Bob Goodlatte

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. What the gentleman is saying is that if there is a law existing out there or one that may be proposed in the future that is unconstitutional, we do not want this act, whether it could or could not, we do not want it to be read as encouraging anybody in that direction. We want to make sure that unconstitutional laws are discouraged because they are unconstitutional whether we pass this amendment or not.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I support the perfecting amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), and I commend him for offering this amendment. The underlying amendment that I have offered makes it clear that Internet service providers, those who provide interactive computer service or an electronic communications service, would not be subject to the injunction provided for in the underlying bill if all they did was provide the ability to communicate with people and were not involved in transactions themselves. The gentleman from Michigan's amendment makes it clear that if that company, that Internet service provider, is, in fact, themselves selling the alcoholic beverage, then they would be subject to the injunction, because it adds the language used by another person to engage in any activity that is subject to this act to create an exception to the exception already created for them to the injunction. The gentleman's language is well taken, I support it, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

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

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, the one word answer is yes, and that is certainly my intention in offering this amendment to make sure that the underlying purpose of the bill is preserved, but make sure that, A, there are no efforts here to create new taxes or new regulations of Internet activities, and, B, that there is no unconstitutionally, and I think that is an important word we use here, unconstitutionally discriminatory action taken by a State that would disfavor out-of-State purveyors of these products.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield further, it would not stop the attorney general of a State that wishes to seek an injunction against a company violating that State's laws, prohibiting either the sale of alcohol in the State or the sale of alcohol to minors in that State from continuing to seek that injunction. I strongly support the gentleman and the gentleman from Florida's efforts to allow the States to go into Federal court to achieve that injunction.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the amendment offered by the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt) that 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. These programs are harmful to communities and undermines our Nation's drug control efforts. Drug abuse continues to ravage our community, our schools, and our children. Heroin use is again on the rise. Thousands of children will inject hard-core drugs, like heroin and cocaine, for the first time this year and many will die. To deal with this problem, we must have a firm commitment by the Federal Government to end the cycle of addiction and abuse that destroys so many lives. Providing free hypodermic needles to addicts so 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. We should not tell our children do not do drugs, on the one hand, while giving them free needles to shoot up with in the other. We need a national drug control policy which emphasizes education, interdiction, prevention, and treatment, not subsidies for addicts. The results of community-based needle exchange programs have been disastrous. Needle exchange programs result in towns with higher crime, schools that are littered with used drugs, paraphernalia, and neighborhoods that are magnets for drug addicts and the high-risk behavior that accompany them. The medical evidence behind these dangerous programs is inconclusive at best. Studies have shown that addicts who use needle exchange programs are more likely to contract HIV or other blood-borne viruses. A recent study published by the American Journal of Epidemiology concluded that there was no indication that needle exchanges protected against blood-borne infections. In fact, the study concluded ``there was no indication of a protective effect of syringe exchange against HBV or HCV infection. Indeed, highest incidence of infection occurred among current users of the exchange, even after adjusting for confounding variables.'' Here in the District of Columbia, the problem persists. It has been noted that the District of Columbia has the highest incidence of new HIV infection in the country, and yet we have had needle exchange programs here for 7 years. It is time to halt any government support of this. Support the Tiahrt amendment.

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 on S. 604, the bill just passed.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of the Lake Oconee Land Exchange Act, which would enact a mutually beneficial exchange of land between the USDA Forest Service and the Georgia Power Company. The exchange would result in consolidation and more efficient management of national forests, increased protection of wildlife and habitats, and improved recreational access for citizens. The Forest Service will exchange Forest Service lands that lie under Lake Oconee behind Georgia Power's Wallace Dam on the Oconee River in northern Georgia, flood rights on contour strips around the lake, and two parcels in neighboring counties, in exchange for lands Georgia Power owns within the Chattahoochee and Oconee National Forests. The exchange involves approximately 1,200 acres of Forest Service land for approximately 1,100 acres of Georgia Power land. The exchange will allow the Forest Service to acquire one of two remaining non-Federal properties within congressionally designated wilderness areas in north Georgia. This tract is in the middle of the Rich Mountain Wilderness, and totally surrounded by other National Forest lands. The vast majority of lands to be transferred by the Forest Service lie at the bottom of Lake Oconee and are not actively conveying any public benefit. The remainder of the properties being relinquished to Georgia Power is currently occupied by Georgia Power facilities in Rabun County. These properties are of minimal value to the National Forest, and would be more appropriately owned by Georgia Power. The Forest Service, as detailed by the Forest Supervisor's Decision Memo, has determined that the transfer complies with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, and is supportive of the bill. In addition, 67 percent of the lands of Rabun County are currently part of the Chattahoochee National Forest. This concentrated ownership poses a considerable strain on the ad valorem tax base of Rabun County. Included within the land exchange is the conveyance to Georgia Power Company of over 145 acres of property in Rabun County that currently houses Georgia Power facilities. The divestment of this property will facilitate Rabun County and their problem with their limited tax base. I urge Members' support of this legislation, with the assurance that this exchange will allow improved management by both parties, resulting in increased environmental protection and enjoyable utilization by all citizens. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the Senate bill (S. 604) to direct the Secretary of Agriculture to complete a land exchange with Georgia Power Company.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood), the sponsor of the legislation.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder).

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from South Carolina for his comments, for his forbearance on the amendment he was considering offering. I would say to the gentleman that I wholeheartedly agree with him that there needs to be reform of the management of our national forests, particularly with the way that timber sales are managed, because there is a tremendous amount of waste that does not occur on the vast amount of land we have in this country that is privately owned that also harvests a substantial amount of timber, in fact, far more than is taken from our Federal lands. So there are a number of reforms that need to take place to streamline that process, to make sure that we protect the environment, but also to make sure that we follow good, sound business practices in our national forests. I look forward to working with the gentleman from South Carolina in that regard.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Sanford) for the purposes of engaging in a colloquy.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I must reluctantly oppose this amendment. I think the gentleman has done us all a good service by pointing out these several studies that I think are highly questionable, but he is using a sledge hammer to hit at something that I think is probably far less expensive and doing so at the expense not only of our national forest, 200 million acres of land that we are responsible for managing. But this information is also utilized by our universities, by our extension services to help private landowners. We have more than 10 million private forest landowners in this country who receive assistance from extension services in terms of the advice they get on how to fight these various diseases on private land. If we only fight these problems on our public lands, we do not solve the problem at all because the various blights and so on are obviously indiscriminate, and they go on both public and private lands, and this is something that is a valuable resource to 10 million taxpayers in this country who utilize this research to help preserve private lands that are under a great deal of stress because we have reduced the amount of timber harvesting on public lands so much that the management of our private lands, and this information for those private landowners is vitally important. So I would suggest to the gentleman that perhaps the better approach would be to find out what these programs cost and introduce an amendment that would eliminate just that amount of money. I think the message needs to be sent that these wasteful programs he has identified are wrong, but we are cutting out far more than that when we cut out 16.9 million. So I am going to oppose the amendment but will work to see that the Forest Service gets the message that some of these research studies that are being funded that are intended to address real problems in our national forest are not being addressed by spending money on some of the studies that he cited, and I commend him for his efforts in that regard.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. I want to commend the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula), chairman of the subcommittee, for his leadership in advancing this program in the past. It is vitally important that we have a program that allows each forest system to raise funds to take care of the infrastructure in that system. It is not being done. This new program is the best opportunity we have had to see that occur. Let me give my colleagues an example that occurred in my district with a national park. I know this amendment only applies to national forests. But the same principle applies, and it is one I think we should extend everywhere. A few years ago, when I first arrived here, the Shenandoah National Park superintendent proposed closing two-thirds of the national park for 6 months of the year. We had a meeting up here with the representatives, and we asked him why on earth would he want to do that? He said, ``Well, to save money.'' We said, ``Well, certainly the fees that you collect on entry to the park would offset the cost of the money that you save by having folks in the booths.'' This is what he said, ``You are going to save about $250,000 by closing the booth and not collecting the fee.'' He said, ``Oh, yes, it would save us $250,000 because we do not get to keep any of the funds that we receive when we collect those fees. So all of the funds received go into the general Treasury, $250,000 off of our budget. It makes sense for us to close one of the largest, most visited national parks in the eastern United States, two-thirds of it, for half of the year, because we do not collect the fees.'' We have changed that, both in our national parks and in our national forest to allow the collection of the fees. It gives the people on the ground in the parks the incentive to improve the conditions, to keep the facilities open. How many people visit our national forest today and find chains across the road, tank traps built because the Forest Service does not have the resources to maintain the facilities? So they shut them do down in large measure. If they are given the incentive to have the opportunity to collect a fee, they are going to open up more roads, they are going to open up more areas, they are going to open up more access to recreation. That is why this program, while it certainly can be improved, we certainly want to make sure that local residents who want to visit the park on a regular basis have a reasonable year-round pass that they can use in combined force. I think the gentleman is exactly right that that should be corrected and changed. I certainly, as the chairman of the Subcommittee on Department Operations, Oversight, Nutrition, and Forestry of the Committee on Agriculture would also extend my offer to work with him to see that that kind of improvements to the system are made. But please do not cut out the incentive to improve our national forest by allowing people who use them to collect a fee. In addition, I would point out that many people travel great distances to visit our national forests. They will pay money for gasoline, for hotel rooms, for meals, and so on. Then when they get to these destination places, they will either pay nothing or a nominal fee to visit them. That to me is not logical. If these places are, and they certainly are, great attractions for people to come long distances to visit them, it is not entirely unreasonable to think that we could collect a small fee to help to maintain and improve these facilities. So I urge the Members of the House to oppose this amendment and see that this program, which is evolving and which will, I think, lead to great improvements in the recreational facilities of our national forest, that this amendment is defeated.

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

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I want to say to the gentleman that I thank him, first of all, for his opposition to this amendment. I believe that it would be appropriate to fund the backlog of restoration programs more fully. If more money materializes for the Interior appropriation, I hope that some of those funds would be added to the restoration accounts. I would join with the gentleman from New York in his effort to do that.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis) the chief sponsor of the legislation.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce).

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella).

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), a member of the conference committee and a senior member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 235, I call up the conference report on the bill (H.R. 775) to establish certain procedures for civil actions brought for damages relating to the failure of any device or system to process or otherwise deal with the transition from the year 1999 to the year 2000, and for other purposes.

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 to include extraneous material on the legislation under consideration.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, today is day 182 of 1999, half way through the year. Over the past 6 months, Congress has climbed the mountain of Y2K liability reform legislation, and as we stand at the legislative summit, ready to pass legislation that Republicans, Democrats and the White House can support, we can only hope that our work will help those who are climbing an ever-larger mountain, those who are trying to fix their Y2K bugs before they hit. Our job is now done. For the next 6 months, we can only hope that this legislation, which will greatly reduce the threat of frivolous Y2K lawsuits, will allow our Nation's businesses to pour their energies into avoiding Y2K failures instead of planning their Y2K legal defenses. Frankly, I did not think that this moment would actually arrive. Just last week, we stood here facing the wide gulf of a weaker Senate-passed bill. We faced an even wider gulf with the White House which, up until last week, was nowhere to be seen in the negotiations and was backing badly defeated Senate proposals that provided nothing but smoke and mirrors for addressing the Y2K problem. Fortunately, all parties eventually realized that compromise is an essential part of successful legislating. Both the House and the White House moved significantly from their original positions to reach an agreement closely resembling the Senate-passed legislation. The final conference report is a model of compromise. Not only did the White House get many of the concessions it sought, but the core pieces of the House-passed legislation remain firmly in place. Caps on punitive damages, reform of class action lawsuits, proportionate liability, a 90-day waiting period, and contract preservation all remain in this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate all those who have worked hard over the past week and over the past 6 months to make this bill happen. I want to commend my colleagues who worked on this, including the sponsor of the bill, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis), the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox), the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) and the Democratic sponsors, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran), the gentleman from California (Mr. Dooley) and the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Cramer). I also want to thank Senators McCain, Hatch and the other Senate conferees for working so hard to get a good piece of legislation that the White House would sign. Finally, I want to commend the House and Senate personal and committee staffs on both sides of the aisle who worked so hard to make this legislation happen. They are to be commended for a job well done. Mr. Speaker, this conference report is a victory for small businesses and a victory for consumers. One hundred eighty-two days down and 183 to go, now Americans can begin the homestretch in their efforts to keep the Y2K problem from becoming a reality. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.