Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 339, the Personal Responsibility in Food Consumption Act and in strong opposition to the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).

The food service industry employs some 11.7 million people, making it the Nation's largest employer outside of the government. However, this vital industry has recently come under attack by waves of lawsuits arguing it should be liable for the misuse or overconsumption of its legal products by others.

Frivolous lawsuits require businesses to devote crucial resources to litigate unmerited claims. In order to help ensure that America continues to be an advantageous place to do business, and to help create and maintain American jobs, it is important that we not allow opportunistic trial lawyers to extort money from legitimate companies.

Simply put, businesses in the food industry should not be held responsible for the bad eating habits of consumers. The people of America agree. According to a recent poll, approximately 89 percent of Americans oppose holding the fast-food industry legally responsible for the diet-related health problems of people who eat fast food on a regular basis.

H.R. 339 will help prevent frivolous lawsuits against the foods industry while preserving State and Federal laws. Specifically, the bill would prevent frivolous lawsuits that claim that the consumption of lawful food products cause injuries resulting from obesity or weight gain.

While the bill would prohibit frivolous lawsuits, it would protect legitimate ones. For example, the bill would not protect businesses that knowingly or willfully violate a State or Federal statute when the violation is a proximate cause of an injury. In addition, the bill would not protect those that violate State or Federal food labeling laws or those that offer adulterated food products.

H.R. 339 is a commonsense bill that will protect legitimate businesses from frivolous lawsuits. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation. But the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews) runs the risk, if it is passed, of gutting this legislation.

The reasons set forth by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), who has done an outstanding job bringing this legislation to this point, are all valid reasons for opposing this amendment; but in addition there are more. There is absolutely no reason why we have to draw a distinction between two different types of perfectly legitimate products that the appropriate regulatory agencies have found to have no ill effect upon consumers. There would be no difference whether it was a natural product or whether it was one that had been changed through hybridization and all the other ways that we have improved food through the decades, in fact through the centuries, or through biotech-enhanced foods either.

And so for that reason, I strongly oppose this. If the amendment were to pass, it is a back-door way to try to impose labeling in this country. We have opposed this for a long time because there is no distinction between foods that contain biotech crops and those that do not. And the issue is very clear that if you will require it, virtually every product produced in this country made with corn, virtually every product made in this country using soy beans, virtually every product grown in this country with any kind of livestock that have been enhanced, and virtually any kind of product that may be developed in the future, there would become a disincentive to produce these improved products, as the gentleman from California (Mr. Dooley) just correctly noted.

This is a huge problem. It would effectively gut this important legislation. H.R. 339 generally prohibits obesity or weight-gain- related claims against the foods industry. This amendment would require manufacturers to label genetically engineered material before being afforded the protections of the underlying bill. The irony is that, as the gentleman from California (Mr. Dooley) noted, the opportunity exists with genetically modified food to improve the problem for people who have obesity, not to make the problem worse.

So I do not understand how this amendment relates to H.R. 339. Biotech crops do not lead to obesity. In fact, biotech research may lead to food products that help combat the obesity problem in America and nutrition problems in the developing world.

Farmers have been growing hybrid and other genetically engineered crops safely for decades. Biotechnology is as safe as conventionally bred crops, according to numerous studies by the National Academy of Sciences, the American Medical Association, and other scientific bodies.

Furthermore, before biotech foods can be sold to consumers, their safety is reviewed by three government agencies: the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the Food and Drug Administration.

The Andrews amendment runs counter to long-standing U.S. Government food labels policy which preserves food labels for help safety and nutritional information. This amendment is just another ill considered attempt to discourage consumption of biotech foods, which every American, every American consumes on a daily basis and encourages frivolous lawsuits.

I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. This bill is a good bill and 89 percent of the American people support the concept that somebody should not be able to go to a restaurant, to a food processor or food distributor and be able to sue them because they became obese because of their bad eating habits. Let us get back to the subject at hand.

What is wrong with this amendment is that the gentleman from New York (Mr. Ackerman) would completely gut the purpose of the bill. He keeps talking about deliberately and willfully putting into the meat supply diseased animals. We have laws against doing that now. But the gentleman's amendment does not say what he talks about.

The amendment says manufactured or distributed for human consumption. It does not say anything about willfully. It says manufactures or distributes. That means the processing plant, it means the distribution company, it means somebody who imports from another country where we have no control over what their laws are on downed animals. It means the restaurant or cafeteria that distributes the food. It means the grocery store that distributes the food. It does not address the specific concern of one particular instance.

This bill completely covers somebody who may be specifically suing because they ate tainted meat. But all the gentleman from New York is saying is if we have one instance from here on out where meat was sold that came from any downed animal, then that company loses the protection for all time under

this bill. That is outrageous. It obviously completely guts the purpose of this legislation.

I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I never once said that this is redundant. What I said was there is language in the bill that protects an individual from being sued, a business from being sued by an individual, if they ate tainted meat. But the gentleman's amendment would prohibit a company from having the protection of this bill if at any time they ever sold one single downed animal or bought from a company that had processed one downed animal. That covers every single circumstance of every single company that is engaged in food processing in the country.

So obviously the gentleman's amendment, no matter what his underlying intent is, and his underlying intent has nothing to do with obesity, whatever the gentleman's underlying intent is, the effect of his amendment is to kill this bill because it would remove protection that is desired by 89 percent of the American people that we are coming forward with to do today from every single company in the food process because it does not require a willful and malicious intent; it just says all you had to do was distribute it once in the entire history of your company from this day forward, and you lose that protection under the law.

This is a foolish, ridiculous amendment, and I urge my colleagues to reject it. The purpose of the legislation before us is to protect the food industry from having to defend themselves from frivolous obesity- related lawsuits. No one has ever argued that downed animals caused obesity differently than non-downed animals.

This bill does not in any way relate to the issues of food safety, animal health or animal welfare. Products that do not meet the standards of our laws relating to food safety, animal health or animal welfare will not be protected by this legislation.

Mr. Chairman, the bill before us today is a very carefully thought out effort to address the growing problem of frivolous and costly lawsuits that do nothing but harm American consumers. These lawsuits have the consequence of adding unnecessary cost to the food industry and consumers to the sole benefit of trial lawyers.

The Ackerman amendment has nothing to do with this issue. It simply creates confusion about who should be afforded protection from obesity- related lawsuits. Because it is so loosely drafted, so carelessly drafted, not addressing anything to do with malicious or willful action, but anybody who manufactures or distributes, any restaurant, any grocery store, any wholesale business, any processor who has had any downed animal at any time, that business would, for all time, be denied the protection of this legislation. I urge my colleagues to oppose this outrageous amendment.

I yield to the gentleman from New York.

I am referring to a very foolish amendment, the gentleman is correct.

Mr. Chairman, I reclaim my time.

I rise today in strong support of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Fee Modernization Act.

America's commitment to protecting intellectual property gives America a distinct competitive advantage in the global marketplace. When a country provides an atmosphere that is conducive to innovation and encourages the aggressive enforcement of intellectual property rights, businesses will seek the protection of

that country and will make conscious decisions to innovate there. America must continue to be the world leader in protecting intellectual property so that it will continue to be the world leader in innovation.

H.R. 1561, the U.S. Patent and the Trademark Fee Modernization Act, would codify a revised fee schedule that would give the USPTO the resources it needs to increase the quality of issued patents and trademarks, to hire additional examiners, and to reduce the backlog of applications that is currently pending.

In addition, H.R. 1561 represents an important compromise that effectively ends ``fee diversion,'' the current practice of diverting the excess fees collected by the USPTO to the Federal Government. Under the compromise, if the USPTO collects more in fees than it is appropriated, the balance would be rebated back to the users.

Furthermore, the bill protects small businesses by reducing the filing fee for any small entity or independent inventor by 75 percent if those entities file their applications electronically, in addition to other protections for small businesses.

This legislation is an important step in the ongoing effort to enhance the quality and timeliness of patent and trademark processing. Our Nation's investors deserve nothing less than the most efficient and accurate patent and trademark office in the world. I urge each of my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, and I thank Representative Hart for introducing this important legislation, as well as Chairman Sensenbrenner for bringing this important legislation to the floor. This bill will convey to violent criminals the important message that when they inflict harm on a pregnant woman and her unborn child, those criminals will be accountable for the harm done--not only to the expecting mother, but also to the unborn child.

It is unthinkable that under current Federal law, an individual who commits a Federal crime of violence against a pregnant woman receives no additional punishment for killing or injuring the woman's unborn child during the commission of the crime. Where is the justice when a criminal can inflict harm upon a woman, even with the express purpose of harming her unborn child, and not be held accountable for those actions?

The American public knows that this bill is necessary--recent polls have shown that approximately 80% of registered voters believed that prosecutors should be able to separately charge the violent attacker of a pregnant woman for the death of her unborn child. In addition, most States have recognized this problem by passing laws to protect unborn children--29 States, including my home State of Virginia, have seen the wisdom in holding criminals accountable for their actions by making violent criminals liable for conduct that harms or kills an unborn baby.

Unfortunately, our Federal statutes do not sufficiently provide for the protection of unborn children and as a result the Federal punishment for these heinous crimes amounts to little more than a slap on the wrist. Criminals are held more liable for damage done to property than for intentional harm done to an unborn child. This discrepancy in the law is appalling. It's time for Congress to Act.

Regardless of whether you are pro-choice or pro-life, those of us who are parents can identify with the hope that accompanies the impending birth of a child. No law passed by Congress could ever heal the devastation created by the loss of a child, or ever replace a child lost to violence. However, we can ensure that justice is done by making sure that criminals who take the life of an unborn child pays for their actions.

I urge each of my colleagues to join me in voting for the Unborn Victims of Violence Act.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the chairman, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), for yielding me this time, and as chairman of the House Committee on Agriculture, I thank him for his leadership in bringing this legislation to the floor to help not only America's farmers and ranchers, but all small businesses dealing with the problems that exist in our current Bankruptcy Code.

The Baldwin amendment seeks to pick apart the comprehensive reforms by addressing farm and ranch bankruptcy only, which may be a popular proposal at first glance to many of us who represent farm country, but it is one the House should turn down this afternoon. If the House wants to enact full Chapter 12 reforms, including a permanent authorization, then Members should adopt the Sensenbrenner substitute, which contains these reforms.

Unfortunately, the Baldwin amendment is another cynical attempt to pit farmers and ranchers against other small-business owners and consumers. The bottom line is, adopting the Sensenbrenner comprehensive package protects family farmers, single moms, small businesses and millions of consumers. I would ask Members to vote ``no'' on the Baldwin amendment and keep bankruptcy reforms in a single bipartisan package of long overdue reforms to the Bankruptcy Code.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Temporary Agricultural Labor Reform Act of 2003, a bi-partisan bill to reform the H-2A guest worker program. As Chairman of the House Agriculture Committee, I have traveled across the Nation and seen first-hand that the H-2A temporary visa process is not working. I have talked face to face with producers who have to deal with participating in a costly, time-consuming and flawed program. Employers have to comply with a lengthy labor certification process that is slow, bureaucratic and frustrating. In addition, they are forced to pay an artificially inflated wage rate. My bill will streamline the labor certification process while also creating a wage standard that is more fair and realistic.

Likewise, as a long-time Member of the House Judiciary Committee, I understand the immigration problems that currently face our country. Illegal immigration penalizes those legal immigrants and citizens who play by the rules. It is estimated that there are between 8 and 11 million illegal aliens currently living in the United States. This population grows by over 350,000 each year. Clearly, this situation has reached crisis proportions and cannot be allowed to continue.

Some believe that the only way to reform the guest worker program is by including amnesty provisions and allowing illegal aliens to adjust to Legal Permanent Resident (LPR) status. However, this would create the wrong incentive by encouraging foreign nationals to come into the country illegally in the hopes that they, too, will be rewarded for their illegal actions. Amnesty is not the answer to our Nation's illegal immigration problem.

My bill would not grant blanket amnesty. Instead, it would allow the large population of illegal farm workers one chance to come out of hiding and participate legally in the guest worker program. Potential workers would be required to return to their home countries and apply for the program legally from there.

In addition, this legislation would address a troublesome wage issue. Employers are required to pay an inflated wage called the Adverse Effect Wage Rate or AEWR. The AEWR was designed to protect similarly situated domestic workers from being adversely affected by guest workers coming into the country on a seasonal basis and being paid lower wages. However, the shortage of domestic workers in the farm workforce forces employers to hire foreign workers, and thus, is also forcing them to pay an inflated wage. My bill abolishes this unfair wage and creates a prevailing wage standard, under which, all workers are paid the same wage as workers doing similar work in that region.

The facts are simple. Agriculture needs a reliable guest worker program. Workers need access to stable, legal, temporary employment. It is in our national security interest to create a sensible way for workers to come in on a temporary basis, work, and go back to their home countries. My bill addresses the problems in the current guest worker program, and I look forward to working with all of the Members in this body to reform this program and make it a more viable process for everyone involved.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Washington for yielding me this time and for bringing this rule to the floor and I thank the Committee on Rules for very expeditiously moving this process. I know that when I left the Committee on Rules last night it was close to 9:30 and they were still going on to other legislative business. So often the members of the Committee on Rules have to do that. Of course part of the reason for that is that we are so very near the end of this session of Congress. So it is critically important given what happened in California just a few weeks ago and what is going to happen again next year that we pass this legislation promptly so we can begin the process. It is going to take a long time.

The gentleman from Oregon is correct. There are not enough resources nor are there enough acres being addressed in this legislation, but nonetheless this is a very important first step and this is the first major piece of legislation related to forestry to be passed out of a House-Senate conference committee in more than 20 years. This is a very, very important development. We have a tremendous opportunity today, and when the Senate acts to send to the President a good bill that will give us the first step in this process.

It has been a fair process that has involved everybody in it. Over 2 weeks ago, we came to the floor to appoint conferees. The ranking Democrat on the House Committee on Agriculture who has worked with us every step of the way, and I might add that I believe 19 of the 24 House Democrats on the Committee on Agriculture voted for the original House-passed legislation, very strong bipartisan support in crafting this legislation. He made a motion to instruct conferees calling for the prompt action at an open conference to report back a bill a week ago. Unfortunately, the other body did not respond in that fashion and did not appoint their conferees until yesterday

morning. Nonetheless, in the meantime there was a tremendous amount of bipartisan and bicameral discussions going on about how to move the House and the Senate closer together on these pieces of legislation and we achieved that. Then yesterday we did have in the short period of time after the Senate appointed conferees the opportunity for an open conference, Members were given the opportunity to offer amendments, there was clearly a tremendous amount of consensus on both sides of the Capitol and in both parties on the need to move forward with this and we had a very expeditious conference.

Nonetheless, I think we kept the commitment made by the House on the motion of the ranking member, the gentleman from Texas, to have an open conference and to move as expeditiously as the process allowed us to do.

This bill is going to allow us to take major steps to let the Forest Service do the job they are charged with doing, protecting our national forests. This will also allow us to make absolutely certain that we have a process that is open and fair to everybody who is concerned about our national forests from any perspective. We are accelerating the process so that when ideas about what needs to be done to protect our forests take place, they can take place promptly, but we are not excluding the public in any way from this process. They will have the opportunity from start to--a judicial review if that becomes necessary--finish to have input in the process, but it will be done in such a way that the system can no longer be rigged to stretch out these decisions for many years and have our forests destroyed in the meantime.

That is vitally important.

I want to thank everybody who has been involved in this process. The gentleman from California (Chairman Pombo), the Committee on Resources, made important contributions. The gentleman from Colorado (Mr. McInnis), the subcommittee chairman, was also vitally important. He introduced the legislation. And certainly the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden) has been with us every step of the way as well. The same thing has been true on the other side of the aisle, whether they have agreed with all the measures or not. We thank them for their input.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying bill.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 457, I call up the conference report on the bill (H.R. 1904) to improve the capacity of the Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of the Interior to plan and conduct hazardous fuels reduction projects on National Forest System lands and Bureau of Land Management lands aimed at protecting communities, watersheds, and certain other at-risk lands from catastrophic wildfire, to enhance efforts to protect watersheds and

address threats to forest and rangeland health, including catastrophic wildfire, across the landscape, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo), chairman of the Committee on Resources, be recognized for 10 minutes for the purposes of controlling debate.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Today, we are finally able to bring the Healthy Forests Restoration Act, H.R. 1904, for a vote. In spite of a severely flawed process to arrive at this point, we have driven a hard bargain, and we have got a bill that the President will sign. I believe it will make a difference on the ground, but it is only a first step towards fixing what is wrong with the management of our public lands.

I worked with two other distinguished full committee chairmen, the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo) of the Committee on Resources and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) of the Committee on the Judiciary, to craft a bipartisan bill that passed earlier this year by an overwhelming, and bipartisan, majority. I also want to note the outstanding efforts of my counterpart in the other Chamber, Agriculture Committee Chairman Cochran, and our distinguished ranking member, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm), for their efforts.

This bill seeks to address the issues that have tied the hands of our forest managers: National Environmental Policy Act analysis that drags on for months, administrative appeals that spring up at the last minute, and court actions that stall projects for so long that areas proposed for treatment frequently are destroyed by fires long before the judicial process concludes. The conference process has produced a bill that does not do as much as I would like to address on these issues. I understand there are many in both Chambers who would like to have seen a stronger product. But this bill creates the first real relief from bureaucratic gridlock after over 8 years of legislative effort. It sends a clear signal that the Congress favors results over process and that protecting our communities, our watersheds, and our people is more important than producing mountains of paperwork.

There are over 190 million acres of forests and rangelands which remain at risk of catastrophic wildfires, insect and disease, a landmass larger than New England. Our bill takes the modest step of addressing the hazardous conditions on only 20 million acres of this total. This bill also takes an innovative approach to forest health on private lands, creating new nonregulatory, incentive-based approaches to promote conservation on private lands. In short, it takes a national approach to a national problem.

H.R. 1904 has enjoyed broad support from groups such as the Society of American Foresters, the National Volunteer Fire Council, the International Association of Fire Chiefs and others. Professional wildlife managers, sportsmen, and serious conservation groups all support this bill.

We as a Congress have more work to do to perfect our forest management laws. Forest fires are a symptom of a land management system that suffers from procedural, managerial, and practical gridlock. Our forest management laws, environmental laws, and procedural laws do not work well together. They create a process that only highly trained legal minds can comprehend; and while claiming to encourage citizen participation, they often achieve just the opposite. So we need to do more, but we should be proud of what we are doing today. We are taking a bipartisan step toward better management of our forests. We are saying that protecting our communities, our watersheds, and our people comes before protecting the dilatory tactics of those who oppose any type of sensible land management.

I applaud President Bush for helping to bring this about. We would not be on the verge of passing this bill without his leadership. I hope he continues to exert leadership in this field to ensure that the Federal land managers act aggressively to implement this program as quickly as possible. I will do my utmost to ensure that bureaucratic inaction does not delay implementation. I urge my colleagues to support this conference report.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht), chairman of the Department Operations, Oversight, Nutrition, and Forestry Subcommittee of the House Committee on Agriculture.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Montana (Mr. Rehberg).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Burns).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Colorado (Mrs. Musgrave).

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I will clarify a point that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) is interested in. Let me state that the projects authorized by title IV are primarily scientific efforts, and scientific methods should be the primary means of assessing them. While we encourage multiparty monitoring, it is not our intent to require it, particularly for projects conducted under title IV.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Let me start by thanking the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) for yielding me 2 additional minutes for this close, but more importantly for the very cooperative way in which the House Committee on Agriculture has produced this legislation. This is truly the example of why this bill will pass by an overwhelming margin here today.

It passed out of the House Committee on Agriculture originally on a voice vote; and when it came to the floor, I believe, 19 of the 24 Democrats on the committee, Members who represent rural areas, Members who represent areas that are forests, voted for this legislation, nearly 80 percent.

Had we had that kind of support elsewhere in the Congress, this legislation would have been adopted a long time ago. It has been 8 years that we have been working on it. And I would have to say to the gentleman from Washington State (Mr. Inslee) that if we were not to pass this conference report, not to send it to the President, we would be working on this for many more years. We would see more years like this year where 6\1/2\ million acres of forest land in this country were burned to the ground.

That is what we are faced with. That is why we need to begin this first step of solving this problem by giving the Forest Service the tools that it needs.

It is absolutely incorrect that these forest fires are not related to the problems that the Forest Service is presented with. Certainly, money is a problem. Certainly, we are going to have to deal with that, but in addition, massive parts of the Western part of this country are tied up in legal cases, including the entire southern California area that is tied up over litigation related to the spotted owl. This is clearly, clearly needed to address the problems that we face across the country.

I want to thank also the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo). He recognizes very clearly the nature of this problem, and the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. McInnis), I want to congratulate him on his leadership in bringing this bill to the floor as well. He is leaving the Congress at the end of this term, and this is his signature bill. This is his legacy in the Congress. So I commend him as well.

I also commend Members who have fought against this process like the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) and the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio). They have seen the light. They understand what it takes. They understand that it is time to get about the business of solving the problem, rather than another 8 years of fighting, and I would say to those few remaining who do not understand, get on board, get this done.

Yes, there is additional work that needs to be done. Yes, we will look forward to working with them in future

Congresses, but now is the time to give the President the ability to sign a bill that will put our Forest Service to work, to get this problem underway. We will come back for additional legislation because this problem is going to persist, and this is only a beginning.

Support this conference report. It is a good one.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin, chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, and the gentleman from Louisiana, chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, for their leadership in pulling these two committees together. We have been working on this

for a long time. It is that kind of teamwork that has resulted in this legislation today as well as a great deal of cooperation on the other side of the aisle. We really appreciate what it takes to write good legislation.

Spam is not just a nuisance anymore. Over half of the e-mail sent today is spam. Unsolicited e-mail, such as advertisements, solicitations, or chain letters is the junk mail of the Information Age. At best these unwanted messages burden consumers by slowing down their e-mail connections. At worst these messages bombard American families with unsolicited, sexually explicit materials and fraudulent information. It is time to can spam.

The bill before us makes it a criminal offense to send a commercial e-mail that falsifies the sender's identity. In addition, the House amendments which have been incorporated into this bill strengthen the provisions that punish spammers for failing to place warning labels on sexually explicit materials.

This bill makes the necessary changes to the Senate's ``can spam act'' to establish clear, uniform guidelines for those who send commercial e-mail and to criminalize fraudulent conduct. The bill provides State attorneys general, ISPs, the FTC, and the Department of Justice with the appropriate tools to enforce the bill against bad actors.

Because no legislation can provide a cure-all for spam, this bill is technology-friendly. It protects the ability of ISPs and small businesses to develop innovative technological solutions to combat spam and to protect consumers, such as filtering and blocking technologies. This bill establishes clear guidelines for legitimate businesses and punishes fraudulent conduct, not going after the good guys. It accomplishes these objectives without overregulating and without taking the information out of the Information Age.

I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 1 of rule XXII, and by direction of the Committee on Agriculture, I move to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 1904) to improve the capacity of the Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of the Interior to plan and conduct hazardous fuels reduction projects on the National Forest System lands and Bureau of Land Management lands aimed at protecting communities, watersheds, and certain other at-risk lands from catastrophic wildfire, to enhance efforts to protect watersheds and address threats to forest and rangeland health, including catastrophic wildfire, across the landscape, and for other purposes, with Senate amendments thereto, disagree to the Senate amendments, and request a conference with the Senate thereon.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, the Nation is well aware of the problem we have with our national forests. The wildfires in California for the past 2 weeks have made it all too painfully clear that we need to take measures to protect our forests. The legislation that is before the House, H.R. 1904, that the House passed with strong bipartisan support, accomplishes that goal. The Senate has also passed legislation to address this matter. There are substantial differences

between the House and the Senate on this matter, and it is vitally important that we address this as quickly as we possibly can.

There is a lot of work that needs to be done. We will be entering another fire season starting next spring. We can see from the California fires that these fires can occur any time of year in different parts of the country, and so it is vitally important that we get this matter resolved as quickly as possible. Because there are substantial differences between the House and the Senate and because there is substantial agreement here on the House side that some of the measures in the Senate legislation do not adequately address the concerns that we have raised, we need to have a conference on this, and we are prepared to do that and act very, very quickly.

It is my hope that the House will pass this motion and will move to appoint conferees, and then we will turn to the Senate and ask that they take the same steps over there. There has been some slowness in the movement in the other body on this, and we hope that will be rectified by the action taken here on the House side today.

It is our hope that legislation that was included in an appropriations bill a few years ago to address this problem in the State of South Dakota, which has far more leniency in terms of the flexibility given to the Forest Service to address the measure, address the concerns in the State of South Dakota, should be extended to other States around the country. Neither the House bill nor the Senate bill has language that goes as far in giving that authority as already exists in the State of South Dakota, but we would certainly like to have the opportunity to pass a measure worked out between the House and the Senate to give our national forests and other national lands the same type of management tools to expedite what is necessary to protect our national forests from wildfire, from disease and insect infestation, and we can accomplish that and accomplish it expeditiously if we move forward to appoint conferees and the Senate does the same thing.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support our efforts to move forward.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the motion.

The previous question was ordered.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I want to say to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm), the ranking member of the Committee on Agriculture, that the gentleman is correct, this is an unusual motion to instruct. It is also a very welcomed motion to instruct.

This is exactly the approach that we need to take in resolving a very, very important piece of legislation and the differences that exist between the House and the Senate on this legislation. We can do it exactly because, as

the gentleman notes, the House Committee on Agriculture, the committee of primary jurisdiction over this legislation, has a long history of working together across the aisle between the parties, Member to Member, on all kinds of important and complex legislation.

The farm bills that we pass are obviously the greatest example of that. Farm bills bring together every region of the country, every political ideological difference, every type of farm commodity, and we have to agree upon one piece of legislation to send to the President for signature so American agriculture can plan ahead for 5, 6, 7 years. That requires intense cooperation.

We have the same problems with our Nation's forests and our forest policy. It is in disrepair. It is not working. The forest fires that we are seeing in California now that we have seen all across the country, the infestation of our forests in the east and south from disease and insects require proper management and proper management policy. We do not have an effective working policy today that allows us to promptly address these major problems that in California have taken more than 3,500 homes, taken the lives of 20 people, have scorched the earth. These are not natural fires that occur that thin out our forests, these fires take the entire forests. In some places, the heat is so intense it turns the ground to glass. Water cannot permeate the soil. The devastation lasts for decades. Proper management of these forest will yield the correct result.

So I agree fully with the motion to instruct offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) because it calls on the conferees to be appointed here, led by the Committee on Agriculture, to do what we have always done. And we will work with the Committee on Resources and the Committee on the Judiciary to make sure that we have an effective conference, and we look forward to working with the Senate. They have put forward a work product that we are interested in. We think there are many things in the House bill not included in the Senate bill, and some things in the Senate bill that are not included in the House bill that are problematic.

But we are confident, given our history of working together, that this will be a conference that includes, as the gentleman requires in his motion to instruct, meeting in open session with fair discussion. How do we know that will take place, because it has always taken place with the Committee on Agriculture. It took place in the farm bill just last year, and it will again. We have a good working relationship, and we intend that that carries over into the passage of this legislation.

The proof of it is how we worked this bill through the committee. It passed the committee by overwhelming support. On the floor of the House, I believe of the 24 Democrats on the committee, I think 19 of them voted for the legislation on the floor. There was very strong, overwhelming bipartisan support for the legislation that the House passed.

That calls for us to have a conference with the Senate, to not simply accept the premise that somehow the Senate should dictate to the House as they so often try to do time and time again. This matter is too important; this House is too important to accept that premise. It is time that we go to conference. We should go quickly. This instructs us to act quickly, to report back a conference report within a week. We are very prepared to undertake that ambitious agenda and to work it through with the Senate, with Members of the House on our committee, with Members of the House not on our committee, and work this out as quickly as possible. This is important legislation that we should send to the President for his signature. He is anxious to sign it.

I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to accomplish a very fine healthy forests final product that is worked out fairly between the House and the Senate for the President's signature.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden), who has been a leader on this issue as well.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bartlett).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I will just say very briefly that this motion to instruct conferees offered by the gentleman from Texas is very welcome. It is exactly what we need. We hope the message is received, not only here on the House side, but also on the Senate side, that we will work together in an open conference, across party lines, and we will work together with the Senate to accomplish that. But it is absolutely essential that the Senate take the same step that we are taking here today and do it as quickly as possible so we can meet the timetable put forward by the gentleman from Texas.

Secondly, it is absolutely important that the message go out that this Congress on this issue has worked together, and worked together very well. The place where we find the extremism that some have expressed concern about has been on the outside, the organizations like Greenpeace and the Sierra Club and Earth First!, extremists who send the mail to so many people.

We have all seen it. It is designed to raise money for these organizations. If they said that the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) was meeting with the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. McInnis), who has very different points of view, to work out their differences, do you think that would generate a lot of revenue for these organizations? I think not.

What they do is try to portray this legislation and this Congress as being extremist. That is wrong, and that is where the problem lies. We need to reject that. We need to reject the falsehoods that are being portrayed about the legislation on the outside, to work together in the interests of the American people, work together in the interests of our national forests here on the inside to produce a final product that will really address a severe crisis that we have.

It is time to stop that kind of game playing, and it is time to get serious about addressing this problem. We are so close to something that we have sought for so long that we should not allow that outside rhetoric, that outside pressure, to deter us from what needs to be done.

What needs to be done is exactly what the gentleman from Texas has described in his motion to instruct. We need to meet, we need to meet openly, we need to meet now, and we need to produce a product that works out the differences between the House and the Senate by next Thursday.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to endorse and support this motion to instruct conferees.

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

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

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

Mr. Speaker, today the House asked for conferees to meet with the other Chamber to work out differences on the Healthy Forest Restoration Act, H.R. 1904. This evening, I am pleased to be joined by some of my colleagues on the House side to talk about the importance of this legislation that passed the House of Representatives nearly 6 months ago and, yet, has still not been resolved.

This issue has been debated for literally years. Former Committee on Agriculture Chairman Bob Smith of Oregon attempted to address this issue after the Sierra Grande fire which destroyed hundreds of homes in New Mexico in the year 2000. The other Chamber considered similar measures. Last year, a similar bill was reported out of the Committee on Resources.

This year, I worked with two other distinguished full committee chairmen, the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo) of the Committee on Resources and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) of the Committee on the Judiciary. We crafted a bipartisan bill that garnered 90 cosponsors. The bill went through three full committee markups before coming to the floor. Our bill takes a truly national approach to a national problem. We passed this bill on May 20 of this year by an overwhelming and bipartisan majority.

I think it is critical to note that we appointed conferees today. We also unanimously accepted a motion from the minority to instruct our conferees to finish work on this bill within 1 week. The fact that the whole House agreed to these instructions shows the urgency of starting these negotiations but, because of a small group in the other Chamber, the essential step of appointing conferees is being delayed. Any further obstruction from the minority party in the other body thwarts the will of not only the 80 members of the other Chamber who voted in favor of their version, but of the entire U.S. House of Representatives.

Since we passed this bill, almost 6 months have elapsed. While H.R. 1904 languished in the other Chamber, 169 days have gone by, over 3.5 million acres have burned, 30 firefighters have died, and 20 civilians have perished as a result of the fury of catastrophic wildfires. The California wildfires of the last 2 weeks provided a stark reminder of the need to act to prevent future disasters. It was only when the California wildfires were dominating the nightly news that the other Chamber saw fit to take up this critical bill, with an 80 to 14 vote on the measure, which seemed to indicate a sense of urgency on the part of the other Chamber.

Unfortunately, the minority party of the other Chamber is still not allowing the naming of conferees. They are refusing to do so in spite of the fact that they know the differences between the two bills are not insurmountable. They are refusing to do so in spite of the fact that an agreement that could result in real action to improve forest health is easily within reach.

The goals of the two bills are strikingly similar. Both seek to address the issues that have tied the hands of our forest managers: NEPA analysis that drags on for months, administrative appeals that spring up at the last minute, and court actions that stall proposed projects for so long that they are moot long before the judicial process concludes.

Now, I do not want to downplay the fact that there are differences. Their version of the bill added over 100 pages of text and five whole new titles that were not in our version. While there is obviously a good deal of work to be done, we owe it to the people who have fought these fires and the neighbors of our Federal forests who have been threatened, evacuated, or left homeless, to finish the job and produce a bill that the President can sign.

All of these issues can be resolved. The only thing preventing us from beginning this resolution is the refusal by the minority in the other Chamber to allow the appointment of their conferees. This action negates the legislative process which calls for a bicameral conference committee to work out any differences between two versions of the same bill, and it is the only thing preventing us from taking steps to protect our communities, our forests, and our watersheds from catastrophic wildfires.

It is important to remember that the House bill received widespread support when it came to this floor. The Society of American Foresters praised it for giving new tools to forest managers to protect our forests. The National Volunteer Fire Council praised it for reducing the threat faced by their members when they are on the fire line. Many of the same groups, as well as the International Association of Fire Chiefs, have asked us to go to conference to address specific issues and finalize a bill. That is my strong desire as well as the desire of the vast majority of those in this House.

There are over 190 million acres of forests and rangelands which remain at risk of catastrophic wildfire, insect, and disease, a landmass larger than New England. Our bill takes the modest step of addressing the hazardous conditions on only 20 million acres of this total. At the same time, it takes an innovative approach to forest health on private forestlands, creating new programs to detect and suppress such forest pests as the Hemlock Wooly Adelgid, the Emerald Ash Borer, and the Gypsy Moth. In short, it takes a national approach to a national problem.

It is time to put partisan politics aside, so that we can bring forth a bill before the end of the session which can prevent future catastrophic forest fires and to begin improving the health of our Nation's forests. It would compound the tragedy still unfolding in California if last week's vote in the other Chamber was just for show. A tiny minority should not be allowed to continue the dilatory tactics that have caused this bill to languish until the end of the session. Time is short. The fires are smoldering in California, and the conditions that created these infernos will only get worse unless Congress acts now.

I would now like to recognize several of my colleagues who have supported our bill as it moved quickly through the House and whose districts badly need the attention H.R. 1904 would provide. First, someone who understands this problem exceedingly well, because the State of Colorado has experienced some very difficult problems with forest fires this year and in previous years, particularly last year. I recall the devastation to the water supply for the City of Denver, something that is of great concern to us that our bill addresses, but that some would like to delete from it because they only want to allow work being done in what are called ``beauty strips'' around urban areas, overlooking the fact that the watersheds for many, many communities around the country are protected by our national forests and ruined when those forests go up in flames, and mud and ash and everything else goes down into these important reservoirs and other water supplies.

So at this time I am pleased to yield to the gentlewoman from Colorado (Mrs. Musgrave).

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

At this time, it is my pleasure to yield to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Hayes), a member of the Committee on Agriculture and chairman of the Subcommittee on Livestock and Horticulture who knows something about this from problems in North Carolina.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Hayes) is correct. It is regrettable but nonetheless true, that legislation was passed a couple of years ago that included a provision placed into an appropriations bill that creates a different standard for South Dakota.

I am quite glad that the Black Hills National Forest in South Dakota has that different standard, because they have the ability to allow the Forest Service employees, the district rangers, and others in that national forest to prepare the land in environmentally sensitive ways, to protect that forest from the kind of catastrophic wildfires that we have seen in California and Oregon and Arizona and New Mexico and Colorado and Idaho and Montana and other States as well.

But there is absolutely no reason why the provisions in either the bill passed by the House or the bill passed by the other body, neither of which contain the same level of authority granted to the Forest Service folks in South Dakota, could not be made available to the other 49 States as well. We are not even asking for as much as what South Dakota has right now. And, yet, we are being impeded from being able to bring this issue to a resolution.

We are so very close; the differences between the House and Senate can be worked out. There are differences. We should not minimize them. They are important differences. But we passed today here on the floor of this House a motion to instruct conferees offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm), the ranking democrat on the Committee on Agriculture, a motion to instruct that says we will have an open conference with participation by all of the conferees appointed. And, by the way, the Speaker went ahead today and appointed those conferees. We are ready to act. We have committed to an open process. We have committed to a speedy process.

The motion to instruct calls for reporting back a bill to the House by next Thursday. And that is possible if we would be able to go to conference. But if action is not taken promptly, we will lose that timetable. Time will slip away from us. And, of course, we are nearing the end of this Congress. And if time slips too much, we may be unable to complete this legislation, which President Bush very anxiously wants to sign, supported by so many bipartisan Members of both the House and the other body.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Hayes) is correct. There have been catastrophic fires in South Dakota, but there was even more importantly a recognition that there were vast areas, not just the so-called beauty strips immediately around communities, but vast areas of the Black Hills National Forest that were at risk of catastrophic wildfire.

We are not talking about the wildfire that burns along the ground and gets rid of the brush and things out of the area and leaves the larger trees; but we are talking about fires that, because of the buildup of fuel density, the trees continuing to grow, the fires being suppressed over a long period of time, when they finally do occur, they stair-step up from the brush into the smaller trees, into the larger trees, into the overstory of all of the trees in an area and devastate the whole area.

Then when it comes up to a community, no small narrow band of treated area will keep that kind of massive fire that can sometimes leap over long distances because of the enormous height that the flames reach and the burning pieces. In the California fire, there was a report last week of an instance in which a 4 by 8 piece of plywood was spotted by one of the planes combating the fire flying through the air in flames at 2,800 feet of altitude. Now, when these things can reach that kind of proportion, a small strip around a community will not protect the community. So wisely, the legislation that protects South Dakota does not include that type of restriction.

The Forest Service there can use their judgment with proper notice to the public and with fair hearing for people who have, as we all do, a concern that these things be done properly, the ability to treat various parts of the forest not simply limit it to those areas. That is one of the things that is apparently holding up our progress here. I think it is a serious mistake.

Mr. Speaker, we should be allowed to go in and work with the other body to fashion legislation that will address this problem in the other 49 States.

Madam Speaker, I hope that what was done by this Congress for the State of South Dakota 2 years ago will be done for the other 49 States as well. In fact, we do not even ask quite as much. We simply ask for fair treatment, and we hope that we will get it soon. It is very, very important.

Madam Speaker, I think it is interesting to note that of the speakers we have had down here tonight, the furthest west is the gentlewoman from Colorado. And I think this reflects that this is not simply a Western problem; this is a problem that affects the whole country. Because in the East while we have different types of forests, they also suffer forest fires; but the greatest threat in the eastern forests are the insects, and the disease, many of which are nonnative species that have come into this country from one source or another around the world. And we do not have the natural enemies of these species to combat in our forests. So often times they run rampant: the pine bark beetle that the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Hayes) mentioned, the wooly adelgid which attacks our hemlocks, the gypsy moth which attacks our hardwoods, and the emerald ash borer which attacks our ash trees.

Madam Speaker, at this time I yield to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Burns).

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Burns) for his comments.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce) for some very commonsense observations. Just looking across the spectrum of Members who have spoken here tonight and who spoke here today on the motion to instruct conferees, we had Members from Oregon, California, Colorado, Montana, Idaho, New Mexico, Arizona, all across the West they experience this problem; and then Georgia, Virginia, North Carolina, they experience this problem. And folks from Michigan and Pennsylvania have spoken about forestlands. We are blessed in this country with great and bountiful forests all across America, but we need to take care of them. And when we have to manage them because people live in and around them and we have to fight forest fires, that fuel density builds up. When it does, we have to give our forest managers, the professional people, the ability to step in and do what needs to be done.

We are doing it in such a way that we expedite the process so that it does not go for so long that the problem overtakes the solution, but at the same time we do it in such a way that the ability of concerned citizens to have their input in the process, to even appeal the decisions that they think are inappropriate, to have that opportunity to do that but do it in a way that is expedited because that is what is needed for a problem as serious as this one.

I see that we are now joined by another Member of Congress who has experienced this problem firsthand in his State of Montana. I would be pleased to yield to the gentleman from Montana for him to also give his observations about the problem with the state of forests in his State and around the country.

I thank the gentleman. The gentleman's point is very well taken. A healthy forest means safe communities. That is what we are really talking about here. If we get to the root cause of this problem, which is our unhealthy forests, we will not see the kind of disasters that we have seen in recent years that have taken lives, taken homes, taken families away from their communities. It has been a disaster of the highest order. While these disasters have taken place, the Congress has watched the burning and has been inactive.

The gentleman is correct. In the subcommittee that I used to chair, we held many, many hearings. In the full committee that I chair now, we are holding those hearings. We moved forward with legislation. We worked closely with the Committee on Resources and the Committee on the Judiciary. We passed a bipartisan bill. Forty-one Democrats in the House joined with the overwhelming majority of Republicans to pass this bill. The ranking member of the Committee on Agriculture has been a real pleasure to work with on this issue, even though he has acknowledged today in his district in Texas there is so little forestland. But he recognizes this problem in other parts of Texas and in other parts of the country. We have worked together to move this far. Why we cannot see the same response from other quarters where we need to have cooperation to get this done and to move the final bill to the President, I do not know. But nonetheless, we stand here and wait for the opportunity to finish what we have started.

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

The gentleman is absolutely right. There is absolutely no question that we have to fight forest fires. We do not want to send the message that when people go into our national forests or when natural lightning strikes occur that we should not be getting those firefighters out there. That is a part of saving the forests from disastrous wildfires, not the natural fires that burn along the ground, but the kind that stair-steps up and consumes the entire forest.

We also know that it is important to do that, to keep the communities and people who live around those forests

safe. But we also know that when you do that, when you intervene like that, you also have to take the responsibility to keep the forests healthy in other ways, to use prescribed burns where it is appropriate to do so. These have minimal consequences when they are done properly. They accomplish the goal of burning out the brush on the ground. They do not emit the kind of massive amounts of air pollution that these catastrophic, uncontrolled wildfires have. They do not cause the same kind of devastation to our water resources that these kinds of fires we have seen in Colorado and California and Montana and elsewhere have. But we need to give the Forest Service the tools to take the proper steps.

And so I am glad the gentleman has made that observation that this legislation that we have passed through the House with strong bipartisan support and similar legislation that has passed through the other body but has not yet been conferenced, has not yet had the opportunity to resolve the differences, stands waiting for that final resolution. We stand here waiting for the opportunity to conference this.

I thank the gentleman. I want to thank the Speaker of the House, Speaker Hastert, for the opportunity to discuss this important issue tonight. I also want to thank my ranking member, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm), without whom we would not have come so far this year. The other committee chairmen who helped hone the bill also deserve high praise for their efforts. I wish that I were not here on the floor of the House pleading the case to start formal negotiations.

This issue has dragged on needlessly for the entire legislative session. We need to discharge our duty, follow regular order, and conduct open, fair conference processes called for by the House this morning.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of House Resolution 425 honoring those who fought the devastating fires that have struck Southern California. In particular, I want to mention Steven Rucker, 38 years old and the father of two young children, who died fighting the Cedar fire, which began on the Cleveland National Forest and moved over 25 miles in less than 10 hours. He joins the roll of 29 other wildland firefighters who perished this summer across this country. Every wildland firefighter who takes up this occupation knows that on the next fire, they could face a similar fate.

Brave men and women choose the profession of firefighting with a keen awareness of the dangers inherent in the job. What they do requires bravery similar to that required of our armed forces. However, they fight a foe that isn't driven by ideology, or religion, or a lust for power. Wildfire has none of these motivations, and is something altogether more unpredictable as a result. If not for the efforts of our firefighters, many more homes and businesses, not just in California but across the country, would be lost, and many more civilians would have lost their very lives.

House Resolution 425 focuses on the Southern California fires, which are fresh in our memories. However, I think it's important that we recognize that wildland firefighters face these dangers in many states across the country. Wildland firefighters have died on the fire ground in States as diverse as Florida, Arkansas, Indiana, Montana, New York, Wisconsin, Texas, Louisiana, and Oregon over the last ten years. Moreover, when wildfires strike anywhere in the United States, wildland firefighters from across the country--Federal, state, and local-- mobilize to defend our forests, our homes, our families, from the devastation brought about by catastrophic fire.

The firefighters who bravely face these infernos also understand something that many here in Washington are just beginning to grasp; that these wildfires are getting worse because we've tied the hands of our Federal land managers and prevented them from addressing hazardous fuel buildups. We have a bill that begins to address this issue, and I hope we can work with the other body to finish that important work soon.

I am saddened by the loss of life and the destruction of our resources that we witnessed in the last weeks. I am humbled by the bravery of our wildland firefighters and the tenacity of all our first responders without whom the disaster in California would have been far worse. I am honored to join my colleagues whose constituents have suffered so much in recent weeks in passing this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the conference report on S. 3, the ban on the procedure known as partial birth abortion. I was appalled when I learned of the partial birth abortion procedure and have been working diligently to abolish it ever since. This heinous procedure involves partially delivering fully formed babies, and then killing them. It is one of the most horrible forms of abortion practiced. The difference between abortion and murder is literally a few inches. I believe that there is no justification for this brutal and heartless procedure, and only the most calloused among us can hear the description of this procedure and not react with disgust.

We must act now to ban this appalling procedure and protect the innocent unborn from violent deaths. A vote in favor of the conference report on S. 3 will stop the killing of innocent children and will send a message to the world that our Nation views life as a sacred and precious gift.

The overwhelming majority of the American people want to ban partial- birth abortions and no matter what your position is on abortion, this grisly procedure is indefensible in a civilized society. Thus, this vote on the conference report on S. 3 gives all of us an opportunity to join together in protecting innocent children from this horrific and gruesome procedure.

S. 3 is effective legislation to ban an unbelievably gruesome act. I urge each of my colleagues to support this legislation and to protect those who cannot protect themselves.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce today, along with my good friend Mr. Boucher, the Business Activity Tax Simplification Act of 2003. This important legislation provides a ``bright line'' that clarifies state and local authority to collect business activity taxes from out-of-state entities.

Many states and some local governments levy corporate income, franchise and other taxes on out-of-state companies that conduct business activities within their jurisdictions. While providing revenue for states, these taxes also serve to pay for the privilege of doing business in a state.

However, with the growth of the Internet, companies are increasingly able to conduct transactions without the constraint of geopolitical boundaries. The growth of interstate business-to-business and business- to-consumer transactions raises questions over where multi-state companies should be required to pay corporate income and other business activity taxes.

Over the past several years, a growing number of jurisdictions have sought to collect business activity taxes from businesses located in other states, even though those businesses receive no appreciable benefits from the taxing jurisdiction and even though the Supreme Court has ruled that the Constitution prohibits a state from imposing taxes on businesses that lack substantial connections to the state. This has led to unfairness and uncertainty, generated contentious, widespread litigation, and hindered business expansion, as businesses shy away from expanding their presence in other states for fear of exposure to unfair tax burdens.

In order for businesses to continue to become more efficient and expand the scope of their goods and services, it is imperative that clear and easily navigable rules be set forth regarding when an out-of- state business is obliged to pay business activity taxes to a state. Otherwise, the confusion surrounding these taxes will have a chilling effect on e-commerce, interstate commerce generally, and the entire economy as tax burdens, compliance costs, litigation, and uncertainty escalate.

Previous actions by the Supreme Court and Congress have laid the groundwork for a clear, concise and modern ``bright line'' rule in this area. In the landmark case of Quill Corp. v. North Dakota, the Supreme Court declared that a state cannot impose a tax on an out-of-state business unless that business has a ``substantial nexus'' with the taxing state. However, the Court did not define what constituted a ``substantial nexus'' for purposes of imposing business activity taxes.

In addition, over forty years ago, Congress passed legislation to prohibit jurisdictions from taxing the income of out-of-state corporations whose in-state presence was nominal. Public Law 86-272 set clear, uniform standards for when states could and could not impose such taxes on out-of-state businesses when the businesses' activities involved the solicitation of orders for sales. However, like the economy of its time, the scope of Public Law 86-272 was limited to tangible personal property. Our nation's economy has changed dramatically over the past forty years, and this outdated statute needs to be modernized.

That is why we are introducing this important legislation today. The Business Activity Tax Simplification Act both modernizes and provides clarity in an outdated and ambiguous tax environment. First, the legislation updates the protections in PL 86-272. Our legislation reflects the changing nature of our economy by expanding the scope of the protections in PL 86-272 from just tangible personal property to include intangible property and services.

In addition, our legislation sets forth clear, specific standards to govern when businesses should be obliged to pay business activity taxes to a state. Specifically, the legislation establishes a ``physical presence'' test such that an out-of-state company must have a physical presence in a state before the state can impose franchise taxes, business license taxes, and other business activity taxes.

The clarity that the Business Activity Tax Simplification Act will bring will ensure fairness, minimize litigation, and create the kind of legally certain and stable business climate that encourages businesses to make investments, expand interstate commerce, grow the economy and create new jobs. At the same time, this legislation will ensure that states and localities are fairly compensated when they provide services to businesses with a physical presence in the state.

I urge each of my colleagues to support this very important bipartisan legislation.

Mr. Speaker, animal medicines are used to assist livestock producers raising and maintaining healthy, high quality stock and ultimately, in delivering safe and wholesome food to American dinner tables. They are also used to keep pets healthy, which contributes to the quality of life for millions of companion animal owners.

The Food and Drug Administration's Center for Veterinary Medicine (CVM) is currently experiencing unprecedented delays in its review of new product submissions. The delays are severe and problematic for the submission sponsors, for CVM, and for veterinarians, livestock and poultry producers, and pet owners in need of new and innovative products to combat animal disease--at a time when animal disease around the world is capturing headlines. The deadlock at the Center also has a chilling effect on the animal health industry's investment in important research and development, threatening the pipeline of products that will be important to livestock and poultry producers in managing their production in the future. The lack of these tools imperils not only animal health but also has implications for the food supply and food safety.

In 1966 Congress, with industry support, enacted the Animal Drug Availability Act to streamline drug review and approval procedures. Contrary to Congressional intent and despite additional resources, it is now more difficult than ever to get new products approved. Unfortunately, this situation is detrimental to veterinarians, to livestock and poultry producers, to food producers and to the public. As a result, it is important for Congress and the Administration to take action to ensure that the CVM can better manage its resources and personnel and make institutional changes to fulfill its mandated mission and responsibilities.

Modeled after the successful Prescription Drug User Fee Act, the Animal Drug User Fee Act will increase efficiencies in review times for new animal pharmaceuticals by providing CVM with additional resources to allow for improved communication between FDA and product sponsors and more expeditious FDA actions on applications.

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate Congressman Upton for his leadership and that of the full Committee on Energy and Commerce for bringing this important legislation to the floor today and urge all Members to support it.