Bob Goodlatte

Mr. GOODLATTE

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

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment, as I did to the previous amendment that was offered. This is another carve-out amendment. It is wrong for the same reasons I cited previously. It singles out a particular group of people, a particular industry, for unfair treatment under our judicial system, and we should not establish that type of principle. The principal position, whether we are in favor of this legislation or we are opposed to this legislation, is to oppose this amendment because we should not carve out individual groups of people. It is true that Congress has expanded Federal jurisdiction to encompass cases involving certain subject matters, civil rights, antitrust, environmental, consumer warranty, but those are exercises of Federal question jurisdiction. There is no basis and no precedent for carving out an industry from diversity jurisdiction and extinguishing its right to have cases subject to Federal jurisdiction heard in Federal Court. Contrary to the premise of this amendment, H.R. 1875 would not turn tobacco litigation upside down. Most money obtained through tobacco litigation has come in State attorneys general cases. These are not class actions and will not be affected by this legislation. Most other tobacco cases are individual actions which, likewise, are unaffected by this legislation. H.R. 1875 is also prospective only. It would not affect any pending cases, be they class action or otherwise. Contrary to another premise of this amendment, there is no evidence that tobacco cases are less likely to succeed in Federal Court. Tobacco classes have been certified by both Federal and State courts. Tobacco classes have been rejected by both Federal and State courts. There is no evidence that class members will get better treatment in State court. Indeed, the evidence is to the contrary. In the only tobacco class action to reach conclusion, the Broin case, that case ultimately settled in State court. But the class members received no money at all. Under the terms of the settlement, they obtained only a right to sue individually. Meanwhile, the class counsel, the lawyers, were awarded $49 million. One law professor assessed the settlement as follows: ``Is the system just when it allows the plaintiffs' lawyers to make $49 million for making the class worse off?'' There is no evidence that tobacco cases would get tried more quickly in State courts. It took 6 years to get the first tobacco class action to trial in State court; the second took over 4 years. The average time to trial in Federal Court is shorter. No matter where we may stand on the tobacco issue, we should strongly oppose this amendment. And for all the reasons I just cited, I urge my colleagues to defeat this amendment.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I am strongly opposed to this amendment and what may prove to be a series of so-called carve-out amendments. Principled Members, whether they support the underlying legislation or not, will oppose this amendment and other amendments that attempt to pour their views about any particular issue that faces this Congress or any particular litigation that may go before our courts into this procedural debate about how all litigation should be considered in the form of class actions and whether or not one believes they should be removed to Federal court or not, my colleagues should not support carving out individual sectors of our economy or individual types of lawsuits. That is exactly how this amendment was treated in a bipartisan fashion by the Committee on the Judiciary in the markup of this bill when this particular amendment or one very like it was defeated by a bipartisan 16 to 6 vote. There are good reasons why it was rejected there, and there are good reasons why it should be rejected here. This industry-specific exemption from Federal jurisdiction makes no sense. It is like a bill of attainder. It irrationally singles out one industry and slams the Federal courthouse door in its face. All of us strive to be sure that justice is blind. But when one identifies one group of people and says they are not entitled to the same treatment under the law that everyone else is, justice is not blind. The amendment is wholly inconsistent with what the Framers had in mind in establishing diversity jurisdiction in Article III of our Constitution. They wanted to allow interstate businesses to have claims against them heard in Federal court so as to avoid local biases. Nowhere in this concept is the idea that certain industries should be exempted from this right, that certain kinds of businesses are less entitled to Federal court protection. One may not like gun manufacturers, but think of the things that one does like and consider whether if a similar amendment were offered to single out something that is important to one and say that those who promote and support that particular idea, that particular industry, whatever the case might be, that they are not entitled to sit in the same forum of justice that everyone else in this country is entitled to. The amendment clearly is designed to single out the firearms industry because, in some quarters, it is unpopular. But that is exactly what the Framers of the Constitution were trying to avoid. They are trying to ensure a fair, evenhanded Federal court forum for defendants that may otherwise be hailed into a local court less concerned about protecting the rights of an out-of-State company. It is very interesting that in the committee report, the additional dissenting views submitted by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) and others on the gun issue, makes a big point of the fact that the NAACP has filed a class action against the gun industry, seeking to recover for money that the public sector must pay for the consequences of gun violence. The report goes on to say that we should not handicap such important civil suits before they have even begun. What I find very interesting about that point is that the NAACP filed their lawsuit in Federal court, not State court. That choice presumably was made because the lawyers filing the NAACP suit know that the Federal courts are more appropriate for dealing with these interstate issues presented by these cases. This bill would make it easier for groups like the NAACP to bring such cases in Federal court because it works both ways. It expands the rights of plaintiffs to bring interstate cases in Federal court as well as expanding the ability of defendants to remove interstate cases to Federal court. For all of these reasons, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding me this time, and I rise in strong support of H.R. 1402. It is a Federal response to a national problem, and it reflects what Congress had intended when it required milk market order reform. In 1996 through the Freedom to Farm Bill, Congress voted to reform the milk marketing order program. Congress directed the Secretary to reduce the number of marketing orders and phase out the Federal product purchase without compromising the basic pricing structure on which dairy farmers depend. Again in 1998, a majority of Members from the House and Senate signed letters to Secretary Glickman appealing to him to implement a Federal milk pricing policy that did not significantly lower milk producer prices. Unfortunately, the administration ignored the will of Congress and the desire of the majority of dairy producers and announced the final dairy plan that drastically phases down the Federal pricing program, costing producers nationwide millions in lost farm revenue. Dairy producers are expected to lose $200 million or more annually when the administration's plan, the modified Option 1-B Class I price differential is enacted. I urge my colleagues to support the 1-A option and to support this bill. Today, Congress has the opportunity to show support for agriculture and an interest in improving farm income during a time of financial turmoil for farmers by voting for H.R. 1402. Simply put, Option 1-A reforms the milk marketing order system, reduces volatility, and continues to assure there will be enough fresh milk in all markets of our nation. It does so by keeping in place transportation differentials, a system that has worked for many years, guaranteeing us an adequate supply of fresh, wholesome milk. As the government withdraws from the purchase of dairy products to balance the market, we need to leave in place those mechanisms that assure us a continued supply. Some may argue that the producers themselves voted for the Administration's plan through the producer referendum in August and we should honor their wishes. In no way should the producers affirmative vote be considered as support for the lower Federal Order Class prices proposed by Secretary Glickman. It was a vote under duress. The Secretary gave the producers no choice. It was either his way or no way at all. Producers voted for his plan in efforts to keep the Federal Order system intact as producers await the enactment of H.R. 1402. Farmers from across the country are counting on our support. More than 225 members of the House have promised their dairy farmers their support in Congress. Don't be fooled by misleading tactics. This is simply a bill to keep our farmers in business. I urge every member to support H.R. 1402.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I rise in strong opposition to the Stenholm amendment and in support of the Dooley amendment. The Stenholm amendment is a bad idea. It takes away something that we just put into this legislation to give every dairy farmer in the country something they badly need to do. Farmers across the country complain about their inability to manage risk, to deal with the fluctuation in prices. Forward contracting allows them to do that. It allows processors to offer producers or their cooperatives a predetermined price for their milk over a specified period of time. Producers can voluntarily accept a price based on the processor's offer or continue to pay prices based on Federal milk order prices set each month in their order. This is simply another risk- management tool that should be offered to all farmers. There is nothing that says a producer must take a processor's offer or that he cannot continue to be paid for his milk the way his grandfather's father was paid. The forward contracting provisions in this bill are completely voluntary. The amendment to exclude fluid milk from the forward contracting provisions of this bill will leave the majority of my dairy-producing constituents without the same risk-management tools that others have. I represent a heavy Class I utilization area. I hear my farmers' complaints about price volatility very frequently. If they are not offered the same ability to forward contract as other dairy producers, they will be severely disadvantaged in their ability to manage their risk and lock in a price for their product. Dairy cooperatives can offer their producers forward contractors, but the Agriculture Marketing Agreements Act of 1937 severely limits proprietary processors from offering producers forward pricing. This legislation is necessary to enable all dairy processors, cooperative and proprietary alike, to offer forward contracts. Class I milk must be included in this bill's forward contracting provisions if we are to put the entire industry on an equal footing in helping farmers manage their operations profitably. Oppose the Stenholm amendment and support the Dooley amendment.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) for yielding and for offering this amendment, which I urge my colleagues to support. Mr. Chairman, the Internet has the potential to be a revolutionary force in the evolution of our system of democratic governance. The ability of citizens to share information at relatively little cost enables all Americans to become active participants in the political process. In response to the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell), there is no way to control what people outside the U.S. put on the Internet any more than the Chinese can control what U.S. citizens put on the Internet. For the gentleman to attempt to regulate some poor soul who wants to have a web site promoting the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt) or any other American citizen running for office is an outrage, and we should strongly support this amendment and protect free speech on the Internet.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, today I introduced the Electronic Benefit Transfer Interoperability and Portability Act of 1999. The sole focus of the bill is to allow food stamp beneficiaries the ability to redeem their benefits in any eligible store regardless of location. Beneficiaries had this ability under the old paper 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, VA could use their food stamps in their favorite grocery store even if it 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 a very competitive industry. 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 shouldn't recipients of food assistance benefits be allowed to stretch their dollars in the same way that other consumers do, without regard to state borders? EBT potability 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 settling 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 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's 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 couldn't talk with neighboring state systems. Mr. Speaker, the bill I introduce today is simple. It returns the national redemption convenience to the beneficiaries of the program, gives the states the guidance they are looking for, and provides another tool in the fight against fraud, waste and abuse in the Food Stamp Program. Thank you for this time and I urge support from the membership for the Electronic Benefit Transfer Interoperability and Portability Act of 1999.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment offered by the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) and urge my colleagues to do likewise. By adopting this provision, we will be able to achieve several objectives. First, we can save the American consumer and telephone industry a significant amount of money. Second, we can take a step towards further reducing government regulation. And third, we will be achieving competitive balance in the industry. We should support this amendment. It has been estimated that this double-accounting regime costs the industry and consumers $270 million. That is money that could be reinvested in telephone infrastructure, and used to introduce new products and services so essential in today's rapidly changing telecommunications market. The phone companies already keep one set of books for the IRS and SEC. Yet, the FCC makes them keep a whole other set of books for its accounting purposes. If the GAAP system is good enough for the IRS, it is good enough for the SEC, in fact is good enough for most of the American business world, it ought to be good enough for the FCC. No other segment of the telecommunications industry is required to keep these books, and it is unfair for one sector to be singled out for different treatment. These costly and unnecessary regulations skew the balance among the companies, and slow the ability of the companies subject to the regulation to introduce new products and services. Commissioner Harold Furchgott-Roth of the FCC has indicated that, and I quote, ``In today's increasing competitive telecommunications marketplace, the Commission should be focusing its efforts on transitioning to a more competitive environment. The amount of detailed information and regulatory scrutiny required under our accounting and ARMIS rules is inordinate and should be reduced.'' Mr. Speaker, that comes from one of the sitting Commissioners. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of Mr. Tauzin's amendment, and eliminate unnecessary regulation, save resources, and level the playing field for all telephone companies. I thank the gentleman and yield back the balance of my time. Announcement by the Chairman

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. That may be an issue in seeking an injunction, but certainly is not the intention of this amendment, to allow anybody to delay State enforcement of State laws controlling the sale of alcohol in their State borders.

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

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I offer this amendment along with the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) and with the support of the gentleman from Florida who has offered the underlying legislation. The amendment to H.R. 2031 clarifies that this bill is not meant to interfere with legitimate electronic commerce on the Internet. First, the amendment clarifies that the bill in no way supersedes the recently enacted Internet Tax Freedom Act which placed a 3-year moratorium on new multiple and discriminatory Internet taxes. I strongly supported passage of that act and do not wish to see it compromised. Second, our amendment clarifies that this bill in no way extends the powers of States to interfere with electronic commerce. It includes language that clarifies that the authority granted to States under this bill is limited to the enforcement of State laws regarding the transportation of alcohol within its borders, not to the legal advertisement or sale of alcohol on-line. Third, our amendment ensures that injunctive relief is available against the entity shipping alcohol in violation of applicable laws, not against communications companies used by these third parties' activities for advertising and other communication purposes. Mr. Chairman, it is important as we craft laws that apply to the Internet and other communications services that we avoid imposing liability on these service providers for the actions of third parties. The approach of this amendment is fully consistent with the approach we have adopted in the Telecommunications Act of 1996 which has played a very beneficial role in the growth of the Internet over the last 3\1/2\ years. Mr. Chairman, aiming injunctive relief at the individual engaged in the commercial activity we are concerned about, not the communications company, is a common-sense solution. Unlike the seller or transporter engaged in an illegal transaction, the communications company has no idea what States the transaction affects and is not in a position to tailor the transaction to comply with the different laws of 50 States. Furthermore, Internet service providers and other communications companies are in no position to monitor the conduct of their users or to prevent transactions. Indeed, enforcement approaches such as injunction to block Internet sites can seriously disrupt lawful Internet communications and slow the operations of a service provider's network for all users. Mr. Chairman, if we do not adopt this amendment, we risk needless legal uncertainty and pointless litigation against Internet service providers and other communications companies. The amendment has the support of groups such as America Online, the Commercial Internet Exchange, Prodigy, PSI Net, BellSouth and Bell Atlantic. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to adopt the tech-friendly, common-sense solution and pass this amendment.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Barr).

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I just want to make it clear that it is my intention and I believe the intention of the gentleman from California, and he may want to speak for himself, that if there is an existing State law that taxes the sale of alcohol in that State and the sale happens to come into the State from out of State and the original purchase was made over the Internet, that that taxation still applies as it does with the Internet Tax Freedom Act. The Internet Tax Freedom Act does not overturn existing State laws on the sale of products from one State to another, just like it does not with a catalogue sale or any other type of sale. It simply imposes a moratorium on new taxes on Internet services. Is that a correct statement?

Mr. GOODLATTE. The gentleman misheard. The question from the gentleman from Georgia was whether or not anything in my amendment would undermine the purpose of the underlying bill, which is to allow the attorney general to go into Federal Court and to seek an injunction restraining the sale of alcohol to minors. Then later, or maybe in an earlier conversation, in reference to a dry State, whether they could seek an injunction from violating the laws of the State for shipping any alcohol into the State. If you have a dry State that prohibits the sale of alcohol, now or in the future, this amendment would not affect that one way or another. That is the assurance the gentleman from Georgia wanted, that the underlying bill would still have the effect the gentleman intends, which is that the attorney general of that State could go into Federal court and seek an injunction, but he would not be able to seek an injunction for the sale of alcohol to an adult unless that sale itself violated that State law in some way, shape, or form. This amendment does not in any way change that.

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

Mr. GOODLATTE. None that I know of.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, it is not the purpose of this amendment to limit the scope of the Webb-Kenyon Act.

Mr. GOODLATTE. I am not aware of any laws that would be subject to them. However, I would say to the gentleman, the way I read section 3(b) of the amendment, that if they would be subject to challenge, they would have already been subject to challenge as being unconstitutional to begin with. I think that portion of this amendment reinforces the gentleman from California's concern that we do not have any unconstitutionally discriminatory treatment, but, if it exists, I think it would have been treatable under existing law and certainly would also be treatable under this law.

Mr. GOODLATTE. In my opinion, it does not, and it is not my intention in offering this amendment to in any way affect the rights of the States to regulate the sale of alcohol in their State as provided by the Twenty-First Amendment to the Constitution.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Would the gentleman repeat the question?

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

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. This language is perfectly fine with us. We have no objection to the amendment, and urge its adoption.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of this important legislation, and I want to congratulate those who worked so hard to reach this agreement. This is a very good bill and a very, very important bill to protect the competitiveness of American business and American inventors, large and small. I commend the gentleman from North Carolina, my good conservative friend, and the gentleman from California, Mr. Rohrabacher, for pushing this legislation forward. Both gentlemen know how important this legislation is for the American people. Mr. Speaker, we are currently dealing with a situation where we have got to act and act now to protect American inventors from a situation where that technology is being stolen under current law. Under current law, every single patent that is filed in the other major industrial countries around the world is published after 18- months, in Japanese, in German, in French, for those inventors and those countries to see. Forty-five percent of all the patents filed with the U.S. Patent Office are filed by foreign inventors, and U.S. inventors do not get to see that technology filed here in the United States. This bill provides greater protection for the small inventor by improving the patent pending provisions of the law. This bill protects the small inventor in this country by giving them the opportunity to get capital behind those inventions much sooner than they get under current law. Mr. Speaker, this is a good bill. It is a good bill for the little guy, and we should vote for the bill and get this major improvement to competitiveness in the United States against our foreign competition done.