new computer crimes, and by extending protection to computer systems used in foreign or interstate commerce or communications. Current law falls short of protecting our Nation's infrastructure which increasingly relies on computer systems. Although financial institutions and consumer reporting agencies are currently protected under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, this bill closes a number of loopholes in the criminal code which allow other industries to fall victims to computer crimes. Since hacker activities generally do not cross State lines they are not Federal offenses. The NII Protection Act would extend coverage under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act to any computer used in interstate or foreign commerce or communications and thus, would strengthen Federal law enforcement's ability to fight this type of criminal activity. The bill would allow Federal prosecution of all those who misuse computers to obtain Government information and, where appropriate, information held by the private sector. The harshest penalties would be reserved for those who obtain classified information that could be used to injure the United States or assist a foreign state. Those who break into a computer system, or insiders who intentionally abuse their computer access privileges, to steal information from a computer system for commercial advantage, private financial gain or to commit any criminal or tortious act would also be subject to felony prosecution. Individuals who intentionally break into, or abuse their authority to use, a computer and thereby obtain information of minimal value, would be subject to a misdemeanor penalty. The bill would also penalize any person who uses a computer to cause the transmission of a computer virus or other harmful computer program to Government and financial institution computers not used in interstate communications, such as intrastate local area networks used by Government agencies that contain sensitive and confidential information. Computers used in foreign communications or commerce would also be covered. Outside hackers who break into a computer could be punished for any intentional, reckless, or negligent damages they cause. The bill also punishes modern-day extortionists who threaten to harm or shut down computer networks unless their demands are satisfied. The NII Protection Act would provide much needed protection for our Nation's important information infrastructure and help maintain the privacy of electronic information. I urge quick action on this important legislation.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I rise is strong support of H.R. 123, and I commend my colleagues for bringing this legislation forward. This was pushed for many years by our recently departed colleague, Bill Emerson. Bill would be exceedingly proud today to see us moving forward on this legislation. Today, 79 nations have an official language. Government documents in France, Germany, Japan, and Austria are printed only in one language. So what happens in those countries that have gone the opposite direction promoting multilingualism? We do not have to look very far to find that. The comment of the chairman of the Royal Commission on Canada's Future about the multilingual policy of Canada stated that it was an anthology of terrors causing Balkanization. Very appropriate, considering the gentleman's comments about what is going on in the former Yugoslavia; ghetto mentalities; the destabilization of Quebec; reverse intolerance by immigrants for Canadian institutions; and the devaluation of the very idea of a common nationality. Are we heading in that direction in the United States? Consider this: 40 million Americans will be non-English language proficient by the year 2000; 375 voting districts in 21 States are now required by the Federal Government to provide voting ballots and election materials in foreign languages; 115 languages are spoken in the New York City schools; driver's license exams are offered in 31 languages in California. Six languages were on the ballot in the last mayoral election in Los Angeles. Opponents have accused this bill of being mean-spirited. Nothing could be further from the truth. We want to raise immigrants up and help them get ahead. This is the way to help.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, for his fine work on this bill, and I rise in strong support of the welfare reform conference report.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this conference report. Despite the slanderous accusations by the advocates of the current welfare state, our welfare reform plan is compassionate and humane, two adjectives rarely used to describe the current welfare program. Our welfare reform plan ends welfare as a way of life and gives back welfare recipients their self-worth. By replacing welfare with work, current recipients will realize that they have talents in which to make a productive and self-reliant life. They are so used to the government providing for them that they never believed they could provide for themselves and their families. We know this transition isn't going to be easy; nothing worth having is easy. That is why our welfare reform plan continues government assistance as long as they are making a good-faith effort to be a productive member of society. We separate from bona fide eligible welfare candidates those who have been convicted of a felony or those that refuse to become citizens. For too long, those that have been trying to make their own way but are suppressed by the big thumb of government have been represented by those welfare recipients that make the headlines. By denying convicted felons and noncitizens taxpayer-funded assistance we take away the scourge previously associated with all welfare benefits. We create a new benevolent program and therefore a positive and refreshing atmosphere for its recipients. Along with increased sense of self-worth that necessarily comes with a pay check that isn't a donation comes a greater sense of personal responsibility. Our reform promotes self-responsibility in an attempt to half rising illegitimacy rates. Once we diminish illegitimacy we can truly end the cycle of dependency created by our current welfare state. As a condition for benefit eligibility, a mother must identify the father. This will ensure that single parents get the support they need and remind fathers that their children is their responsibility, not the State's. Our welfare reform plan gives power and flexibility back to the States. I think this is the provision that gives the proponents of the current welfare state the most heartburn. The block grants give the power and flexibility once enjoyed by big government advocates to our Nation's Governors and State legislatures. Non longer will Washington power brokers be able to dictate who gets and how much they get. Rather, those who know the solutions for their unique challenges won't have to wait for bureaucratic approval to put their programs in action. Mr. Speaker, not only is this reform plan historic, it is futuristic. This plan ends welfare as we know it and helps us see a society which encourages all of its members to be productive and self-reliant.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Chairman, I thank the chairman of the Committee on Agriculture for his kind words. Madam Chairman, I rise in support of the welfare reform bill under consideration today, especially the reforms to the Food Stamp Program. The Food Stamp Program provides benefits to more than 27 million people each month at a cost this year of more than $26 billion. It is growing out of control and badly in need of reform. The Committee on Agriculture held eight hearings during the 104th Congress to review the Food Stamp Program, and many of the reforms included in this bill are based on the testimony received in these hearings. Witnesses appearing before the committee and the subcommittee on department operations, nutrition and foreign agriculture represented a wide variety of organizations. They included the administration, the General Accounting Office, the U.S. Department of Agriculture Office of Inspector General, the United States Secret Service, Governors, State and local welfare administrators. Representatives from organizations providing direct food assistance to needy families testified. Testimony was also received from grocers, agricultural organizations, churches and advocacy groups. The following principles guided the committee in formulating the reforms to the Food Stamp Program. The Food Stamp Program is retained as a safety net. With other programs returned to the States in block grants, it is essential to be able to provide food as a basic need while States are undergoing the transition to State-designed welfare programs. States are permitted to use one set of rules for families applying for food stamps and AFDC. This provides one-stop service, making it more efficient. Therefore, the programs can become more taxpayer friendly by eliminating redtape. The Food Stamp Program is taken off automatic pilot. All automatic spending increases are ended except annual increases in food benefits. Able-bodied individuals without dependents must work. In keeping with the effort to encourage private sector employment and help people regain their independence, able-bodied people who are from 18 to 50 years old with no dependents would be eligible for food stamps for a limited period of time and then must work or participate in a workfare or training program in order to receive food stamps. States are permitted to establish programs to encourage employers to participate in an improved wage supplementation program so that welfare recipients have the opportunity to work in real jobs. This means practical work experience in the real world. Forfeiture-of-property legislation, using forfeiture proceeds to reimburse law enforcement officials, is authorized. We want to stop criminals from profiting from the Food Stamp Program. Penalties for violating food stamp requirements are doubled, and the rules governing participation by retail and wholesale food stores have been tightened. Under certain circumstances States may operate their own Food Stamp Program. Once a State has implemented an electronic benefits transfer, EBT system on a Statewide basis, reduces rates of error to acceptable levels or pays that part of the food stamp error over acceptable levels, the State will have the option of operating a Food Stamp Program under a block grant. Madam Chairman, I urge my colleague to support this bill. The welfare system, including the Food Stamp Program, needs significant reform, and it is accomplished in this bill.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Missouri for yielding this time to me as we pay tribute to one of the great men of the U.S. Congress. Bill Emerson truly was a man of the House. His participation in this body extends far back beyond when he was first elected to the Congress in 1980. In fact, in our Republican cloakroom, we have a picture of Bill dating back to March 1, 1954. It is a fitting tribute in memory to him. He played a part in the history of this Congress, because on that day some terrorists burst into the Chamber through those doors up there to my left in the gallery and sprayed the entire House Chamber with gunfire. Bill Emerson was here because at that time he was the chief page on the Democratic side, because in 1954 that was the last time the Republicans were the majority in the Congress, and he was responsible for the pages on the Democratic side. He was over in that corner. I can remember him as vividly as possible telling me this story, just a couple of years ago, explaining that picture to me, back in that corner, he hit the floor, there are bullet holes in the wall back there for anybody who wishes to examine it, bullet holes here in the desks on the Republican side, and the photograph in the back shows Bill Emerson carrying out Congressman Alvin Bentley, a Republican of Michigan, one of five Members of the House who was wounded that day. So Bill Emerson's part in the history of this House extends back virtually all of my lifetime. I had the honor of serving on the Committee on Agriculture with him for the past 3\1/2\ years, and serving on the Department Operations and Nutrition Subcommittee with him. He truly was a caring man who cared a great deal about the people that he was serving in his district, about the people who benefited from the Government programs under his auspices, and the taxpayer whose dollar he always looked after as he represented his constituents very wisely. Bill Emerson is truly someone we can all be proud of, someone who represented his district and who represents all of us in the Congress as a legacy in the history of this country.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time, and I rise in strong support of her and the gentleman from Vermont's amendment. This is a serious problem all across the country. We can see it in New England, we can see it in the far west, we can see it in Minnesota. It is also a problem in the south. In my congressional district, one- third of all the land in the district is owned by the Federal Government. Some of the counties in my district, more than 50 percent of all the land in those counties is owned by the Federal Government. The Federal Government pays zero to those local counties in the form of taxes to help support all of the infrastructure that is needed to support the use of that land. The employees who work for the Forest Service, the National Park Service, other Federal Government facilities utilize the local school system, utilize the roads. The visitors do the same thing and yet they do not get anything. Over the past few years, we have worked very hard to increase the authorized level of support for the Payment In Lieu of Taxes Program. The bill in 1994 amended it to address the revenue shortfall and increase the previous authorization, which right now is 75 cents to 93 cents per acre in 1995, $1.11 in 1996, and $1.29 in 1997. But the Committee on Appropriations has not increased those payments in accordance with what the authorizing committee has and what this entire Congress has approved, and I would urge this Congress to adopt this amendment and provide the additional support that these communities need.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, as the lead sponsor of H.R. 2511 I am proud that this House is taking a decisive step to make it tougher for product counterfeiters to prey on American business and American consumers and cost American workers their jobs. Counterfeit products cost U.S. businesses an estimated $200 billion annually. An estimated 5 percent of products sold worldwide are phony. Fortune Magazine has called it the crime of the 21st century. That is because counterfeiting is a highly lucrative, but relatively low-risk crime with only hand-slap penalties if caught. New technology has made it much easier for counterfeiters to pursue their trade. Computers and digital technology have made it a cinch to copy audiotapes, video, and software, and unlike analog copies, the thousandth digital copy is just as clean and clear as the first. Scanners and laser printers have made it easy to replicate labels, logos, and even the holograms that software producers afix to their products to prove authenticity. For years we have overlooked counterfeiters, assuming that product counterfeiting meant $2 fake watches and was a victimless crime. But the evidence is mounting that counterfeiting is a very dangerous crime that can threaten the health and safety of us all. Last year the Federal Aviation Administration grounded 6,000 piston- powered aircraft to check for phoney crankshaft bolts that could cause crashes. The cover story in this week's Business Week is on bogus airplane parts and cites the explosion last June of the No. 2 engine on a ValuJet plane as an example. Business Week reports that the explosion was caused by an engine that had been overhauled and later sold to ValuJet by a repair station in Turkey that lacked FAA approval. It further reports that investigators found that the engine contained a cracked and corroded compressor disk which had been plated over during the overhaul and was thus undetectable. Counterfeit airplane parts actually caused a deadly crash of a Norwegian plane that killed 55 people. In April 1995, the Food and Drug Administration released a ``Consumer Alert'' warning parents against using counterfeit-labeled Similac with iron ``Ready to Feed'' liquid formula in 8-ounce plastic cans with a fictitious code number and expiration date. The fake infant formula, found in 16 States, reportedly caused illnesses ranging from rashes to seizures in many babies who consumed the substandard product. A counterfeit brake pad caused an automobile crash that killed a mother and her child. In 1990 more than 30 raids were conducted in 15 States as a result of a crackdown on auto parts counterfeiting. Rampant piracy of the intellectual property of American businesses has strained United States-China relations, bringing us to the brink of a trade war and requiring a reconsideration of whether China should receive most-favored-nation trade benefits. The question Congress must ask is whether China will agree to abide by the basic rules that govern international trade, or will Chinese officials continue to condone piracy? Remember that China is our fifth largest trading partner and very well may be on its way to becoming the world's largest economy. If China refuses to play by the rules and continues at best, to ignore piracy, or at worst, to encourage it, the losses for American companies will be staggering. For example, Chinese officials, after much prodding by Microsoft Corp. agreed to investigate the Jin Die Science and Technology Development Co. in southern China. When they raided the company, Chinese officials found 5,700 computer disks containing thousands of dollars each in Microsoft software, illegally mass-produced on sophisticated machinery. According to the Washington Post, during this raid the Chinese confiscated the counterfeit software disks, but U.S. executives who were at the raid claim they also saw Jin Die's machines producing video discs containing movies such as ``Waterworld'' and ``Ace Ventura II.'' The Chinese authorities did nothing to stop the pirating of these American movies. H.R. 2511 will make it easier to ensure that the constant flow of counterfeits, arriving in the United States from countries like China can be confiscated and taken out of the stream of commerce. It also ensures that the American businesses who suffer commercial damage from counterfeit products may be awarded either actual or statutory damages. Because of the lure of enormous profits compared to the relatively low risk of being arrested, prosecuted, and sent to jail, it has not taken long for organized crime to get involved in counterfeiting operations. These operations have become highly sophisticated, well- financed, mobile, and international in scope. In March 1995, more than 10.5 million dollars' worth of counterfeit software was found during a raid in California that also turned up semiautomatic weapons, handguns, and military explosives. Newspaper stories report that those who were arrested are under investigation for their link to organized crime, a link that may reach from China, Hong Kong, and Taiwan to southern California's immigrant neighborhoods. These criminal networks have distribution systems as diverse as any modern corporation. Counterfeiters know that although criminal penalties exist on the books, criminal actions are rarely initiated against counterfeiters. As for private enforcement actions, trademark and copyright owners are consistently frustrated by an inability to recover any meaningful damages. This legislation takes strong steps to attack this problem. The Anticounterfeiting Consumer Protection Act will help law enforcement officials contend with the sophisticated nature of modern counterfeiting. First, it increases criminal penalties by making trafficking in counterfeit goods or services a RICO offense, consequently providing for increased jail time, criminal fines, and asset forfeiture. Second, the legislation allows greater involvement by all levels of Federal law enforcement in fighting counterfeiting, including enhanced authority to seize counterfeit goods and the tools of the counterfeiters' trade. Third, it makes it more difficult for these goods to re-enter the stream of commerce once they have been seized. Fourth, our bill also adds teeth to existing statutes and provides stronger civil remedies, including civil fines pegged to the value of genuine goods and statutory damage awards of up to $1,000,000 per mark. The Anticounterfeiting Consumer Protection Act will provide law enforcement officials with the tools they need to fight back, and to protect American business and the health and safety of American consumers. The time has come to make sure that our fight against counterfeiting is as sophisticated and modern as the crime itself. Finally, I want to thank all of the members of the Judiciary Committee who have supported this important legislation. Chairman Hyde, Chairman Moorhead, ranking minority member Conyers, Congresswoman Schroeder have all contributed to this effort. I greatly appreciate their hard work on behalf of American consumers and businesses. I urge all to support this legislation.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment. I think it is vitally important. Campus recruiting is a vitally important component of the military's effort to attract our Nation's best and brightest young people. It is simply sound fiscal policy to deny Federal dollars to schools that interfere with the Federal Government's constitutionally mandated function of raising a military. However, I have in my district, as the gentleman from Pennsylvania has, religious denominations, Mennonite, Amish and others that have hundreds of years of historical background of not participating in military activities based upon their deeply found religious beliefs, and I think if they are not simply antimilitary based upon a political position of the time but rather have that deep-seated opinion, then they should have that exemption and should still be able to apply for funds for legitimate scientific programs at their institutions. I thank the gentleman for including that language in the bill which will protect those schools.

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

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of the committee for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, the other side and the President have a number of times said that this is an anticonsumer bill. Mr. Speaker, this is a proconsumer bill. This bill is very fair to those who may experience harm as a result of a defective product, but at the same time taking away from juries the opportunity to give unlimited amounts of awards that affect every consumer in this country by taking product off the market, as the previous speaker, the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Ganske], just indicated, and by increasing the cost of insurance and, as every corporation in this country does, spreading that increased cost to every consumer in this country with increased prices. This is a very fair bill. Juries should not be legislators. They are unelected. They should have the opportunity to determine the compensatory damages, to determine the pain and suffering award, and a reasonable amount of punitive damages in cases where they find it appropriate, but it should not be unlimited. Mr. Speaker, I urge support of this report.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me time. I rise in strong support for this conference report, the most comprehensive reform of agriculture in my lifetime, the Federal Agricultural Improvement and Reform Act. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this conference report and would like to congratulate my full committee chairman, Mr. Roberts and subcommittee chairman Mr. Gunderson for all their time and hard work. For the first time Washington has seen fit to give producers the flexibility they have been demanding for years. The Federal Agricultural Improvement and Reform [FAIR] Act finally allows our farmers and ranchers to produce for the market instead of the Government. The FAIR Act accomplishes the three goals that were set for this legislation: it transitions our agriculture sector towards the 21st century global economy; it saves the taxpayers billions of dollars; and it protects the environment. The FAIR Act represents the most sweeping reform in agriculture policy in 60 years. It puts farmers, not the Government in charge of planting decisions. Farmers are no longer required to plant the same crops year after year to receive assistance, allowing greater crop rotation and less dependence on synthetic fertilizers and pesticides. In addition to this the FAIR Act targets $1.2 billion over 7 years to assist crop and livestock producers with environmental and conservation improvements on the farm. Assistance can be used for animal waste management facilities, terraces, waterways, filterstrips, or other structural and management practices to protect water, soil, and related resources. Producers, the first and best stewards of the land, are given enhanced flexibility to modify conservation practices if they can demonstrate that the new practices achieve equal or greater erosion control. It also takes measures to ensure the protection of the Florida Everglades, a national treasure. This is the most environmentally friendly farm bill in history. We enhance the protection of the environment without new mandates, regulations, requirements and redtape. It makes the Federal Government a partner with producers in addressing environmental challenges, rather than an adversary. It is voluntary and incentive-based. Most importantly, it works.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for his fine work. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of an eminently reasonable bill to ban a heinous procedure to partially deliver fully formed babies, and then kill them. Again, I repeat, this is a very reasonable bill which the majority of Americans wholeheartedly support. Those who oppose this bill are the excessive ones. Already, 288 of the Members of this House have voted to ban partial birth abortions. The bill before us today is identical except for three minor changes--all of which I support: It still allows an exception to the ban in order to save the life of the mother, and now provides in those cases that the prosecution must prove that there was no other alternative available to save the mother's life, rather than placing the burden on the physician. It clarifies that only the physician who performs the abortion may incur civil liability under the bill. It allows fathers to sue a physician for damages only if the father and mother of the child were married when the abortion was performed. We must put an end to this barbaric procedure where the difference between abortion and murder is literally a few inches. This is effective legislation to ban an unbelievably gruesome act. I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment. The Clerk will designate the amendment.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, I believe the gentleman from California [Mr. Berman] is absolutely correct. This is an audacious amendment to this bill. Just an hour ago, we defeated the legal reforms in this legislation. We took them all out that would have had some modest reduction in legal immigration, and now what do we have? We are going to go the opposite direction and add 250,000 new workers in this country. The gentleman is correct, the amendment that he offered in the Committee on Agriculture had no limit. I offered an amendment to put the 250,000 cap on it. Before that it had no limit. It could have had half a million new workers, as one of the people from California who testified in the committee indicated would occur. We would have a half a million new workers. We could have a million new workers. This undercuts the rights of the American people and we cannot accept an amendment like this. We have a program right now, the H-2A program for agricultural workers. It allows no limit. It has 17,000 participants. The gentleman from California [Mr. Pombo] and others have complained that it is not an effective program. I have offered six modifications of that program, so many that I am sure the gentleman from California [Mr. Berman] thinks I have offered too many. Yet, the gentleman says my amendment makes it worse. It does not do that. It improves the program considerably. There has been, unfortunately, material circulated that claims that we add to the burden of farmers with regard to the three-quarter rule. We do not do that. We improve the three-quarter rule to say that, if you bring workers into the country under the current program and they work less time than contracted because of weather conditions or pests, that they do not have to be paid for that portion of the time. My amendment improves the current law and makes it workable. We do not need an amendment that increases the number of people authorized to work in this country by the enormous amount that this program or before it was modified to even higher amounts. We need to reform immigration, not open it wide open. We have very high unemployment in many, many rural areas in this country. We need to also take into account the fact that with welfare reform we are going to be asking millions of Americans to leave the welfare rolls and to take work. Mr. Chairman, now is not the time to increase immigration. Now is the time to defeat this amendment.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Gilchrest].

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Smith].

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds to respond to the last speaker. The Center for Immigration Studies just released a study by Wallace Huffman, professor of economics and agricultural economics at Iowa State University, finding that the complete elimination of the supply of illegal labor, and we know we are not going to accomplish that with any of the legislation we have here, but the complete elimination would only result in a 1 percent increase in U.S. imports of fruits and vegetables. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Pastor].

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Smith], chairman of the Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.