Bob Goodlatte

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary for yielding me this time, and for his leadership in moving this legislation through the House. This is a good, bipartisan bill. I was pleased to introduce it with the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Boucher) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran). We need bipartisan support to pass this legislation. We have all day long from the opponents of this bill seen obfuscation. This bill is not about terrorists, it is not about Enron, it is not about shredding documents; what it is about is good, common-sense class action lawsuit reform to end this kind of abuse, where the lawyers get $2 million in attorneys' fees and the plaintiffs, the American families, get a box of Cheerios. It is about a case where the plaintiffs get a $25 coupon off a $250 future plane flight, a 10 percent reduction, and the attorneys get $16 million in attorneys' fees. It is about this great case wherein the Bank of Boston, the attorneys got $8.5 million in fees and then sued, sued their own clients for an additional $25 million. It is about this Blockbuster case, 23 class action lawsuits settled for $1-off coupons; the attorneys got an estimated $9.2 million in attorneys' fees. Here is my favorite one. The attorneys got $4 million in their suit against Chase Manhattan Bank; the plaintiffs, including this plaintiff, 33 cents. But there is a catch to the 33 cents. There it is, 33 cents; the catch is that in order to accept the settlement, you had to use a 34-cent stamp to send in the acceptance, and so you came out 1 penny short. Our friends at the Washington Post summed it up best when they said, Having invented a client, the lawyers also get to choose a court. Under the current absurd rules, national class actions can be filed in just about any court in the country. This bill changes that. This bill treats American families with more than pennies; it restores integrity to our judicial system. Vote against this obfuscating motion to recommit and for this good legislation. Again, the Washington Post: That it is controversial at all reflects less on the merits of the proposal than on the grip that the trial lawyers have on many Democrats.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin for yielding me this time and for his leadership in bringing this legislation forward. I was pleased to introduce this legislation along with the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Boucher). This much-needed bipartisan legislation corrects a serious flaw in our Federal jurisdiction statutes. At present, those statutes forbid our Federal courts from hearing most interstate class actions, the lawsuits that involve more money and touch more Americans than virtually any other litigation pending in our legal system. Class actions of national importance should be heard in Federal court by a Federal judge, not by a State or county court judge in one region of the country. Why? Because the plaintiffs' attorneys choose from a very select number of courts around the country where the judges are known to be very favorable to class action lawsuits. Let me cite on example of a class action horror story. After being named in 23 class action lawsuits, Blockbuster agreed to provide class members with only $1-off coupons, buy-one-get-one-free coupons and free Blockbuster Favorites video rentals. Attorneys are reported to receive around $9.2 million in attorneys' fees. Cheerios, the gentleman from Wisconsin mentioned this recently, without any allegation of any harm to any of the plaintiffs in the case related to the ingredients of a box of Cheerios, the case was settled. For what? The opportunity for the customers to go out and get another box of Cheerios while their attorneys got $2 million. This is one of my favorites. In this case against Chase Manhattan Bank, the trial lawyers took $4 million in attorneys' fees and the plaintiffs in the case got, you can read it here, 33 cents. If you cannot read it, we will blow it up for you, 33 cents, while the plaintiffs' attorneys got $4 million in attorneys' fees. What does that amount to? There is a catch actually for getting your 33 cents. Because it took a 34-cent postage stamp to mail in the acceptance of the settlement. So actually you came up a penny short. But the trial lawyers did not. 4 million bucks. The Washington Post has it exactly right: ``Having invented a client, the lawyers also get to choose a court. Under the current absurd rules, national class actions can be filed in just about any court in the country. The lawyers cash in while the clients get coupons for product upgrades. It is a bad system, one that irrationally taxes companies in a fashion all but unrelated to the harm their products do and that provides nothing resembling justice to victims of actual corporate misconduct.'' The Rocky Mountain News put it even more to the point: ``Your lawyers have one more surprise for you after they bring these suits. You aren't eligible for the full settlement unless you also agree to spend some of your own money on those stores' products.'' That is exactly what happened in the Blockbuster case. That is exactly what happened in the airline case where the plaintiffs got a $25 coupon against a more-than-$250 airline ticket. In other words, you must reward the company that supposedly swindled you in order for it to be punished. It makes absolutely no sense except to the trial lawyer taking a very large attorney's fee. The Washington Post sums it all up with this statement: ``That it is controversial at all reflects less on its merit,'' referring to this legislation, ``as a proposal than on the grip that the trial lawyers have on many Democrats.'' I am pleased that many Democrats are going to vote for this legislation. I would invite the rest of them to come over and join us to make sure that we resolve this inequity where trial lawyers receive millions of dollars and American families receive pennies. That is what this legislation is all about. It is designed to make sure that the most complex litigation in the country is brought in the court where it belongs. Vote for this legislation.

Mr. GOODLATTE. I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. McInnis).

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding time. I want to compliment her and the other members of the Committee on Rules for fashioning a very fine and very fair rule to debate this important piece of litigation reform. I was pleased to hear the gentleman from Texas acknowledge the fairness of the rule, so I encourage all of my colleagues to support the rule when it comes up for a vote. But I would like to address the other issue the gentleman raised, and, that is to somehow try to associate this with Enron. Enron's class action lawsuit is already in Federal court. The fact of the matter is, it is in Federal court because the plaintiffs in that case chose to bring it there because it involves Federal questions and because it will be a better place to handle class action lawsuits because our Federal courts are designed to hear cases from plaintiffs and defendants from a multitude of jurisdictions. But the Enron case could have been brought in a State court in, say, Illinois where there might be a few Enron employees. It would not be appropriate for it to be heard there, but if it were brought there under diversity of jurisdiction and there were no means to remove it to Federal court, all of the gentleman from Texas' constituents in the State of Texas would be denied having an opportunity to have it heard in that court; whereas with this legislation, if it were brought in a State court where it was inappropriate to be brought, it could be easily removed to Federal court. This is not about Enron. What this is really about is fairness to American consumers. Let me give you some examples. Here is a case. This case shows what the trial lawyers received, $2 million in attorneys' fees, and the plaintiffs that they were representing, they got a coupon. A coupon for what? A box of Cheerios. Here is another one. In this case, the plaintiffs' attorneys received $100,000 in attorneys' fees and the plaintiffs got three golf balls. It gets better. In this particular case, the plaintiffs' attorneys, the trial lawyers, received $4 million in attorneys' fees and the plaintiffs each got a check for 33 cents. In case you cannot see the amount on this check, we blew it up for you. There it is: 33 cents. That is what the plaintiffs got while their attorneys got $4 million. There is a catch to it, though, for those desiring 33 cents because in order to get the 33 cents, they had to mail back in their acceptance of the settlement offer, which cost them 34 cents. So actually they came up a penny short in this particular class action lawsuit abuse. It goes on. Here is a settlement of a case against an airline that gave the class members a $25 coupon. That sounds pretty good. It is $25. It is better than 33 cents, but it is conditioned upon their purchasing an additional airline ticket for $250 or more. In other words, it is a coupon for a 10 percent reduction in your next airline ticket. What did the attorneys get? $16 million. This one is the best of all. A Bank of Boston settlement over disputed accounting practices produced $8.5 million in attorneys' fees. Later, the plaintiffs' attorneys in the case sued their own clients, the class members, for an additional $25 million in attorneys' fees, and the class members were required to pay $80 each for a settlement that netted the attorneys $8.5 million. This is not a Republican effort for reform. There are plenty of folks on both sides of the aisle here who support this, including those who subscribe to this distinguished publication, the Washington Post, where they said that the lawyers cash in while the clients get coupons for product upgrades. ``It's a bad system, one that irrationally taxes companies in a fashion all but unrelated to the harm their products do and that provides nothing resembling justice to victims of actual corporate misconduct.'' So, as a result of that which appeared on March 9, this past Saturday, the Post has endorsed this legislation. The Post went on to say, ``That it is controversial at all,'' referring to this legislation, ``reflects less on the merits as a proposal than on the grip that trial lawyers have on many Democrats.'' So I urge my colleagues on the other side to join the many who will join us in rejecting the idea that somehow we have to have a continuation of a simply bad Federal procedural rule that would allow these cases to be brought into Federal court when all we are trying to do is to correct a very serious problem of abuse. How does the abuse occur? The plaintiffs' attorneys, and they are good attorneys, they choose the jurisdiction in this country that they think best suits their likelihood of success in the case. That happens in every lawsuit. But in class action lawsuits involving hundreds of thousands or millions of plaintiffs, they can choose from 4,000 different jurisdictions in the country, and a handful of jurisdictions over and over and over again get the cases brought there because those judges are known to certify these classes far more readily than anybody else. Allowing removal of the case by either the plaintiffs or the defendants to Federal court will end this abuse because you will have a more uniform, more standard application of what it takes to certify a class. I urge my colleagues to support this rule and to support the underlying legislation.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Massachusetts has turned federalism and States' rights on their heads. This bill is about protecting the rights of States. It is absolutely wrong in a nationwide class action lawsuit for one party to be able to pick one State court judge in one State and have them come in and have them decide the law of the other 49 States; plus, this bill gives complete discretion to the trial judge to remand to the State courts those cases that the judge feels are truly State court matters, and State court matters that are exclusively in one jurisdiction cannot be removed. This is not about States' rights unless Members look at it from our standpoint.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his leadership on this critical issue, as well as the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell). As the third sponsor of this important bill after the gentleman from Michigan, I believe this legislation is long overdue. Back in 1999 I introduced, along with the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Boucher), legislation similar to H.R. 1542 that would have provided long-overdue regulatory parity for the Internet by lifting some of the discriminatory burdens on the incumbent telephone companies as they seek to provide broadband Internet services. We introduced this legislation because we believed then, and still believe now, that the government should not be in the position of picking winners or losers. There is no clearer example of the need to reexamine the unintended effects of laws enacted by Congress than to look at the inter-LATA restrictions and unbundling requirements placed on the phone companies in the 1996 Telecommunications Act. These requirements, intended to encourage competition in voice telephony, have been wrongly applied to the delivery of broadband Internet services by the incumbent telephone providers. This is especially true in rural areas like many parts of my district. The arrival of broadband Internet to rural areas is like the arrival of the railroad in the 19th century. If it ran through a town, that town was connected with the new economy; that town thrived. If it missed a town, that town was a ghost town. Support this legislation; do not turn rural America into a ghost town.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, no single issue will have a greater impact on the future of the Internet than the resolution of how the government will regulate conduct and content on the Internet. That is why I am introducing today, the ``Online Criminal Liability Standardization Act'', legislation that would create a uniform standard limiting service providers' liability for content that third parties have stored or placed on their systems. Criminal statutes regulating online criminal activity have taken varied approaches to the liability of service providers. This has created uncertainty for service providers as they wade through the myriad of criminal statutes and the various standards to which they are held liable. Service providers are expected to choose the correct law, from among many competing jurisdictions, and apply it to each of the millions of activities that occur daily on their networks. Instead of focusing on those who initiate or profit from illegal activity, some proposals would hold service providers criminally liable for the conduct, activities, and decisions of third parties who use their services. Under many of these proposals, culpability would arise regardless of whether a service provider has any relationship with the user or the offending site, or intends to facilitate the illegal activity. These approaches will not work. There are more effective and responsible ways to combat illegal conduct on the Internet. Instead of targeting service providers, solutions should focus on those who engage in unlawful activity. The ``Online Criminal Liability Standardization Act'' would amend the criminal code by clarifying that an interactive computer service provider would generally not be liable under federal criminal law for the actions of third party users. This limitation is narrowly constructed, however. First, it applies only to corporations and not to individuals, who perpetrate the vast majority of computer crimes. Second, it applies only to content provided by third parties--not to content that the provider creates or develops jointly with another person. Third, it applies only to communications functions performed in the ordinary course of the corporation's business--so that interactive computer services would not be protected if they undertook a new business venture that was illegal. Fourth, the limitation does not apply in instances where a senior employee of a corporation has actual knowledge of the illegal activity. Fifth, it does not apply to employees of a corporation who may engage in illegal activity. And finally, it does not apply to violations of federal criminal copyright laws. I urge each of my colleagues to support this important legislation to give service providers certainty and clarity by creating a uniform standard limiting service providers' liability for content that third parties have stored or placed on their systems.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for his kind words, but I especially thank him for his leadership on this issue. I also thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hall), the ranking Democrat; the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Crime, on which I serve; and the other cosponsors of this legislation for their leadership in getting this done. This is a serious problem in this country. We are vulnerable in many, many ways to cybercrime and cyberterrorism, and this legislation will help to cure that problem. We are not doing enough in the area of research in this area. We are most certainly not doing enough in the area of producing enough people to work in government and in the private sector to make sure that the computer infrastructure of this country is protected against hackers and criminals and terrorists. This legislation is going to provide more resources for those colleges and universities and other institutions that do this research and train the people. In this area, I have a university in my district, James Madison University, which has been identified by the National Security Agency as an institution of excellence in doing research and, more importantly, education in this area. But when they sit down to write the curriculum on how to prevent cybercrime, to teach people how to work for companies or the government in protecting the computer infrastructure, that curriculum does not even change on an annual basis, does not even change on a monthly basis. It changes on a weekly and daily basis as new information about viruses and other types of computer activity used by criminals and terrorists take place. So I am strongly supportive of this legislation. I look forward to developing more curricula around the country to educate people and provide the literally tens of thousands of new jobs we are going to need in this country in this field, and this legislation lays the groundwork. I commend the gentleman from New York and others for bringing this legislation forward, and I strongly urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce today legislation that represents a bipartisan effort to address the ever increasing problem of illegal Internet gambling in our Nation. The Internet is a revolutionary tool that dramatically affects the way we communicate, conduct business, and access information. As it knows no boundaries, the Internet is accessed by folks in rural and urban areas alike, in large countries as well as small. The Internet is currently expanding by leaps and bounds; however, it has not yet come close to reaching its true potential as a medium for commerce and communication. One of the main reasons that the Internet has not reached this potential is that many folks view it as a wild frontier, with no safeguards to protect children and very few legal protections to prevent online criminal activity. The ability of the World Wide Web to penetrate every home and community across the globe has both positive and negative implications--while it can be an invaluable source of information and means of communication, it can also override community values and standards, subjecting them to whatever may or may not be found online. In short, the Internet is a challenge to the sovereignty of civilized communities, States, and nations to decide what is appropriate and decent behavior. Gambling is an excellent example of this situation. It is currently illegal in the United States unless regulated by the States. As such, every state has gambling statutes to determine the type and amount of legal gambling permitted. With the development of the Internet, however, prohibitions and regulations governing gambling have been turned on their head. No longer do people have to leave the comfort of their homes and make the affirmative decision to travel to a casino-- they can access the casino from their living rooms. Since 1868, the federal government has enacted federal gambling statutes when a particular type of gambling activity has escaped the ability of states to regulate it. For over one hundred years, Congress has acted to assist states in enforcing their respective policies on gambling when developments in technology of an interstate nature, such as the Internet, have compromised the effectiveness of state gambling laws. The negative consequences of online gambling can be as detrimental to the families and communities of addictive gamblers as if a bricks and mortar casino was built right next door. Online gambling can result in addiction, bankruptcy, divorce, crime, and moral decline just as with traditional forms of gambling, the costs of which must ultimately be borne by society. Gambling on the Internet is especially enticing to youth, pathological gamblers, and criminals. There are currently no mechanisms in place to prevent youths--who make up the largest percentage of Internet users--from using their parents' credit card numbers to register and set up accounts for use at Internet gambling sites. In addition, pathological gamblers may become easily addicted to online gambling because of the Internet's easy access, anonymity and instant results. Dr. Howard J. Shaffer, director of addiction studies at Harvard, likens the Internet to new delivery forms of addictive drugs: ``As smoking crack cocaine changed the cocaine experience, I think electronics is going to change the way gambling is experienced.'' Finally, Internet gambling can provide a nearly undetectable harbor for criminal enterprises. The anonymity associated with the Internet makes online gambling more susceptible to crime. I have long been a champion of the Internet and an advocate of limited government regulation of this new medium. However, that does not mean that the Internet should be a regulatory free zone or that our existing laws should not apply to the Internet. I think we can all agree that it would be very bad public policy to allow offline activity deemed criminal by states to be freely committed online and to go unpunished simply because we are reluctant to apply our laws to the Internet. Gambling on the Internet has become an extremely lucrative business. Numerous studies have charted the explosive growth of this industry, both by the increases in gambling websites available, and via industry revenues. A study by the research group Christiansen/Cumming Associates estimated that between 1997 and 1998, Internet gambling more than doubled, from 6.9 million to 14.5 million gamblers, with revenues doubling from $300 million to $651 million. More recently, Bear, Stearns & Co. Inc. reported that there were at that time as many as 1,400 gambling sites, up from 700 just a year earlier. Other estimates indicate that Internet gambling could soon easily become a $10 billion a year industry. Most of the more than 1,400 Internet gambling sites are offshore. Virtual betting parlors accepting bets from individuals in the United States have attempted to avoid the application of United States law by locating themselves offshore and out of our jurisdictional reach. These offshore, fly-by-night Internet gambling operators are unlicensed, untaxed and unregulated and are sucking billions of dollars out of the United States. In addition, the FBI and the Department of Justice recently testified that Internet gambling serves as a vehicle for money laundering activities and can be exploited by terrorists to launder money. The FBI currently has at least two pending cases involving Internet gambling as a conduit for money laundering, as well as a number of pending cases linking Internet gambling to organized crime. Current law already prohibits gambling over telephone wires. However, because the Internet does not always travel over telephone wires, these laws, which were written before the invention of the World Wide Web, have become outdated. My legislation simply clarifies the state of the law by bringing the current prohibition against wireline interstate gambling up to speed with the development of new technology. In addition, my legislation will add a new provision to the law that would prohibit a gambling business from accepting certain forms of non- cash payment, including credit cards and electronic transfers, for the transmission of illegal bets and wagers. This provision provides an enforcement mechanism to address the situation where the gambling business is located offshore but the gambling business used bank accounts in the United States. The bill also provides an additional tool to fight illegal gambling by giving Federal, State, local and tribal law enforcement new injunctive authority to prevent and restrain violations of the law. The legislation I am introducing will return control to the states by protecting the right of citizens in each State to decide through their State legislatures if they want to allow gambling within their borders and not have that right taken away by offshore, fly-by-night operators. The regulation of intrastate gambling is within the jurisdiction of the states, so the bill leaves the regulation of wholly intrastate betting or wagering to the states with tight controls to be sure that such betting or wagering does not extend beyond their borders or to minors. The 104th Congress created the National Gambling Impact Study Commission and charged it with conducting a comprehensive legal and factual study of gambling, including an assessment of the interstate and international effects of gambling by electronic means, including the use of interactive technologies and the Internet. The Commission recommended to Congress that federal legislation is needed to halt the expansion of Internet gambling and to prohibit wire transfers to known Internet gambling sites, or the banks who represent them. As the National Gambling Impact Study Commission has documented, and Senate and House hearings have confirmed, Internet gambling is growing at an explosive rate. It evades existing anti-gambling laws, endangers children in the home, promotes compulsive gambling among adults, preys on the poor, and facilitates fraud. The ``Combating Illegal Gambling Reform and Modernization Act'' will put a stop to this harmful activity before it spreads further. I urge my colleagues to support this very important legislation.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 1552, the Internet Tax Nondiscrimination Act, and I commend the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) for championing this legislation to keep the Internet free from unfair and burdensome taxation. I also commend the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) and the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Barr) for advancing this important legislation through the Committee on the Judiciary. The Internet Tax Fairness Act of 1998 created a moratorium on Internet access taxes and multiple and discriminatory taxes. As a result of this moratorium, the Internet has remained relatively free from the burdens of new taxes. However, the moratorium is set to expire in 5 days, subjecting the Internet to possible taxation from more than 7,500 taxing jurisdictions. If the moratorium is permitted to expire, it will send a signal to each of these taxing jurisdictions that the Internet is fair game for unfair and discriminatory taxation. This is a serious threat to our efforts to ensure that the Internet continues to expand and grow. Congress created the Advisory Commission on Electronic Commerce in 1998 to study Internet taxation and submit a report of its findings to Congress. In its report, the Commission recommended that the Internet tax moratorium be extended. Following the advice of the Commission, the Internet Tax Nondiscrimination Act will extend the current moratorium for 2 years, protecting millions of Internet users from unfair and discriminatory taxes, and from taxes on their monthly Internet access charges. These types of taxes are some of the most regressive. If we increase the cost of accessing the Internet by charging an access tax, those that will be hit the hardest will be those in the lowest income brackets, which will widen the digital divide. An increase in the cost of Internet access is a serious impediment to those individuals having access to the benefits of the Internet, such as on-line education, commerce and communication. In the words of President Reagan, ``The government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. If it stops moving, subsidize it.'' That should not be the model for growth of the Internet. It is clear if the potential of the Internet is to be fully realized, we must allow it to continue to flourish by ensuring that the qualities that made the Internet a revolutionary tool for both business and consumers, freedom from burdensome government regulations and taxation, remain fundamental components of the Internet for future generations. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to continue to ensure that the Internet remains free from restrictive taxation by joining me in voting for the Internet Tax Nondiscrimination Act.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, the recent attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon have permanently changed America. September 11, 2001, was the clarion call to arms in a new war against terrorism. Our law enforcement operatives will need new tools to fight this war, and Congress must respond. The world we live in since September 11 will require us to be more patient, to be more careful, and to tolerate more inconveniences. However, we must be careful not to trade our personal freedoms for the promise of security. Once we have sacrificed the civil liberties that our Nation was founded on, then and only then have we allowed terrorism to defeat us. I would like to commend the gentleman from Wisconsin (Chairman Sensenbrenner) and the other members of the committee for their dedication to crafting a bipartisan bill that will give law enforcement the tools it needs to fight a war on terrorism while still protecting the civil liberties of Americans. The bill was unanimously passed out of the Committee on the Judiciary and is a product of much deliberation and compromise. While not perfect, it achieves a difficult balance between providing law enforcement with the tools it needs to wage an effective war against terrorism and the protection of American's civil liberties. The version that has been brought to the floor of the House does not contain everything that I would like it to contain that was in the Committee on the Judiciary version, but it is still a strong and solid bill; and I commend the chairman and the ranking member for their work to incorporate as much of the committee's language into this final product as possible. I urge Members to support this legislation. The recent attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon have permanently changed America. September 11, 2001 was the clarion call to arms in a new war against terrorism. Our law enforcement operatives will need new tools to fight this war and Congress must respond. The world that we live in since September 11th will require us to be more patient, to be more careful and to tolerate more inconveniences. However, we must be careful not to trade our personal freedoms for the promise of security. Once we have sacrificed the civil liberties that our Nation was founded on, then and only then have we allowed terrorism to defeat us. I would like to commend Chairman Sensenbrenner and Ranking Member Conyers for their dedication to crafting a bipartisan bill that would give law enforcement the tools it needs to fight a war on terrorism while still protecting the civil liberties of Americans. The bill that was unanimously passed out of the Judiciary Committee is the product of much deliberation and compromise. While not perfect, it achieves a difficult balance between providing law enforcement with the tools it needs to wage an effective war against terrorism and the protection of American's civil liberties. The PATRIOT Act clarifies that orders for the installation of pen register and trap and trace devices apply to a broad variety of communications technologies, including the Internet. An issue of particular concern to me that was raised during the crafting of the Judiciary-passed bill is the clarification that these devices may not capture content information. I commend the Chairman and Ranking Member for including statutory language in the Judiciary bill that makes this clarification. Language stating that these devices may not capture the contents of any communication is also included in the bill that is before us today.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for his hard work on this legislation, as well as the ranking member. If I might ask the chairman, it is my understanding from committee staff that the report language which was very important in the way the committee crafted this legislation in clarifying certain points, that the rule is written so that that report language will be incorporated into the final product that will be reported from the House.

Mr. GOODLATTE. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 1992, the Internet Equity and Education Act offered by my friend, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Isakson). I commend the gentleman and the gentleman from California (Chairman McKeon) and the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Boehner) for their work in moving this important legislation through the subcommittee and the full committee. They have the far-sighted appreciation for what Web-based education promises people all across this country, especially people in a district like mine, which comprises a vast rural area and smaller cities, and especially people in innercities. This is a tremendous opportunity to bring educational opportunities to the people. As many of us know, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Isakson) dutifully chaired the Web-based Education Commission that was authorized by Congress in 1998. This commission was charged with discovering how the Internet was being used to enhance learning opportunities for all, no small duty, considering the rapidly changing environment of the Internet and different learning experiences for students of all ages. As elementary and secondary schools experience growing enrollments, shortages of teachers and higher demands, college campuses also face obstacles. Many colleges in my district face ever-increasing growth in student enrollment. All of these institutions seek to provide access to the Internet and tools for the information age. Unfortunately, the Federal Government has struggled to establish a framework that accommodates the future of the Internet for post-secondary institutions. Madam Speaker, today Congress has the ability to knock down barriers that limit access to higher education. This bill will expand opportunities for nontraditional students and give other students greater access to the availability of post-secondary education programs. H.R. 1992 will allow institutions to offer more than 50 percent of their classes by telecommunications. While opponents fear abuse of the system or fraud by negligent institutions, the Committee on Education and the Workforce came up with a good solution to this concern. This 50 percent rule will only apply to programs whose student loan-default rate is less than 10 percent for the 3 most recent years. H.R. 1992 also allows institutions to notify the Secretary of Education if they intend to offer an eligible program with less than 12 scheduled hours of instruction per week. This provision will eliminate a Department rule that established a Federal standard for classroom instruction. This change only seems necessary due to the changing landscape of distance learning and post-secondary education. Madam Speaker, when the regulatory process fails to address the needs of a changing environment, it is Congress' duty to step in and make necessary changes. H.R. 1992 addresses these needs and does so in a way to ensure accountability. I ask my colleagues to support this legislation and to oppose the substitute.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Kind amendment. I want to commend the gentleman from Florida for his comments, because I think they help us to focus on what our farm bill is really about. It is about American workers and American consumers. That is how I think we have to examine this amendment. In my opinion, this amendment is going to do great harm to the American workers that the gentleman from Florida just spoke to but also to the American consumer. The reason is this: This farm bill is dedicated to the proposition that America is a land that has been noted throughout its history for producing the greatest, most abundant, safest and most affordable food supply anywhere in the world. That is what this bill is designed to do. The Kind amendment will have a devastating effect on our ability to hold down food prices in this country because we will do something that is totally inappropriate. The base bill has an 80 percent increase in programs that promote conservation in this country, and that is good. Nobody in this room does not want to protect our environment. But when you increase that money by 400 or more percent, you are wasting that money. You are using it in ways that will take land out of agricultural production unnecessarily and increase the cost of producing grains and other food items across this country. My farmers in Virginia, by and large, are those very folks that have been described here today who have another job in town and spend a good deal of their time attempting to make some living off of the agricultural production they have. They are mostly cattle farmers, dairy farmers, and the largest production in my district is poultry, chickens, and turkeys. Now, these folks, in order to have a profitable livelihood, spend the vast amount of the cost of their production on buying grains from Midwestern farmers. When the price of those grains goes up because the amount of production is down, then the cost that they have to spend goes up; and for a poultry farmer, 80 percent of what they spend their money on are grains. When they do that, when the price of grain goes up, it devastates the profitability to them. That in turn results in increased costs. Whether it is a product that directly comes from the grain, like bread and pasta and so on, or whether it is a meat product that is fed by those grains, either way the cost to the consumer goes up significantly with this amendment. The second reason I oppose this amendment is that we are attempting to rewrite the farm bill here on the floor, when we could have had the opportunity to debate this in the committee. The amendment was discussed and withdrawn, and it was not voted on. We did not get a vote, as the gentleman from Illinois accurately portrayed earlier, from the 51 members of the Committee on Agriculture, to see what America's farmers feel. Some here have stood up and said we are doing this for the farmers. The 51 members of that committee represent America's farmers as well as anybody, and I can tell you this amendment was withdrawn because it would have had no chance of success in that committee. Finally, I am the chairman of the Subcommittee on Department Operations, Oversight, Nutrition and Forestry; and I want to say that this amendment would have a devastating impact upon the forestry programs that have been built into the farm bill. For the first time we have a significant increase in the attention we are paying to the management of our forest lands, both public and private. This bill does the private part of that. The amendment has redundant programs. The amendment has changes in it that eliminate important accountability requirements. Existing easement and cost-share forestry programs and the FLEP program require the involvement of the State foresters and the stewardship coordinating committee, made up of a broad cross-section of conservationists. These programs secure State, community, and local support for their objectives. The Boehlert-Kind approach gives the authority to Washington. It ignores local priorities and has no reporting mechanism to tell Congress what they achieve. This is not good government, it is not even good conservation, and it is certainly not a good use of the taxpayers' limited dollars. The Watershed Forestry Initiative contained in the amendment limits the practices available to land managers to achieve their goals. Forestry management is extremely complex and varies tremendously across the country. I urge my colleagues to retain that flexibility included in the underlying bill to promote good conservation with a reasonable increase in that conservation, but, most importantly, to look after the consumer and the American worker.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Michigan for yielding and for his leadership in bringing forth this resolution which I strongly support, and I do so for several reasons. First, I represent a district from rural areas and smaller cities. We do not have a large number of Arab Americans in my district. But perhaps that is all the more reason to support it. Imagine living in an area where you have come to experience the freedom and democracy and economic opportunity and live in an area where there are few other people with whom you might identify based upon your religion or your ethnic heritage. It is all the more important that we strike a blow for that very freedom, that very principle in all parts of our country. Second, this is the founding principle upon which our country was founded. People fled all parts of the world to come here to experience religious freedom and freedom from tyranny. And so many of the people who have come here from Middle Eastern lands and other lands with a Muslim heritage have done so because others in those lands have mistreated them and have not lived by the principles that we espouse in this country. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, I believe that the very success of the endeavor that we are now undertaking, which I think will be a long-term endeavor, to root out terrorism and to respond to those who have caused this hateful, devastating, despicable disaster that has taken place in this country. If we are truly going to be successful, we have to send the message that we are not directing this at anybody because of their religious beliefs or because of their ethnic heritage, we are directing this against terrorists. If we do not have that message, not only with Arab Americans in this country but with those of that background across the entire world, we will face a far greater maelstrom as we go along. We must convince the people of the world that we are directing this as peace-loving people against those who would take away that peace and that freedom from us. If we do not convey that message, then we will be all the longer in struggling with the crisis that we face today. So I am very, very strongly resolved with the President and with every Member of this body that we are going to very forcefully respond to the terrorists who caused this despicable act. I also think we have to at the same time send forth a message that we are doing this as freedom- loving Americans who respect all other Americans and are not doing this directed at anybody from anywhere in the world simply because of their heritage or religious beliefs.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution authorizing the use of force. The recent attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon leave our Nation horrified and angry. Our hearts grieve for the victims and for families who have lost loved ones to these acts of terrorism. But through this tragedy, we will see America at her finest. The wave of patriotism rising across the Nation exposes a fierce determination that we will not back down in the face of cowardly attacks. These attacks are solemn reminders that there are people who begrudge America for her stands for democracy and freedom. I fully support President Bush in his pledge to hunt down those responsible for these despicable actions and hold them accountable, and we must hold no distinction for these despicable terrorists and the countries that protect them. Mr. Speaker, may God bless America.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, as we adopt this resolution today condemning the attacks against the United States, words cannot adequately express the sorrow and anger we feel at this trying time. Our hearts grieve for the families of those who have been lost to these acts of terrorism, but the depth of that grief is difficult to fully comprehend. The sight of thousands of people spontaneously gathering at places of worship yesterday gives us just a glimpse of the compassion in the hearts of the folks around the country. But beneath that compassion burns a white hot anger. It burns with a fury that begs to be unleashed on the perpetrators of this act of war. Because we must make no mistake about it, September 11, 2001, was the clarion call to arms in a new war against terrorism. It will be unlike any war America has ever fought. The enemy is nameless, faceless, and operates without borders. We use words like barbaric and cowardly to describe this enemy, but we must also recognize that this evil operates with cunning and sophistication. They have the advantage of stealth, and we must recognize that this enemy will continue their efforts until they understand that America will never, ever cease to be a beacon of hope and freedom to the world. To those responsible for these acts of evil committed yesterday, look closely at the American faces you see on the screen. Look at the firefighters and police who risked and gave their lives yesterday. Look at the faces of the medical personnel who work through the danger and exhaustion to save lives. Look at the faces of the many Americans who are waiting in line for hours to give blood or donate their time and energies to defeating you. And look at the faces here in this House, united in our resolve. We are defenders of a Nation built on principles that can never be destroyed and never be extinguished. We will find you. We will defeat you. And at that point, you will know America's dedication to ensuring that freedom and democracy will ultimately prevail over evil and terror. God bless America.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. I rise today in support of the Barcia/Latourette amendment to HR 2620. This amendment would increase the bills funding for EPA Water Improvement Grants--with the intention that these funds would be used for grants for combined sewer overflows. Mr. Chairman, the condition of our Nation's wastewater collection and treatment facilities is alarming. In its 1999 clear water needs survey, the EPA estimated that nearly $200 billion will be needed over the next 20 years to address wastewater infrastructure problems in our communities. In Lynchburg, Virginia, the cost of improving 174 miles of combined sewers that serve 11.4 square miles exceeds $275 million in 2000 dollars. This equates to $16,875 per ratepayer in a city whose average income is $27,500. These CSO improvements are by far the largest capital projects the city has ever undertaken. Given this great need, I believe the Federal Government has a responsibility to assist communities that are trying to fix their problems and comply with Federal water quality mandates. I strongly urge my colleagues to adopt this amendment which will increase funding for the Clean Water Revolving Loan Program and help cities in need of meeting Federal mandates.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce today, along with my good friend, Mr. Boucher, the Internet Tax Fairness Act of 2001. This much-needed bipartisan legislation permanently extends the current moratorium on Internet access taxes and multiple and discriminatory taxes. In addition, this legislation clarifies state and local authority to collect business activity taxes from out-of-state entities. As many of you know, the Internet Tax Fairness Act of 1998 created a moratorium on Internet access taxes and multiple and discriminatory taxes. As a result of this moratorium, the Internet has remained relatively free from the burdens of new taxes. However, the moratorium is set to expire in October, subjecting the Internet to possible taxation from more than 7,500 taxing jurisdictions. We must continue to ensure that the Internet remains free from restrictive taxation by making the tax moratorium permanent. In addition, many States and some local governments levy corporate income and franchise taxes on companies that either operate or 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. Supreme Court precedent is clear that a state cannot impose a tax on an out-of-state business unless that business has a ``substantial nexus'' with the taxing state. In addition, over forty years ago, Congress passed legislation to ensure that states could not tax the income of out-of-state corporations whose in-state presence was minimal. Public Law 86-272 set uniform, national standards for when states could and could not impose such taxes. However, like the economy of the time, Public Law 86-272 was limited to tangible personal property. With the growth of the Internet, companies are increasingly able to conduct transactions without the constraint of geopolitical boundaries. The increasing rate of interstate and international business-to- business and business-to-consumer transactions raises questions over states' ability to collect income taxes from companies conducting business within their jurisdiction. Over the past several years, a growing number of states have sought to collect business activity taxes from businesses located in other states, even though those businesses receive no appreciable benefits from the collecting states and even though the Supreme Court has ruled that the Constitution prohibits a state (without the consent of Congress) from imposing tax 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 this period where the rapid growth of e-commerce will shape the economy of the 21st century, this expansion of the States' power to impose business activity taxes, left unchecked, will have a chilling effect on e-commerce, interstate commerce generally, and the entire economy as tax burdens, compliance costs, litigation, and uncertainty escalate. Accordingly, the second recommendation of the Advisory Commission on Electronic Commerce majority was that Congress establish national standards for when states can impose business activity taxes. That is why we are introducing this important legislation today. The Internet Tax Fairness Act establishes definite, specific standards to govern when businesses should be obliged to pay business activity taxes, which will ensure fairness, minimize litigation, and create the kind of legally certain and stable business climate which encourages businesses to make business 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 substantial physical presence in the state. I urge each of my colleagues to support this very important bipartisan legislation.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary for yielding me this time and for his leadership on this issue as we once again try to set the record straight. This has been a great debate, but I have been appalled by some on the other side who have suggested that the flag amendment is going to change the Bill of Rights to our Constitution. It does nothing of the sort. Our Founding Fathers wrote the Bill of Rights, including the first amendment, exactly right; and this amendment does not change that in any way. What did change the first amendment was a misinterpretation of that amendment by a 5 to 4 decision of the Supreme Court. One vote changed 200 years of American history. One vote changed 48 States' and the Federal Government's flag protection anti-desecration laws, and all we are trying to do is set the record straight. We have been asked to do that by 49 State legislatures; 80 percent of the American people in poll after poll show their support for this amendment, and this is a bipartisan effort. The U.S. Supreme Court has historically shared our view. Such great champions of civil liberty and free expression as Hugo Black and Earl Warren when they served on the Supreme Court made clear their beliefs that flag desecration was not protected by the first amendment. As Justice Black stated, ``It passes my belief that anything in the Federal Constitution bars making the deliberate burning of the American flag an offense.'' So we are simply setting the record straight. As Chief Justice William Rehnquist said in his dissenting opinion, ``Surely one of the high purposes of a democratic society is to legislate against conduct that is regarded as evil and profoundly offensive to the majority of people, whether it be murder, embezzlement, pollution or flag burning.'' Burning the flag is not speech deserving protection. It is a despicable act. I urge my colleagues to support this constitutional amendment.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce today, along with my good friends from Virginia, Mr. Boucher and Mr. Moran, and the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Mr. Sensenbrenner, the Class Action Fairness Act of 2001. This much-needed bipartisan legislation corrects a serious flaw in our federal jurisdiction statutes. At present, those statutes forbid our federal courts from hearing most interstate class actions--the lawsuits that involve more money and touch more Americans than virtually any other litigation pending in our legal system. The class action device is a necessary and important part of our legal system. It promotes efficiency by allowing plaintiffs with similar claims to adjudicate their cases in one proceeding. It also allows claims to be heard in cases where there are small harms to a large number of people, which would otherwise go unaddressed because the cost to the individuals suing could far exceed the benefit to the individual. However, class actions have been used with an increasing frequency and in ways that do not promote the interests they were intended to serve. In recent years, state courts have been flooded with class actions. As a result of the adoption of different class action certification standards in the various states, the same class might be certifiable in one state and not another, or certifiable in state court but not in federal court. This creates the potential for abuse of the class action device, particularly when the case involves parties from multiple states or requires the application of the laws of many states. For example, some state courts routinely certify classes before the defendant is even served with a complaint and given a chance to defend itself. Other state courts employ very lax class certification criteria, rendering virtually any controversy subject to class action treatment. There are instances where a state court, in order to certify a class, has determined that the law of that state applies to all claims, including those of purported class members who live in other jurisdictions. This has the effect of making the law of that state applicable nationwide. The existence of state courts which broadly apply class certification rules encourages plaintiffs to forum shop for the court which is most likely to certify a purported class. In addition to forum-shopping, parties frequently exploit major loopholes in federal jurisdiction statutes to block the removal of class actions that belong in federal court. For example, plaintiffs' counsel may name parties that are not really relevant to the class claims in an effort to destroy diversity. In other cases, counsel may waive federal law claims or shave the amount of damages claimed to ensure that the action will remain in state court. Another problem created by the ability of state courts to certify class actions which adjudicate the rights of citizens of many states is that often times more than one case involving the same class is certified at the same time. In the federal court system, those cases involving common questions of fact may be transferred to one district for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings. When these class actions are pending in state courts, however, there is no corresponding mechanism for consolidating the competing suits. Instead, a settlement or judgment in any of the cases makes the other class actions moot. This creates an incentive for each class counsel to obtain a quick settlement of the case, and an opportunity for the defendant to play the various class counsel against each other and drive the settlement value down. The loser in this system is the class member whose claim is extinguished by the settlement, at the expense of counsel seeking to be the one entitled to recovery of fees. Our bill is designed to prevent these abuses by allowing large interstate class action cases to be heard in federal court. It would expand the statutory diversity jurisdiction of the federal courts to allow class action cases involving minimal diversity--that is, when any plaintiff and any defendant are citizens of different states--to be brought in or removed to federal court. Article III of the Constitution empowers Congress to establish federal jurisdiction over diversity cases--cases ``between citizens of different States.'' The grant of federal diversity jurisdiction was premised on concerns that state courts might discriminate against out of state defendants. In a class action, only the citizenship of the named plaintiffs is considered for determining diversity, which means that federal diversity jurisdiction will not exist if the named plaintiff is a citizen of the same state as the defendant, regardless of the citizenship of the rest of the class. Congress also imposes a monetary threshold--now $75,000--for federal diversity claims. However, the amount in controversy requirement is satisfied in a class action only if all of the class members are seeking damages in excess of the statutory minimum. These jurisdictional statutes were originally enacted years ago, well before the modern class action arose, and they now lead to perverse results. For example, under current law, a citizen of one state may bring in federal court a simple $75,001 slip-and-fall claim against a party from another state. But if a class of 25 million product owners living in all 50 states brings claims collectively worth $15 billion against the manufacturer, the lawsuit usually must be heard in state court. This result is certainly not what the framers had in mind when they established federal diversity jurisdiction. Our bill offers a solution by making it easier for plaintiff class members and defendants to remove class actions to federal court, where cases involving multiple state laws are more appropriately heard. Under our bill, if a removed class action is found not to meet the requirements for proceeding on a class basis, the federal court would dismiss the action without prejudice and the action could be refiled in state court. In addition, the bill provides a number of new protections for plaintiff class members including a requirement that notices sent to class members be written in ``plain English'' and provide essential information that is easily understood. Furthermore, the bill provides judicial scrutiny for settlements that provide class members only coupons as relief for their injuries, and bars approval of settlements in which class members suffer a net loss. The bill also includes provisions that protect consumers from being disadvantaged by living far away from the courthouse. These additional consumer protections will ensure that class action lawsuits benefit the consumers they are intended to compensate. This legislation does not limit the ability of anyone to file a class action lawsuit. It does not change anybody's rights to recovery. Our bill specifically provides that it will not alter the substantive law governing any claims as to which jurisdiction is conferred. Our legislation merely closes the loophole, allowing federal courts to hear big lawsuits involving truly interstate issues, while ensuring that purely local controversies remain in state courts. This is exactly what the framers of the Constitution had in mind when they established federal diversity jurisdiction. I urge each of my colleagues to support this very important bipartisan legislation.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon) for his forbearance. I am trying to be too many places at one time today. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise today in support of legislation that I have introduced to name the United States Post Office at 419 Rutherford Avenue in Roanoke, Virginia, for my good friend, former Congressman M. Caldwell Butler. Congressman Butler is a gentleman whom I greatly admire. He served as a United States Naval officer in World War II. He received his undergraduate degree from the University of Richmond in 1948 where he was elected to Phi Beta Kappa and Omicron Delta Kappa. In 1950, he received a law degree from the University of Virginia School of Law where he was elected to the Order of the Coif, and in 1978 he received an honorary degree of Doctor of Laws from my alma mater, Washington and Lee University. Mr. Butler served with distinction in the Virginia House of Delegates from 1962 until 1972, where he was the minority leader. He practiced law in Roanoke from 1950 until his election to Congress in 1972. He served five full terms in the House of Representatives, representing the Sixth District of Virginia. It was my privilege to serve as Congressman Butler's district director from 1977 until 1979. While in Congress, Mr. Butler was a member of the House Committee on the Judiciary and the Government Operations Committee. His start in Congress was memorable. As a member of the House Committee on the Judiciary, he was part of the panel that conducted impeachment hearings involving President Richard Nixon. Following his service to our Nation, Mr. Butler returned to his home in Roanoke to practice law as a partner in the firm of Woods, Rogers & Hazelgrove, which he continued to do until his retirement in 1998. In addition, he contributed his expertise on a national level by serving as a member of the National Bankruptcy Review Commission from 1995 until 1997. Mr. Butler is a pillar of Roanoke's civic organizations, serving as a member of the board of directors of the John Marshall Foundation and the board of trustees of the Virginia Historical Society, a fellow of the American Bar Foundation, a fellow of the American College of Bankruptcy, and a fellow of the Virginia Law Foundation. Mr. Butler has shown great leadership and personal integrity in his service as a member of the Virginia General Assembly and as a United States Congressman. It is with great pleasure that I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring a true public servant by supporting legislation that will make Roanoke, Virginia, home to the M. Caldwell Butler Post Office Building.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Emergency Food Assistance Enhancement Act. My bill increases commodity purchases for The Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP) to help emergency feeding organizations--food banks, food pantries, soup kitchens--meet the needs of their communities. It also provides more federal support for the cost of storing, transporting, and distributing food donated to these organizations by the federal government and private sources. A total of up to $40 million a year of money that is not being used for employment and training programs is earmarked for these food purchases and handling costs, in addition to the $100 million a year now set aside for TEFAP food purchases and $45 million a year appropriated for storage, transportation, and distribution costs. Food banks and other organizations meet the needs of their communities by managing donations from the government and private sectors, and most government donations are from TEFAP. It is a unique program that has the ability to provide nutritious domestic food products to needy Americans, while at the same time providing direct support to the agriculture community. Although federal food donations through the TEFAP are not the only source of the food distributed by food banks and others, they are key because they provide distributing agencies with some certainty as to their inventory and contribute greatly to the variety of food items that are offered. TEFAP grants for storage, transportation, and distribution costs also enable these agencies to efficently handle a large volume of federal and private donations. In the 1996 welfare reform act, Congress made TEFAP commodity purchases mandatory because of the integral role it has in providing food aid to needy families and individuals. TEFAP benefits are a quick fix, something to get families through tough times. TEFAP gives them the support they need, but it doesn't catch them in a cycle of dependency. These food purchases also provide much needed support to the agriculture community. While other food assistance programs are much larger, TEFAP purchases have a much more direct impact on agriculture producers. The 1997 Balanced Budget Act included hundreds of millions of dollars for employment and training programs aimed at able-bodied adults between the ages of 18 and 50 without dependents whose eligibility for food stamps was restricted by a work requirement set up in the 1996 welfare reform law. The bulk of the money is dedicated to employment/ training programs that keep unemployed able-bodied adults on the food stamp rolls, if they participate. But much of it is going unspent. Several hearings and reports have said that this money is unspent because few are taking advantage of employment and training assistance offered through the Food Stamp program; states running the program are not seeing a demand and are not drawing on this funding. The unused pool of employment and training money now tops $200 million, and continues to grow. At the same time, food banks and other emergency food providers report increased demand from this group and others. Why not put the money where the need is? The Secretary of Agriculture continually reviews states' spending of their Food Stamp program allocations for employment and training programs. If a state doesn't use the money allocated to it, the Secretary can reallocate it to another state that can use it. My bill does nothing to change or restrict this authority. It simply allows the Secretary to tap up to $40 million a year in unspent and unreallocated employment and training funds for TEFAP commodity purchases and storage, transportation, and distribution costs. Mr. Speaker, I am hopeful that the Emergency Food Assistance Enhancement Act will enjoy resounding and rapid support from the full House of Representatives. It is important that we increase commodity purchases for this important program and help emergency food providers handle the maximum volume of food donations possible.