Bob Goodlatte

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Agriculture be discharged from further consideration of the bill (H.R. 4285) to authorize the Secretary of Agriculture to convey certain administrative sites for National Forest System lands in the State of Texas, to convey certain National Forest System land to the New Waverly Gulf Coast Trades Center, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder) for yielding me the time and commend him for his effort. I strongly support his amendment. This is something that would make it absolutely clear that the taxpayers' dollars, no matter what taxpayers' dollars those might be, cannot be used to provide needles to drug addicts to participate in an illegal activity. We should not tell our children do not do drugs on the one hand while giving them free needles to shoot up with on the other. We need a national drug control policy which emphasizes education, interdiction, prevention and treatment, not subsidies for addicts. Providing free hypodermic needles to addicts so that they can continue to inject illegal drugs sends a terrible message to our children that Congress has given up on the fight to stop illegal drug use and that the Federal Government implicitly condones this illegal activity. As lawmakers, we have a responsibility to rise up and fight against the use and spread of drugs everywhere we can. We should start by making it harder, not easier, to practice this deadly habit. This amendment will reaffirm the Federal Government's commitment to the war on drugs by prohibiting Federal and District funds from being used to conduct needle exchange programs in the District of Columbia. These programs are harmful to communities and undermine our Nation's drug control efforts. Drug abuse continues to ravage our communities, our schools, and our children. Heroin use is again on the rise. Thousands of children will inject hard-core drugs like heroin and cocaine. The first year, many will die. Oppose the effort to have needle exchanges. Support the Souder amendment.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to first thank the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Largent) for yielding this time to me, but, more importantly, for his leadership in combatting the serious problem of child sexual abuse and pornography in this country, particularly the explosion that has taken place with the advent of the Internet. The Internet is one of the most wonderful developments that we have experienced in the history of this country and the history of mankind. It allows people the opportunity to learn, to experience new things, to have educational opportunities, business opportunities, opportunities to shop on-line. We want people to use the Internet. We want them to feel safe in doing so, but one of the biggest businesses on the Internet is that of obscenity, of hard-core pornography. There are thousands of sites, estimates range from 40,000 to 100,000 sites. And the gentleman's legislation is designed to provide the resources to law enforcement to combat this problem. He has been very supportive of efforts that I have initiated to combat this by giving grants to local law enforcement agencies. This $5 million goes to the Department of Justice for funding for the child exploitation and obscenity section of the Department. The monies would be authorized only for prosecutions under title 18, chapter 71, obscenity. Federal statutes make it illegal to transport obscenity. Obscenity has been defined by the Supreme Court and is not protected by the first amendment. The amount of material on the Internet is growing exponentially. Law enforcement was doing a pretty good job until a decade or so ago of working with postal authorities and so on to deal with this, of shutting down some adult book stores in many parts of the country. It was a battle that we were in some respects winning. The Internet has changed that. The feeling that some people have that they are so anonymous they can be in their home viewing this material creates a serious problem, and it is a problem that is not simply a matter of looking at pictures of women under certain circumstances. It is pictures of children engaged in sexual activities, best described to me by a law enforcement officer who said that child pornography is viewing a crime in the process of being committed. It is entirely appropriate that we devote these resources to this. The prosecutions for obscenity have dropped dramatically over the last 8 years. The excuse used by the Justice Department is they do not have the resources. Let us change that today by making sure that they have adequate resources to prosecute these people who would prey on our children. Estimates are as high as 400,000 children who are victims of child pornography in this country. I urge my colleagues to support this excellent legislation.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I think the best response to the comments of the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) would come from the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) who has played a critical role in making it absolutely clear that the language in this bill does not provide any exemptions. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) the chairman of the Subcommittee on Telecommunications, Trade and Consumer Protection, a subcommittee of the Committee on Commerce.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. First, let me respond to the gentleman from California for whom I have great respect but with whom I must disagree on every single point raised. This legislation does not treat online gambling unfairly compared to offline gambling. In fact, the activities complained of have been going on on the telephone lines for decades and this legislation is simply designed to bring the Wire Act, written in 1961 when the Wire Act was a good description of telecommunications in this country, into the modern age when telecommunications takes on a whole host of different ramifications, including the Internet. It does not in any way expand gambling on the Internet. We have made that perfectly clear time and time again. Why else would the National Coalition Against Gambling Expansion support this legislation? The bill retrenches gambling on the Internet by fighting 700 online cybercasinos, by giving law enforcement new tools to deal with sports betting online, by stopping the efforts of some who stand to make tens of millions of dollars selling services to State lotteries to sell tickets online in people's homes. I want to make the point perfectly clear that we do not tell the States that they cannot use the Internet. We simply say that when they use the Internet, they have to use it in public places, like convenience stores or other places where children can be screened out and they cannot buy tickets online as they could at home. That is why the Home School Legal Defense Association supports the legislation, the Southern Baptist Convention supports it, and many, many other religious and family organizations. Furthermore, we do not require Internet service providers to police the Internet. We simply require them to cooperate with law enforcement. And we do not require them to shut down suspected sites, because the bill provides due process requirements of notice and hearing before a judge, and a judge finding that an action should be taken before an Internet service provider can be required to take down or block a site. The legislation has been carefully crafted to be sensitive to the Internet industry, which I am very supportive of. After all, I am the chairman of the Congressional Internet Caucus and have worked on many issues with the gentleman and others to promote the Internet. But one way to promote the Internet is to make sure that the seamy side of life is dealt with on the Internet. Just like child pornography has to be dealt with on the Internet, so does unregulated, out-of-control, illegal gambling. That is why the National Collegiate Athletic Association, the National Football League, Major League Baseball, the National Hockey League, and the National Basketball Association support this legislation because of the renewed threat to amateur and professional sports in America brought on by an incredible explosion in gambling and sports betting because of the Internet. These new tools are needed by law enforcement. That is why the National Association of Attorneys General have asked us for this legislation. That is why I ask my colleagues to support it. It is also important to note that this legislation treats Indian gaming fairly. Every word in this legislation has been signed off on by the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), the chairman of the Committee on Resources. I urge my colleagues to support this effective legislation to fight gambling on the Internet.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3125) to prohibit Internet gambling, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes. Mr. Speaker, the Internet Gambling Prohibition Act is designed to respond to a major scourge on the Internet. There are now, more than 700 unregulated out-of-control Internet casino-style gambling sites on the Internet. Sports betting may be even larger than the casino gambling. The proposals now, not by any of the States, but by some who would ask that the States begin to provide the sale of lottery tickets online in people's homes, something that a great many people are very concerned about. The bill allows the use of the Internet by the States for the sale of lottery tickets in public places where children can be screened out. But there are those who stand to make tens of millions of dollars selling lottery services to the States to sell those tickets online. No State does that today. This bill prevents that from occurring. The bill is supported by a wide array of organizations, including the National Collegiate Athletic Association, the National Football League, the National Basketball Association, Major League Baseball, the National Hockey League, all concerned about sports betting online, particularly by children. The bill is supported by a wide array of religious organizations, the National Council of Churches, the Presbyterian Church of the United States, the Family Research Council, Focus on the Family, the Christian Coalition, Jerry Falwell Ministries, the American Family Association, the United Methodist Church, the Southern Baptist Convention, the Home School Legal Defense Association. But the bill's original purpose is served by the request of the National Association of Attorneys General, NAAG, who came to Senator Kyl in the Senate and to myself in the House and said that the 1961 Wire Act prohibiting gambling interstate on electronic means of communications is out of date and needs to be updated. That is what this bill responds to. They strongly support the legislation, as does the National Coalition Against Gambling Expansion. I would like to thank a number of Members for their help with this legislation: the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf); the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin), chairman of the Subcommittee on Telecommunications, Trade and Consumer Protection from the Committee on Commerce, which helped to work out additional language to make it absolutely clear that this legislation does not expand gambling in any way, shape, or form; the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) who helped to work out new language in the legislation related to due process rights for those who may have their sites taken down or blocked. I would like to thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Wexler) and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) for their leadership on this issue as well as the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Boucher) who has been very supportive. I would like to thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey), the majority leader, and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, for their support of this legislation, which I believe will pass with overwhelmingly strong bipartisan support.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute to say to the gentleman that not every governor agrees. In fact, we have a real problem here with forged letters from governors, as indicated on the front page of Roll Call and in The New York Times, with a letter being circulated by opponents of this legislation claiming that Governor Jeb Bush of Florida wrote a letter in opposition to the bill when in point of fact no such thing occurred. The Florida Department of Law Enforcement is now investigating the matter. I would also say to the gentleman that there are no exemptions in this legislation for horse racing. That is why all of these groups are supporting this legislation. And who would know better than the reporters for the racing industry. Here is the headline in the Daily Racing Form: ``Internet bill said to lose exemption for racing.'' Blood Horse Magazine: ``Racing to lose Internet bill exemptions.'' The fact of the matter is this bill has been carefully crafted with the assistance of the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) to make it absolutely clear that while parimutuel betting is treated fairly, they are not in any way exempt or carved out under this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Wexler).

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Gibbons).

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings). (Mr. HASTINGS of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) a real champion in the fight against gambling. (Mr. WOLF asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to say to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) that the National Gambling Impact Study Commission said the Federal Government shall prohibit without new or expanded exemptions Internet gambling not already authorized. This legislation, thanks to the good work of the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin), makes it perfectly clear that there are no exemptions for anyone under this legislation. I would say to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Cannon) that we have worked very closely with Internet service providers and we will continue to do that to make sure that the burdens are manageable, and they have seen and worked with us on the language contained in this bill. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns). (Mr. STEARNS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to respond to the gentleman and say that the Justice Department says that the Wire Act covers these situations but does not prosecute anyone. Under this legislation, they would have new tools requested by the National Association of Attorneys General to combat this very serious problem on the Internet, and that is exactly what we intend to give them with this legislation. There are no exemptions. We certainly do not expand gambling. We attack the multi-billion dollar industry that is growing on the Internet, the 700 cybercasinos, the sports betting, the threat of sales of lottery tickets in people's homes.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 3125.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time and for his support in opposition to this amendment. This is something that is vitally important to my congressional district where much of it is mountainous land where we have sheep herds; we have other livestock that are threatened by coyotes. It has become a very, very serious problem in the State of Virginia. This is not just a Western problem. Unfortunately, Virginia only receives $35,000 for the entire State for predator control, and we are losing the battle to preserve a valuable resource in our State. For the first time in history, the Virginia sheep flock has dipped below 100,000 animals. Conversely, the coyote population is growing at a rate of between 20 percent and 50 percent, according to the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries. The limited amount of money received from the Wildlife Services Program only funds one trapper who has to monitor the traps in 17 counties. The USDA agrees that our area is desperately understaffed. It is impossible for one staff member to monitor 17 counties under the Wildlife Services Program. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. Mr. Chairman, this amendment prohibits USDA Wildlife Service (WS) professionals from attempting to prevent wildlife damage. This Wildlife Service program is directed by professional wildlife biologists and is vital to managing wildlife in order to protect human health and safety, prevent environmental damage and to protect agricultural and rural economic interests. Many perceive this as a strictly Western issue. Not so. Virginia has one of the largest sheep populations in the Eastern United States and Wildlife Services helps protect this valuable resource, valued at $8.1 million. Unfortunately Virginia only receives $35,000 for predator control and we are losing the battle. For the first time in history, the Virginia sheep flock has dipped below 100,000 animals. Conversely, the coyote population is growing at a rate between 20% and 50% according to VA Department of Game and inland fisheries. The limited amount of money received from the Wildlife Services Program only funds one trapper who has to monitor the traps in 17 counties. USDA agrees that our area is desperately understaffed. It is impossible for one staff member to monitor seventeen counties under the Wildlife Services Program. Because the trapper has responsibility over such a large area he was only able to trap 40 coyotes in Highland county last year. The coyote population is thought to be in the thousands. I have asked the Department to reexamine their geographic allocation of resources within the Wildlife Services Program to see if more staff can be dedicated to our area but that would take existing resources from an existing program, destroying the investment already made in that area. Supporters of this amendment will say that the program is bad for the environment. This is simply not true. Many Wildlife Services projects have benefited threatened and endangered species. Wildlife Services personnel work closely with officials from U.S. Fish and Wildlife or the appropriate state agency. Last year, Wildlife Services helped to protect 84 threatened or endangered species from predation. These projects were conducted across 26 states, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands and Guam. What we need are additional resources for this vital program. We can't afford to cut this program. Cutting funds would only hurt those we are trying to help the most in this bill, citizens of rural America. Make no mistake, this amendment isn't about a budget or an economic issue, this is about animal rights. This amendment is about which animals are to be protected and which aren't. The sponsors of the amendment want to protect the noxious beasts that are driving family farms out of business. I want to protect the animals that farmers, ranchers and shepherds are counting on to provide for their own families well being. Vote ``no'' on this amendment and ``yes'' for rural America.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I rise in strong support of this amendment and to debunk some of the allegations made on the other side. We have 21 States that have right-to-work laws now, and in all of those States we have unions that are organized. To deny the right to members of a health care organization to choose for themselves whether or not to engage in collective bargaining is a fundamental principle that every American should have. In fact, we should not just be voting on this issue on this particular group of people; we should be bringing the legislation that I have introduced and has been cosponsored by more than 140 members for a national right-to-work law to be voted on here in the Congress. Mr. Chairman, I strongly support this provision being added to this bill, to give people the right to choose for themselves whether or not they want to participate in something. They should not be made involuntarily to participate in collective bargaining if they choose not to do so. So this is something that has worked well for a great many people in a great many places, and to require somebody to do this against their will is tyranny. We should support this amendment.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from North Carolina for offering this amendment, and I urge my colleagues to support it. This is really about the future of our economy. The dramatic increase that is being experienced in the growth of the number of patent applications and trademark applications is because of the Internet and the new information technology economy. As chairman of the Congressional Internet Caucus and as a member of the Subcommittee on Courts and Intellectual Property, I can tell my colleagues that the workload of anybody who works in this area is increasing dramatically and that is certainly true of the Patent and Trademark Office. It is vitally important that we allow them to keep these funds. Yes, it is absolutely true that they are generating a great deal of funds. The reason why they are is because they are generating a dramatic increase in the number of applications. They need to turn that money around, beef up their ability to handle this, because this is the engine that is driving our economy. Unlike any past dramatic growth in the history of our country, the Internet is the largest collection of patents and trademarks and copyrights ever in the history of the world. That is really what this is about, the dramatic growth in our economy. If we do not continue to fuel this by making sure that these applications are processed in a timely fashion and processed in a careful fashion to make sure that patents that should be issued are issued, patents that should not be issued are not issued, they have got to have the necessary resources to do this. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment to adequately fund the Patent and Trademark Office. I commend the gentleman from North Carolina for his leadership on this issue.

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

Mr. GOODLATTE. I am, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I was going to say that I rise to do this, but I guess I will just say that I seek to engage in a colloquy with the chairman of the subcommittee. The chairman has been very diligent in his efforts to provide funding for various law enforcement needs. I greatly appreciate that. One of the areas is in the category of missing and exploited children. One of the areas that is of grave concern to me and a great many other Members of Congress is the problem of child pornography and child sexual exploitation on the Internet. It is a very, very serious problem. In the past, funds have been specifically designated for the purpose of providing funding to State and local law enforcement agencies to combat this. In last year's legislation, $6 million was so appropriated. I had intended to offer an amendment this year which provides that that $6 million or more be specifically designated for that purpose. The gentleman from Kentucky has indicated that this can be taken care of in conference and that this money will indeed ultimately be so designated. I hope to engage in a colloquy here to find out if indeed that is the case and he can indicate to me his plans for providing these funds for this specific purpose. They are a part of the, as I understand it, $19 million that is for missing and exploited children in general. At this point the chairman has not earmarked any of that money, but we are concerned that this money not go somewhere else and is provided to local law enforcement for the purpose of combating this serious problem on the Internet.

Mr. GOODLATTE. I thank the gentleman. That is very helpful.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, the gentleman knows those funds are available for the purpose of fighting the fires once they get started, or for other fire prevention methods. But the best way to long-term prevent that catastrophe and to improve the wildlife habitat and the general condition of the forest is to have a viable timber sale program, geared in the new directions of the Forest Service, to use that program to thin these areas that are exposed to very high risk. While I join with the gentleman in his interest in making sure that wildlife habitat is promoted, taking this money from one fund that promotes that wildlife habitat and putting it into another does not achieve that, whereas working with the chairman to first preserve this fund and then look for additional help, as the ranking Democrat also proposed, that is a better way to proceed.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I would like to engage in a colloquy with the chairman of the Subcommittee on Interior of the Committee on Appropriations on the Wu amendment that will be offered during the consideration of this bill. The purpose of the Wu amendment, according to its supporters, would be to provide more funding for important wildlife programs by cutting funding for the Federal timber sale program. The gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Regula) will recall that last year the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Wu) offered a similar, if not identical amendment, to the one he will offer this year. The gentleman will recall that at that time we extended our hands to those who were inclined to support the Wu amendment, offering to work together as an alternative to the political and counterproductive approach of offering a controversial floor amendment. At that time our offer was taken in good faith and with good results. Last year, at the end of the day, wildlife programs received increased funding and the Federal timber sale program maintained adequate funding. That was a win-win result. This year, I proposed that we offer the same hand as an alternative to this controversial amendment. I am confident that, working together, we can achieve the same kind of balance this year that we achieved last year. We do not need to reduce funding for the timber sale program and thereby reduce our fire risk prevention capabilities in order to fund wildlife programs. As we proceed through the appropriations process, we can, if we work cooperatively together, find a way to adequately fund both. I ask the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Regula), would he be willing to work this year with me as the chairman of the Subcommittee on Agriculture with jurisdiction over forestry and the supporters of the Wu amendment to adequately fund important wildlife programs, just as we did last year?

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