Bob Goodlatte

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today with my colleague from Virginia, Congressman Rick Boucher, to introduce crucial legislation that will have a significant impact on the lives of millions of Americans, especially those who live in smaller cities and towns, on farms and throughout rural areas. This legislation will ensure that community information such as local weather forecasts, natural disaster alerts, and local government announcements reach those who needed it most. Our legislation, entitled the Rural Local Broadcast Signal Act, would accomplish these goals by authorizing the Rural Utilities Service, an agency of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, to provide loan guarantees to entities that can obtain the private funding to launch technologies that will provide local TV signals over satellite in the medium sized and smaller TV markets. Through these loan guarantees, the RUS will continue its mission of promoting economic development and improving the lives of rural Americans while fulfilling the original intention of legislation enacted last November--to enable all Americans to receive their local television signals over satellite. I was proud to be a member of the conference committee on the recently enacted Intellectual Property and Communications Omnibus Reform Act of 1999, which included language to allow direct broadcast satellite providers to immediately begin retransmitting local television broadcast signals into the broadcast station's area, subject to a retransmission consent agreement negotiated with each station carried. This new law allows satellite providers to become more effective competitors to cable operators, who have been able to provide local over-the-air broadcast stations to their subscribers for years. It will also benefit American consumers in markets where local TV via satellite is made available by offering them full service digital television at an affordable price. More importantly, these consumers will benefit from local news, weather reports, information such as natural disasters or community emergencies, local sports, politics, and election information, as well as other information that is vital to maintaining the integrity of communities across the country. Local TV via satellite is already available to satellite subscribers in America's twenty largest television markets. In these markets DirecTV and Echostar, the existing satellite ``platform providers,'' have begun retransmission of affiliates of the ABC, CBS, NBC, and FOX broadcast networks. DirecTV and Echostar have also announced their intention to begin retransmission of local TV stations in an additional twenty or thirty television markets over the next 24 months. Ultimately, the two existing satellite ``platform providers'' will provide local TV via satellite to households in most, if not all, of the 50 largest television markets in the United States. However, there are 211 markets in the United States and in excess of 100 million U.S. TV households. There, if matters are left solely to the initiative of the existing satellite ``platform providers,'' more than 50 percent of existing satellite subscribers (over 6 million households) will continue to be deprived of their local TV stations; more than 60 percent of existing commercial television stations (over 1,000) will NOT be available via satellite; and more than 30 million US TV households will remain beyond the reach of local TV via satellite. Put another way, local TV via satellite will not be available in 27 states and in parts of nearly every state. So while the law enacted last fall has eliminated the legal barriers to delivery of local TV via satellite, it alone will not assure delivery of local TV via satellite to the majority of local TV stations and satellite subscribers. For that reason, and because many folks in parts of my district and in the districts of most members on this Committee cannot receive their local signals any other way, I am joining with Rick Boucher, JoAnn Emerson, and over 100 Members of the House in supporting this legislation to assure that all Americans, not just those in profitable urban markets, can receive their local TV signals over satellite.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend my alma mater, Washington and Lee University, on its recent 2000 Republican Mock Convention. Every four years since 1908, the students of Washington and Lee have gathered at the Mock Convention to attempt to correctly predict the presidential nominee of the political party currently out of the White House. Over the years, W&L students have had a remarkable success rate in their predictions--in fact, since 1948, the Mock Convention has only erred once in correctly predicting the presidential nominee, when it selected Edward Kennedy over George McGovern in 1972. Washington and Lee has received national acclaim for its Mock Convention from numerous sources over the years. The Washington Post has declared the Washington and Lee Mock Convention ``one of the nation's oldest and most prestigious mock conventions,'' and Time Magazine has called it the ``biggest and boomingest'' of all amateur gatherings. Last Saturday, Washington and Lee held its 2000 Mock Convention, which was a great success. I was privileged to join a very distinguished group of federal, state, and local leaders in addressing the Convention, and the W&L students were as engaged and energized as ever. Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend Washington and Lee University on another excellent Mock Convention, and I am confident that the students of W&L have yet again correctly chosen the next Republican presidential nominee. Congratulations to W&L on a very successful 2000 Mock Convention.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Combest), my chairman, for yielding me this time and for his support of this important legislation. Mr. Speaker, on August 4, 1999, I introduced H.R. 2709, the Electronic Benefit Transfer Interoperability and Portability Act of 1999. The Senator from Illinois, Senator Fitzgerald, introduced an almost identical bill, S. 1733, which passed the Senate at the end of the first session of the 106th Congress; and it is that bill that we consider today. The sole focus of my bill was to allow food stamp beneficiaries the ability to redeem their benefits in any general store, regardless of location. Beneficiaries had this ability under the old food stamp system, but lost it as States migrated to an electronic benefits transfer system. Under the old paper food stamp system, recipients could redeem their food coupons in any authorized food store anywhere in the country. For example, a food stamp recipient living in Bath County, Virginia, could use their food stamps in their favorite grocery store, even if that happened to be in West Virginia. Similarly, a recipient living in Tennessee could visit their mother in Virginia and purchase food for their children while away from home. Unfortunately, as we move to electronic delivery of benefits, this is currently not the case. My bill provides for the portability of food assistance benefits and allows food stamp recipients the flexibility of shopping at locations that they choose. Across the country we are finding that people live in one State and shop in another. This cross-border shopping is conducted for a variety of reasons. One of them is convenience. Another is the cost of goods. The supermarket industry is very competitive. Every week, stores advertise specials in newspaper ads across the country. People not only shop at locations convenient to them but also shop around for the best prices. Customers paying with every type of tender except EBT have the flexibility to shop where they choose. Why should recipients of food assistance benefits not be allowed to stretch their dollars in the same way that other consumers do without regard to State borders? EBT portability is simply allowing recipients of benefits under the food stamp program to redeem those benefits without regard to State borders at the stores they choose. In addition to portability, my legislation allows for the interoperability of EBT transactions. Interoperability can be simply defined as the ability of various computers involved in authorizing, routing, and selling an EBT transaction to talk to each other. I offered a Sense of the Congress amendment to the Welfare Reform bill that Congress passed in 1996. My amendment urged States to work together to achieve a seamless system of food stamp benefit redemption. States did a decent job considering the circumstances. They are now asking for an extra nudge to realize the goal of my earlier amendment. My legislation requires States to conform their EBT standards to a national uniform operating system that the States themselves choose. The clear choice, the Quest operating system, has already been adopted by 33 States. Pilot studies have been conducted to determine the cost and other efficiencies that might be realized by EBT interoperability. The pilot program determined my bill would only cost the food stamp program $500,000. That is not a lot of money for an $18 billion program. Also, the State of Missouri found around $32 million in abuse of the program that they never would have found if their EBT system could not talk with neighboring State systems or they found people were getting dual food stamps, applying for and receiving food stamps in more than one State. Mr. Speaker, the bill we consider today is simple. It returns the national redemption convenience to the beneficiaries of the program, gives the States the guidance they are look being for, and provides another tool in the fight against fraud, waste, and abuse in the food stamp program. I thank my colleagues for this time, and I urge support from the membership for the Electronic Benefit Transfer Interoperability and Portability Act.

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

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, he is correct; Ohio, as well as Wyoming, would not be required to make any changes. And for that matter, those States currently using an on- line system that does not achieve the national interoperability standard would not be required to meet this standard until their current contracts expire. Finally, I should point out that in the case of Ohio and Wyoming's Smart Card programs, the bill's waiver language and Smart Card provisions provide a clear exemption with no time limit imposed as to when changes would have to be made.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio for yielding to me and for his interest and support of this legislation. I very much appreciate his kind remarks and for bringing this particular concern to my attention. In the legislation that the House is now considering, there are provisions that have been included to ensure that the two existing Smart Card programs that are currently in place, those being Ohio and Wyoming, will not be forced to make any changes that would result in either new or additional expenses for the States. Ohio and Wyoming can continue using their Smart Cards until the Secretary determines that a practicable technological method is available for interoperability between electronic benefit transfer Smart Card systems and the magnetic stripe card systems that most other States are using. Furthermore, the legislation provides safeguards so that these off- line programs are not jeopardized in any way. It is my understanding that both Ohio and Wyoming chose to embrace this Smart Card technology for the delivery of benefits with the blessing and approval of the United States Department of Agriculture. Therefore, Ohio and Wyoming should not be required to change their systems until they are interested in doing so. I wish to ensure my good friend and colleague from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) that the legislation's waiver section and the provision for specific exemptions for Smart Card systems were incorporated into these initiatives with Ohio and Wyoming's interest in mind. As a footnote, I should mention that the technology is not currently available in the marketplace for on- and off-line systems to be compatible and interoperable. However, that day is rapidly approaching. In the short term, it is my hope that the Congress will have the opportunity to work toward a national standard for Smart Cards as other States like Ohio and Wyoming begin to consider their own Smart Card projects for domestic feeding programs, unemployment compensation, health care, and other benefits. It is my view that there is much to learn from Ohio's leadership and experience in this area.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I especially want to thank and congratulate him for his effort in this matter. I know that he has introduced, along with the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. McIntosh) and the gentlewoman from Missouri (Ms. Danner), a Democrat, H.R. 6 to eliminate the marriage tax penalty. I am pleased to be a cosponsor of that legislation along with the gentleman from Minnesota and many others because it is long overdue. As has already been noted, we attempted to do that in the tax package that we passed last year that was unfortunately vetoed by the President. This time we are going to go back, put it right on the line and say that we are going to introduce a bill, produce a bill that simply eliminates the marriage tax penalty. For the last year and a half, I have discussed it at every single one of the dozens of town meetings that I have conducted across my congressional district. Every time I bring this up, I can just see everybody in the audience nodding their heads in agreement. They understand this issue. I use exactly the illustration that the gentleman from Illinois referred to earlier and he has provided to other Members. I take that to them. I say, you have a couple, each earning $31,500 per year for a combined income of $63,000. If they are married, they will pay nearly $1,300 a year more than the same two people with the same two jobs living in the same household with the same income. People understand that that is totally contrary to good public policy. It discourages marriage, it discourages people from being forthright with their income and their taxes. We need to change that. Fairness is fairness. The American public understands this. Poll after poll has reflected what each one of us knows from our meetings with our constituents as well. There was a recent poll by Wirthlin Worldwide that showed that 85 percent of Americans believe that the marriage tax penalty is unfair, and 80 percent of them favor the elimination of the marriage tax penalty. Eighty-nine percent of married women and 89 percent of working and married mothers are among those who strongly believe that the marriage tax penalty is unfair. And more than two-thirds of all Americans, according to a Harris Poll, believe that the budget surplus should be used to eliminate or reduce the marriage tax penalty. I think that this is something that the American people expect us to do. It is a disappointment when we put forward an effort like that along with other very reasonable tax cuts directed at improving our economy, creating more jobs and helping hardworking American families who right now face the highest level of taxation they have ever faced, to veto something like that. I am hopeful that this time we will have the President's help in getting real, meaningful tax cuts in place here. If we look at the average American family, not wealthy people but the average American family, when we add up what they pay in Federal, State and local taxes, it comes to about 40 percent of the average family's income. That is more than the average family spends on food, clothing and shelter combined. When we add on top of that a penalty for being married and having both members of the household having to go out and work in order to support their family, it is truly an outrage that this condition in our tax code has been allowed to persist as long as it has. I am pleased with the commitment of our leadership to move this legislation forward. I know we will have bipartisan support for it. It is my hope that we will pass this legislation as quickly as possible and get this tax relief to working families as quickly as possible.

Mr. GOODLATTE. If the gentleman will yield, I think the gentleman from Minnesota is right on when he points out that this is not just for newlyweds, it is for anybody who is married at any time in their life, for senior citizens who may have lost their spouse and are considering remarrying and they have got a whole host of questions to be answered about does it make sense to remarry or not or should we just live together, which I think is a real concern for a lot of senior citizens. We should take this issue off of the table for them. They should feel like if the thing that they need is to have a loved one sharing their home with them, that they can feel free to be married and not pay a $1,400 or more penalty. The other point to make here is that while there is a diverse array of people who are benefited by this, one thing, the overwhelming majority of them have in common and that is that these are middle class and lower middle-income people in our country who are benefitting from this overwhelmingly. The vast majority of people are where the larger wage earner of the two is between $20,000 a year and $75,000 a year. So we are talking about people who are working hard and needing every bit of the money that they earn in order to meet all of their obligations that they have in raising children and paying rent and putting food on the table and so on. This is something that really reaches out to people across all across America. I think it is overwhelmingly of benefit to, as I say, hardworking American families who are pressed into that category of spending an average of 40 percent of their income on taxes. They do not feel like they are getting 40 percent back of all that hard work in the form of benefits for those taxes compared to what they get for food and clothing and shelter that they spend less on than they spend on those taxes.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished majority leader for his support and commitment to scheduling floor time for this important legislation by April of next year. Am I to understand that the legislation to be scheduled for a vote will authorize a level of appropriations that is both sufficient to accomplish such a program and at least $1.2 billion?

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

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, the supporters of this legislation understand that along with this agreement comes a commitment from our leadership to work to pass similar legislation early next year, and if the gentleman will yield to him, the majority leader will clarify the details of this commitment.

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

Mr. GOODLATTE. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his kind words and for his critical support in this effort. Yesterday, we delivered to the Speaker a letter that included over 245 signatures from Members who supported the rural provisions of this conference report. Similar letters were delivered to the Senate majority leader from rural Senators. Mr. Speaker, Rural America should take note of the high level of support for this language in Congress and the hard work of members like Senator Conrad Burns of Montana, Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska, Senator Jonn Warner of Virginia, Senator Patrick Leahy of Virginia, Congresswoman Barbara Cubin of Wyoming, and Congresswoman JoAnn Emerson of Missouri. Unfortunately, problems in the other body have doomed this language for the year. Because the other body did not wish to take the steps required to pass the bill over a threatened filibuster, they have reached an agreement with our leadership in the House to attach the Satellite Home Viewer Act to the D.C. appropriations bill next year.

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

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to engage the majority leader in a colloquy regarding the satellite legislation which has been added to this omnibus bill. As the majority leader is aware, I have been working for some time with my colleague, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Boucher), and many others, to pass legislation that will reauthorize the compulsory license for satellite broadcasts and encourage the development of technology that will deliver local network signals to satellite owners. We passed the Satellite Home Viewer Act reauthorization earlier this year with overwhelming bipartisan support and engaged the other body in a lengthy and difficult conference. The conference report was filed and passed last week in the House by a vote of 411 to 8. Few bills of this magnitude have passed by such a wide margin. Included in this conference report was important language supported unanimously by the conferees to ensure that rural Americans are not left behind as this new local-into-local technology is rolled out by the satellite companies.

Mr. GOODLATTE. It is also my understanding that the Senate leadership has made a similar commitment to floor consideration by a time certain next year.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his courtesy.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 592, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I especially want to thank the gentleman from Virginia, the chairman of the Committee on Commerce, for his leadership on this issue. He has been at the forefront of this issue throughout this Congress, and this is vitally important legislation that I urge my colleagues to support and to oppose any substitutes or any alternatives. The previous gentleman made reference to protecting consumers. In my opinion, this legislation does more to help consumers in the transactions that they participate in than anything that we could do with relation to making sure that they get prompt and adequate disclosure about contracts they sign. None of the current Federal or State laws are abrogated in terms of notices that go to consumers regarding particular transactions that they participate in. They simply will be allowed to receive those notices electronically now. And that has a number of very positive benefits. First, it is faster. If there is a change in circumstances, if there is a problem with a product, a defect, they are going to get that notice much more quickly electronically than they will get it through the mail. Secondly, it is cheaper. Some types of financial transactions are 100 times more costly to conduct in person than they are if they can conduct the transaction electronically. And if they are dealing with somebody on the other side of the country, the delay in being able to participate in that and close that contract, because we do not have a nationally recognized standard for accepting digital signatures, is very costly to consumers as well as to other people. Business people engage in business-to-business transactions, as well. But probably the most important reason why this is more helpful to consumers than current law is that the information they get will be better; it will be more comprehensive. If they have a notice about a particular disclosure that is required under the law for a real estate closing or a bank loan, whatever the case might be, and they do not understand a particular word in that notice, under electronically transmitted information, the bank or the other company providing the information can put a whole host of other information on-line. They can click on a particular word in that notice and get an explanation of it, a definition of the word, if they do not understand what it means in that particular context. So from the standpoint of the consumer, this is vitally important. Secondly, from the standpoint of uniformity, of having one national area of commerce to be able to conduct business across State lines without the difficulties that come from a morass of, a variety of different laws from different States, that is vitally important. Now, instead of being only able to buy from people nearby them all governed by the same State law, people are now empowered to buy things by auction or other ways on-line from a whole host of different ways. I urge Members to reach across the line. We have had some differences on this bill. Let us have a strong bipartisan vote. It had almost a two-thirds vote when it came up under suspension. Let us give it a majority here today.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time, and I congratulate him and the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Hyde) of the Committee on the Judiciary for their outstanding work on this. This is truly a bipartisan effort. I want to thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), the ranking member, and the gentleman from California (Mr. Berman) as well and the Committee on Commerce. This is a cooperative venture between two committees that have worked out this very fine legislation. But I, most especially, want to thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Boucher), my colleague, for his very fine leadership on the rural local-into-local provisions in this bill. Because without those provisions, this bill would not do very much for those many, many tens of millions of Americans living in those smaller markets in this country. And so it is truly exciting to have the opportunity to now know that in the near future my constituents who are having a problem being able to get their local news, weather, sports, emergency information, community information broadcast to them by satellite so they have a competitive alternative to cable, or in the rural areas the only alternative. And to be able to get that local broadcast is truly an exciting part of this bill. But there are many other outstanding provisions, as well. That competition I just referred to that we will get now between satellite and cable in urban areas is a great development. The legislation in this bill dealing with cyber-squatting and cracking down on those who would steal other people's trademark names, as well as the patent provisions in this bill, are also all worth noting. Now, one provision has been raised that is of concern to the on-line service provider industry, and I want to make it clear that I strongly support preserving the current law on this issue. On-line service providers should not be precluded from competing with satellite and cable providers if they qualify for the same license. Especially important is this issue for people in rural areas to be able to get the choice of where they will get their programs, and Congress should be conscious of the unintended consequences of excluding an exciting new medium and the unintended consequences of excluding that medium. So I intend to work with the other Members who have worked on this legislation to be sure that we find another vehicle to address those concerns before the House adjourns for the year.

Mr. GOODLATTE

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

Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Chairman, the effect of that is that for watershed protection, for recreational projects, for environmental improvement of our forests by thinning and other tree-harvesting measures that are environmentally sound, every one of these projects has to comply with every single Federal law. The effect of this is to continue that connection. More importantly, even if the other side were successful in passing what they want, the reality will never change that these communities are dependent upon these forests because they use such a great portion of the land in those counties. So the jobs that are lost, that is additional loss to the schools in a particular county. When businesses close down and move out, that is additional tax revenue that does not go to the schools and so the net effect of what the gentleman is saying that we should have no connection between the land and its people is a very, very bad policy. This amendment should not be supported because the effect of it is going to disconnect people with centuries of connection to their communities and to their land for their economic survival.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that in the engrossment of the bill (H.R. 2389) the Clerk be authorized to correct section numbers, punctuation, citations and cross references and to make such other technical and conforming changes as may be necessary to reflect the actions of the House in amending the bill.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 2389, the bill just passed.