Bob Goodlatte

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased, along with 204 of my colleagues, to introduce the Security And Freedom through Encryption (SAFE) Act of 1999. This much-needed, bipartisan legislation accomplishes several important goals. First, it aids law enforcement by preventing piracy and white-collar crime on the Internet. If an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, then an ounce of encryption is worth a pound of subpoenas. With the speed of transactions and communications on the Internet, law enforcement cannot possibly deal with pirates and criminal hackers by waiting to react until after the fact. Only by allowing the use of strong encryption, not only domestically but internationally as well, can we hope to make the Internet a safe and secure environment. As the National Research Council's Committee on National Cryptography Policy concluded, ``If cryptography can protect the trade secrets and proprietary information of businesses and thereby reduce economic espionage (which it can), it also supports in a most important manner the job of law enforcement. If cryptography can help protect nationally critical information systems and networks against unauthorized penetration (which it can), it also supports the national security of the United States.'' Second, if electronic commerce is to reach its true potential, consumers and companies alike must have the confidence that their communications and transactions will be secure. The SAFE Act, by allowing all Americans to use the highest technology and strongest security available, will provide them with that confidence. Third, with the availability of strong encryption overseas and on the Internet, our current export controls only serve to tie the hands of American business. According to a number of industry studies, failure to remove our export controls will cost our economy hundreds of thousands of jobs and tens of billions of dollars. The SAFE Act remedies this situation by allowing the export of generally available encryption products without a license, and custom- designed encryption products if they are approved for use by banks or are commercially available from foreign companies. Removing these export barriers will free U.S. industry to remain the world leader in software, hardware, and Internet development. And by allowing the U.S. computer industry to use and export the highest technology available with the strongest security features available, America will be leading the way into the 21st century information age and beyond. This bipartisan legislation enjoys the support of members and organizations across the spectrum of all ideological and political beliefs. Groups as varied as Americans for Computer Privacy, American Civil Liberties Union, National Rifle Association, Law Enforcement Alliance of America, Americans for Tax Reform, Netscape, America Online, Microsoft, Business Software Alliance, Novell, Lotus, Adobe, Electronic Industries Alliance, Software and Information Industry Association, Information Technology Association of America, Citizens for a Sound Economy, Telecommunications Industry Association, Computer Electronics Manufacturers Association, U.S. Telephone Association, SBC Communications, Bell Atlantic, Bell South, U.S. West, Competitive Enterprise Institute, Business Leadership Council, IBM, Small Business Survival Committee, Sybase, RSA Data Security, Semiconductor Industry Association, Telecommunications Industry Association, Center for Democracy and Technology, and U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Direct Marketing Association, American Financial Services Association, Intel, Compaq, Network Associates, National Association of Manufacturers strongly support this legislation, to name just a few. The SAFE Act enjoys this support not only because it is a common- sense approach to solving a very immediate problem, but also because ordinary Americans' personal privacy and computer security is being assaulted by this Administration. Amazingly enough, the Administration wants to mandate a back door into peoples' computer systems in order to access their private information and confidential communications. In fact, the Administration has said that if private citizens and companies do not ``voluntarily'' create this back door, it will seek legislation forcing Americans to give the government access to their information by means of a ``key escrow'' system requiring computer users to put the keys to decode their encrypted communications into a central data bank. This is the technological equivalent of mandating that the federal government be given a key to every home in America. The SAFE Act, on the other hand, will prevent the Administration from placing roadblocks on the information superhighway by prohibiting the government from mandating a back door into the computer systems of private citizens and businesses. Additionally, the SAFE Act ensures that all Americans have the right to choose any security system to protect their confidential information. Mr. Speaker, with the millions of communications, transmissions, and transactions that occur on the Internet every day, American citizens and businesses must have the confidence that their private information and communications are safe and secure. That is precisely what the SAFE Act will ensure. I urge each of my colleagues to join and support this bipartisan effort. The original cosponsors are Representatives Lofgren, Armey, DeLay, Watts, Tom Davis, Cox, Pryce, Blunt, Gephardt, Bonior, Frost, DeLauro, John Lewis, Gejdenson, Sensenbrenner, Gekas, Coble, Lamar Smith, Gallegly, Bryant, Chabot, Barr, Hutchinson, Pease, Cannon, Rogan, Bono, Bachus, Conyers, Frank, Boucher, Nadler, Jackson-Lee, Waters, Meehan, Delahunt, Wexler, Ackerman, Andrews, Archer, Ballenger, Barcia, Bill Barrett, Tom Barrett, Barton, Bilbray, Blumenauer, Boehner, Kevin Brady, Robert Brady, Corrine Brown, George Brown, Burr, Burton, Camp, Campbell, Capps, Chambliss, Chenoweth, Christian-Christensen, Clayton, Clement, Clyburn, Collins, Cook, Cooksey, Cubin, Cummings, Cunningham, Danny Davis, Deal, DeFazio, Deutsch, Dickey, Dooley, Doolittle, Doyle, Dreier, Duncan, Dunn, Ehlers, Emerson, English, Eshoo, Ewing, Farr, Filner, Ford, Fossella, Franks, Gillmor, Goode, Goodling, Gordon, Green, Gutknecht, Ralph Hall, Hastings, Herger, Hill, Hobson, Hoekstra, Holden, Hooley, Horn, Houghton, Inslee, Istook, Jackson, Jr., Jefferson, E.B. Johnson, Nancy Johnson, Kanjorski, Kasich, Kelly, Kilpatrick, Kind, Kingston, Knollenberg, Kolbe, Lampson, Largent, Latham, Lee, Ron Lewis, Linder, Frank Lucas, Luther, Karen McCarthy, McDermott, McGovern, McIntosh, Maloney, Manzullo, Markey, Martinez, Matsui, Meek, Metcalf, Mica, Millender-McDonald, George Miller, Moakley, Jim Moran, Morella, Myrick, Napolitano, Neal, Nethercutt, Norwood, Nussle, Olver, Packard, Pallone, Pastor, Collin Peterson, Pickering, Pombo, Pomeroy, Price, Quinn, Radanovich, Rahall, Rangel, Reynolds, Rivers, Rohrabacher, Ros-Lehtinen, Rush, Salmon, Sanchez, Sanders, Sanford, Scarborough, Schaffer, Sessions, Shays, Sherman, Shimkus, Adam Smith, Chris Smith, Souder, Stabenow, Stark, Sununu, Tanner, Tauscher, Tauzin, Taylor, Thomas, Thompson, Thune, Tiahrt, Tierney, Upton, Vento, Walsh, Wamp, Watkins, Weller, Whitfield, Wicker, Woolsey, and Wu.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to introduce the National Right to Work Act of 1999 along with 86 original cosponsors. This Act will reduce federal power over the American workplace by removing those provisions of Federal law authorizing the collection of forced-union dues as part of a collective bargaining contract. Since the Wagner Act of 1935 made forced-union dues a keystone of Federal labor law, millions of American workers have been forced to pay for union ``representation'' that they neither choose nor desire. The primary beneficiaries of Right to Work are America's workers-- even those who voluntarily choose to pay union dues, because when union officials are deprived of the forced-dues power granted them under current federal law they'll be more responsive to the workers' needs and concerns. Mr. Speaker, this act is pro-worker, pro-economic growth, and pro- freedom The 21 states with Right to Work laws, including my own state of Virginia, have a nearly three-to-one advantage over non-Right to Work states in terms of job creation. And, according to U.S. News and World Report, seven of the strongest 10 state economies in the Nation have Right to Work laws. Workers who have the freedom to choose whether or not to join a union have a higher standard of living than their counterparts in non-Right to Work states. According to Dr. James Bennett, an economist with the highly-respected Economics Department at George Mason University, on average, urban families in Right to Work states have approximately $2,852 more annual purchasing power than urban families in non-Right to Work states when the lower taxes, housing and food costs of Right to Work states are taken into consideration. The National Right to Work Act would make the economic benefits of voluntary unionism a reality for all Americans. But this bill is about more than economics, it's about freedom. Compelling a man or woman to pay fees to a union in order to work violates the very principle of individual liberty upon which this nation was founded. Oftentimes forced dues are used to support causes the worker does not wish to support wish his or her hard-earned wages. Thomas Jefferson said it best, ``. . . to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves is sinful and tyrannical.'' By passing the National Right to Work Act, this Congress will take a major step towards restoring the freedom of America's workers to choose the form of workplace representation that best suits their needs. In a free society, the decision of whether or not to join or support a union should be made by a worker, not a union official, not an employer, and certainly not the U.S. Congress. The National Right to Work Act reduces federal power over America's labor markets, promotes economic growth and a higher standard of living, and enhances freedom. No wonder, according to a poll by the respected Marketing Research Institute, 77 percent of Americans support Right to Work, and over 50 percent of union households believe workers should have the right to choose whether or not to join or pay dues to a labor union. No other piece of legislation before this Congress will benefit this Nation as much as the National Right of Work Act. I urge my colleagues to quickly pass the National Right to Work Act and free millions of Americans from forced-dues tyranny.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, with regard to the obstruction of justice, Article III, and the charge of suborning perjury or witness tampering with regard to Betty Currie, everyone here should understand that the issue is not whether or not Betty Currie was a witness. In fact, the law is very clear on that point. Title 18, Section 1512 of the United States Code with regard to witness tampering says that for the purposes of this section an official proceeding need not be pending or about to be instituted at the time of the offense, and the courts have been clear on this. In United States v. Radolitz the Court said the most obvious example of a Section 1512 violation may be the situation where a defendant tells a potential witness a false story as if the story were true, intending that the witness believe the story and testify to it before the grand jury. So the issue was what did the President think was likely to occur with regard to Ms. Currie, and in point of fact she later was called as a witness, and in a civil deposition he referred to her time and time and time again. So it is clear to me that he thought she likely to be a witness when he suggested to her that Ms. Lewinsky had come on to him, when he suggested to Ms. Currie that they were never alone, all of these statements intended to influence Ms. Currie's future testimony. With regard to the issue of Ms. Lewinsky's employment, the question is whether the President's efforts in obtaining a job for Ms. Lewinsky were to influence her testimony or simply to help an ex-intimate without concern for her testimony. The fact of the matter is the President assisted Ms. Lewinsky in her job search in late 1997 at a time when she would have been a witness harmful to him in the Jones case were she to testify truthfully. The President did not act halfheartedly. His assistance led to the involvement of the Ambassador to the United Nations, one of the country's leading business figures, Mr. Pearlman, and one of the country's leading attorneys, Vernon Jordan. I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, there is no coincidence between the fact that Ms. Lewinsky signed the false affidavit on the same day or the day after she received a job in New York.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, with regard to the trustworthiness of the President to continue in office or the President's fitness for office, with regard to Article III of the articles of impeachment, let the facts be known. The evidence before this House indicates that the President engaged in a pattern of obstruction while the Jones v. Clinton case was pending and while a federal criminal investigation into his alleged misconduct was pending in order to thwart those proceedings. The President encouraged Monica Lewinsky to file a sworn affidavit that he knew would be false in the Jones v. Clinton case. The President encouraged Monica Lewinsky to lie under oath if called personally to testify in the Jones v. Clinton case. The President related to Betty Currie, a potential witness in the Jones v. Clinton case, a false account of events relevant to testimony she might provide in the case. The President told lies to White House aides who he knew would likely be called as witnesses before the grand jury investigating his misconduct, which these officials repeated to the grand jury, causing the grand jury to receive false information. The President intensified an effort to provide job assistance to Monica Lewinsky and succeeded in his efforts at a time when her truthful testimony in the Jones v. Clinton case would have been harmful to him. The President engaged in a plan to conceal evidence that had been subpoenaed in the Jones v. Clinton case. And the President at his deposition allowed his attorney to make a false representation to a Federal judge in order to prevent questioning about Ms. Lewinsky. I do not see how anyone, anyone, can deny the seriousness of these charges or the corrupting effect they have on the judicial system of this country if we allow them to go unaddressed.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, it is a somber day as we consider articles of impeachment against the President of the United States. As the chief law enforcement officer of the Nation, it is incumbent upon the President to uphold the laws and remain faithful to the Constitution. The question before the Congress is whether the President intentionally misled our judicial system and the American people as part of a calculated, ongoing effort to conceal the facts and the truth, and to deny an average citizen her day in court in a sexual harassment lawsuit. Did the President betray the public trust by perjuring himself before a Federal grand jury and obstructing justice? Virtually every public official in America, including our Nation's Governors and virtually everyone in private employment, would lose their job if they committed perjury or obstructed justice. In fact, many already have. The Committee on the Judiciary heard from average Americans who have suffered these consequences and even incarceration because they committed perjury. Millions of law-abiding Americans from all walks of life, including my constituents, put in an honest day's work, follow the rules, and struggle to teach their children respect for the law and the importance of integrity. When a factory worker or a doctor or a retiree breaks the law, they do so with the knowledge that they are not above the law. This same principle must also apply to the most powerful in our Nation, including the President of the United States. To lose this principle devastates a legacy entrusted to us by our Founding Fathers, and protected for us by generations of Americans. Articles I and II deal with perjury before a Federal grand jury and in a civil deposition before a Federal judge. I would like to particularly call to the attention of the Members Article III dealing with obstruction of justice. The evidence shows that the President corruptly encouraged a witness in a Federal civil rights action to execute a sworn affidavit in that proceeding that he knew to be perjurious, false, and misleading. The evidence shows that the President corruptly encouraged a witness to give perjurious, false, and misleading testimony if and when called to testify personally in that proceeding. The evidence shows that the President corruptly engaged in and encouraged or supported a scheme to conceal evidence. The evidence shows that the President corruptly prevented the truthful testimony of a witness in that proceeding at a time when the truthful testimony of that witness would have been harmful to him. And the evidence shows that the President corruptly allowed his attorney to make false and misleading statements to a Federal judge. I have a constitutional duty to follow the truth wherever it leads. The truth in this case leads me to believe that the President knowingly engaged in a calculated pattern of lies, deceit, and delay in order to mislead the American people, impede the search for truth, deny the right of his accuser to have her day in court, and protect himself from criminal prosecution. Therefore, I have no alternative but to support articles of impeachment against President Clinton. Mr. Speaker, we must ask ourselves what the President's failure to uphold the rule of law says to the Nation, and most especially to our children, who must trust us to leave them a civilized Nation where justice is respected. It is for them and for their future that we must act today.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me, and I ask that a letter received from Senator Bob Dole dated today be placed in the record. I will read a part of that: It is entirely appropriate for the U.S. House of Representatives to debate and vote on articles of impeachment at this time. He later says, I also believe that quick positive action in the House could improve chances for a timely resolution of this matter in the U.S. Senate. So to those on the other side who have been invoking the name of Senator Dole, I would point out that he believes that it is appropriate for us to take the action we are taking today.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay recognition to the outstanding work done by Coors Brewing Company in its Shenandoah facility in the area of protecting the environment. Under the leadership of plant manager, Bob Merchant, Coors was recently awarded the Environmental Excellence Award by the Virginia Water Environment Association (VWEA). VWEA is one of 77 members of the Water Environment Federation. The Federation is dedicated to the preservation and enhancement of the global water environment and is committed to providing technical information to a worldwide audience, expanding quality services to members, and building alliances with other organizations. VWEA selected Coors for its environmental commitment in the area of wastewater treatment for using the most advanced technology and for adhering to the highest of water quality standards--all in the effort to protect the South Fork of the Shenandoah River. The Association also recognized the company for developing and implementing specific actions for eliminating nonpoint source pollution, and educating the citizens of the Commonwealth about the protection, conservation and wise utilization of water. This forward-thinking operation is a model for any company that seeks to go above and beyond simple compliance in its management of environmental issues. After all, water is one of the most important ingredients in beer, and it is one with which consumers closely identify the company. Coors' commitment to water conservation and environmental control began when the brewery opened its doors 125 years ago, and their commitment clearly continues to this day. The Coors Shenandoah facility at Elkton, Virginia, has been a great neighbor, a good employer, and a place we have over the years come to count on for true leadership on a range of important environmental issues. It is with pride and pleasure that I pay tribute to the outstanding performance of Coors Shenandoah.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of this important legislation to address the growing problem of telephone slamming. As the sponsor of an earlier version of anti-slamming legislation with Congressman Bass of New Hampshire, I was pleased to work with the gentleman from Louisiana, Mr. Tauzin, to move this bill through the Congress. As we are all aware, the problem of slamming has become an epidemic that has affected millions of American consumers. According to the Federal Communications Commission, tens of thousands of Americans are slammed each year. Among telephone users, this is by far their number one complaint. For many folks, telephones and e-mail are more than just communications devices. They can be the only links between a parent and a child halfway across the globe, or a way for old friends separated by the miles to relive old times. Many of our nation's seniors also rely on the telephone as a window to the world around them. It can be a vital connection that enables them to celebrate life with family and friends. Telephone slammers don't just rob these folks of their hard-earned dollars. They rob them of a source of happiness, a lifetime to family and friends, and replace it with a feeling of anger and frustration at being swindled. The unsavory characters who commit this crime deserve swift and strong purnishment. Consumers are in need of stronger protections from these criminals. The passage of H.R. 3888 will help law enforcement put an end to the crime of long distance slamming and e-mail spamming. Congress gave the FCC significant authority to eliminate slamming as part of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Unfortunately, little action was taken by the FCC to exercise this new authority. The legislation we are considering today will remove a significant portion of the flexbility originally given to the FCC. Instead, the bill outlines a more detailed and instructive plan for eliminating the practice of slamming. The bill gives telephone carriers two choices. The first option is for carriers to regulate themselves. The carriers have said that they want to eliminate slamming, and we will see if they can live up to their word. For those carriers that cannot responsibly regulate themselves, they will be subject to the heavy hand of FCC enforcement. I join my colleagues in expressing optimism that carriers will be able to agree on regulations for themselves and stop slamming on their own. I strongly support giving the industry an opportunity to lead on this issue, having long opposed the imposition of burdensome regulations that raise the cost of doing business and serve as a barrier for competition. For those companies that choose to violate the law, H.R. 3888 provides for significant penalties, including fines as high as $150,000 for repeat offenders. In addition, slammers will be forced to reimburse their victims for any extra charges incurred as a result of the slamming. This will achieve a balance between the need to give companies the ability to standardize their business practices and the need to allow State officials to enforce State statutes against consumer fraud. The bill also addresses the growing problem of ``spamming,'' which is the mass distribution of unsolicited commercial E-mail messages to private computers. This annoying practice, which has become more widely used as the use of E-mail grows, is not only disruptive but highly intrusive. H.R. 3888 expresses the sense of the Congress that the private sector should promptly adopt, implement, and enforce measures to deter and prevent the improper use of unsolicated commercial electronic mail. The characters who commit the crime of telephone slamming are striking at one of our most basic human freedoms--communication. Our ability to communicate with others, free from interruption and through our choice of services, must be protected. H.R. 3888 gives law enforcement the ammunication they need to defend consumers against telephone slammers, and will help bring an end to this private pervasive crime. I want to thank the hard work of the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Telecommunications, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin), and also my colleague from New Hampshire (Mr. Bass), who has long taken an interest in this important issue. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

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 S. 1733.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this legislation is to ensure that deceased people do not receive food stamp benefits. In February of this year, the General Accounting Office published an audit of four large States that account for 35 percent of the Nation's participants in the food stamp program. They found that nearly 26,000 deceased individuals were included in households receiving food stamps. These households improperly collected an estimated $8.5 million in food stamp benefits. This outrageous waste, fraud and abuse cannot be tolerated. While there may be differences of opinion on how this money should be spent, I believe that we can all agree that the nutritional needs of deceased individuals are substantially less than the needs of the living, and this abuse must end. Under food stamp rules, households must notify their welfare office of any change in the makeup of the household within 10 days. The GAO report titled ``Food Stamp Overpayments: Thousands of Deceased Individuals are Being Counted as Household Members'' shows that the names of the deceased individuals it found were counted in the food stamp households for an average of 4 months, and in a few instances the deceased persons were counted for the full 2 years of the review. I introduced H.R. 4366, the Food Stamp Verification Act of 1998, in response to this report. This bill requires food stamp State agencies to enter into a cooperative agreement with the Commissioner of Social Security to obtain information on individuals who are deceased. The bill we consider today, S. 1733, is the Senate version of H.R. 4366. It allows the Social Security Administration to share all of its information on deceased individuals with State agencies administering food stamps. This would enable States to use the most comprehensive information available on deceased persons and cross-check it with their food stamp rolls. S. 1733 also requires the Secretary of Agriculture to conduct a study of options for the design, development, implementation and operation of a national database to track participation in the food stamp program. This study should address the feasibility and cost-benefit ratio of every available option for a national database. Mr. Speaker, this is simple, common-sense legislation. The CBO estimates that it will save American taxpayers $17 million plus it allows States to administer their programs more efficiently. Welfare programs with lives of their own that continue into the afterlife are not acceptable. This problem should have been corrected long ago and the solution is only a matter of requiring cooperation between government agencies. I want to thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) the ranking member of the Committee on Agriculture and the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Clayton) for their support for this legislation as well. I urge support of S. 1733 and request its quick passage by the House of Representatives. 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. 1733) to amend the Food Stamp Act of 1977 to require food stamp State agencies to take certain actions to ensure that food stamp coupons are not issued for deceased individuals, to require the Secretary of Agriculture to conduct a study of options for the design, development, implementation, and operation of a national database to track participation in Federal means-tested public assistance programs, and for other purposes.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2281, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. I would like to thank both Chairman Coble and Chairman Hyde for their leadership on this issue. Additionally, I would like to thank them again for asking me to lead the negotiations between the various parties on the issue of on-line service provider liability for copyright infringement, which is included in this important bill. The issue of liability for on-line copyright infringement, especially where it involves third parties, is difficult and complex. For me personally, this issue is not a new one: during the 104th Congress, then-Chairman Carlos Moorhead asked me to lead negotiations between the parties. Although I held numerous meetings involving members of the content community and members of the service provider community, unfortunately we were not able to resolve this issue. At the beginning of the 105th Congress, Chairman Cobel asked me to again lead the negotiations between the parties on this issue. After a great deal of meetings and negotiation sessions, the copyright community and the service provider community were able to successfully reach agreement. That agreement is included in the bill we are considering today. No one is happier, except maybe those in each community who spent countless hours and a great deal of effort trying to reach agreement, than I am with the agreement contained in this bill. Madam Speaker, this is a critical issue to the development of the Internet, and I believe that both sides in this debate need each other. If America's creators do not believe that their works will be protected when they put them on-line, then the Internet will lack the creative content it needs to reach its true potential. And if America's service providers are subject to litigation for the acts of third parties at the drop of a hat, they will lack the incentive to provide quick and efficient access to the Internet. The provisions of H.R. 2281 will allow the Internet to flourish, and I believe will prove to be a win- win not only for both sides, but for consumers, manufacturers, and Internet users throughout the nation. I would also like to discuss the importance of the World Intellectual Property Organization treaties, and this accompanying implementing legislation, which are critical to protecting U.S. copyrights overseas. The United States is the world leader in intellectual property. We export billions of dollars worth of creative works every year in the form of software, books, videotapes, and records. Our ability to create so many quality products has become a bulwark of our national economy, and it is vital that copyright protection for these products not stop at our borders. International protection of U.S. copyrights will be of tremendous benefit to our economy--but we need to ratify the WIPO treaties for this to happen, and we need to pass this legislation to ratify the treaties. I would also like to express my understanding of the intent behind the provisions of H.R. 2281 that address certain technologies used to control copying of motion pictures in analog form on videocassette recorders, provisions that were not part of either the original House or Senate bills. That section establishes certain requirements only for analog videocassette recorders, analog videocassette camcorders, and professional analog videocassette recorders. In other words, these requirements exist only in the ``analog'' world. The limitations, for instance, with respect to certain transmissions apply only with respect to those transmissions in analog form. The intent of the conferees is that these provisions do not establish any obligations with respect to digital technologies, including computers or software. Copyright owners are free to use these or any other forms of copy control technology to protect their works in the ``digital'' world, including in any digital broadcasts, transmissions, or copies. It is also my understanding that the intent of the conferees is that this provision neither establishes, nor should it be interpreted as establishing, a precedent for Congress to legislate specific standards or specific technologies to be used as technological protection measures, particularly with respect to computers and software. While it is not the intent of the conferees to prejudice or affect ongoing negotiations over digital video technology, it may become necessary in the future for Congress to consider protections for audiovisual works in the digital environment. The conferees understand that technology develops best and most rapidly in response to marketplace forces, and believe that private parties should be free to apply their ingenuity to develop even better and more effective technologies. Finally, regulatory agencies should not involve themselves in establishing specific standards in the digital medium, in particular for software and computers. The technology changes far too fast, much more rapidly than regulatory standards. Therefore, regulation in this area is likely to impede, or in some cases even discourage, the development of new technologies. This bill is critical not only because it will allow the Internet to flourish, but also because it ensures that America will remain the world leader in the development of intellectual property. I urge each of my colleagues to support the conference report to H.R. 2281.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time and for his strong leadership on this issue. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the conference report. This important legislation is an honest compromise between the House and Senate passed bills, and while I have serious concerns about the retention of certain provisions of the Senate passed bill, the overall conference report is a strong agreement that is pro personal responsibility and anti bankruptcy abuse. With a record high 1.4 million bankruptcies filings last year, every American must pay more for credit, goods and services when others go bankrupt. I cosponsored and voted for House passage of H.R. 3150 because it is high time that we relieve consumers from the burden of paying for the debts of others. The Bankruptcy Reform Act restores personal responsibility, fairness and accountability to our bankruptcy laws and will be of great benefit to consumers. For too long our bankruptcy laws have allowed individuals to walk away from their debts even though many are able to repay them. That is not fair to millions of hard-working families who pay their bills, mortgages, car loans, student loans and credit card bills every month. The loopholes in our bankruptcy laws have led to a 400 percent increase in personal bankruptcy filings since 1980 at a cost of $40 billion per year. These losses have been passed directly to consumers, costing every household that pays its bills an average $400 per year in a hidden tax in the form of increased costs of goods that are passed on by those who are defaulted upon with credit. In real terms that is a year's supply of diapers or 20 tanks of gas. The conference agreement retains the strong needs-based formula included in the House passed version of the bill but would preserve the right of a debtor in bankruptcy to have a judge review his or her case. This judicial review would preserve the means test that is so necessary for successful bankruptcy reform while allowing a debtor's unique circumstances to be taken into account. Under the current system, some irresponsible people filing for bankruptcy run up their credit card debt immediately prior to filing knowing that their debts will soon be wiped away. These debts, however, do not just disappear. They are passed along to hard-working folks who play by the rules and pay their own bills on time. The Bankruptcy Reform Act ends this practice by requiring bankruptcy filers to pay back nondischargeable debts made in the 90 days preceding their filing. In addition, new debts incurred within 90 days of bankruptcy for luxury goods over $250 in value would be presumed nondischargeable. While ending the abuses of our bankruptcy laws, the Bankruptcy Reform Act is strongly pro consumer in other ways as well. This legislation, for example, helps children by strengthening protections in the law that prioritize child support and alimony payments. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise today in support of the conference report on H.R. 3150, the Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1998. This important legislation is an honest compromise between the House- and Senate- passed bills, and while I have serious concerns about the retention of certain provisions of the Senate-passed bill, the overall conference report is a strong agreement that is pro-personal responsibility and anti-bankruptcy abuse. With a record-high 1.4 million bankruptcy filings last year, every American must pay more for credit, goods, and services when others go bankrupt. I cosponsored and voted for House passage of H.R. 3150 because it is high time that we relieve consumers from the burden of paying for the debts of others. The Bankruptcy Reform Act restores personal responsibility, fairness, and accountability to our bankruptcy laws, and will be of great benefit to consumers. For too long, our bankruptcy laws have allowed individuals to walk away from their debts, even though many are able to repay them. That's not fair to millions of hard-working families who pay their bills-- mortgages, car loans, student loans, and credit card bills--every month. The loopholes in our bankruptcy laws have led to a 400 percent increase in personal bankruptcy filings since 1980, at a cost of $40 billion per year. These losses have been passed directly to consumers, costing every household that pays its bills $400 per year in a hidden tax in the form of increased costs goods each year. In real terms, that's a year's supply of diapers, or twenty tanks of gas. The conference agreement retains the strong needs-based formula included in the House-passed version of the bill, but would preserve the right of a debtor in bankruptcy to have a judge review his or her case. This judicial review would preserve the means test that is so necessary for successful bankruptcy reform while allowing a debtor's unique circumstances to be taken into account. Under the current system, some irresponsible people filing for bankruptcy run up their credit card debt immediately prior to filing, knowing that their debts will soon be wiped away. These debts, however, do not just disappear--they are passed along to hard-working folks who play by the rules and pay their own bills on time. The Bankruptcy Reform Act ends this practice by requiring bankruptcy filers to pay back nondischargeable debts made in the 90 days preceding their filing. In addition, new debts incurred within 90 days of bankruptcy for luxury goods over $250 in value would be presumed non-dischargeable. While ending the abuses of our bankruptcy laws, the Bankruptcy Reform Act is strongly pro-consumer in other ways as well. This legislation, for example, helps children by strengthening protections in the law that prioritize child support and alimony payments. Additionally, H.R. 3150 protects consumers from ``bankruptcy mills'' that encourage folks to file for bankruptcy without fully informing them of their rights and the potential harms that bankruptcy can cause. I think that my friends on the other side of the aisle would agree with me that none of the parties involved in this debate got everything that they wanted in this bill, nor would any of us claim to support all of the provisions included in this bill. I know I certainly do not. But that is the essence of compromise. On the whole, however, this bill is a giant step in the right direction and means real reform for our nation's bankruptcy laws. Bankruptcy should remain available to folks who truly need it, but those who can afford to repay their debts should not be able to stick other folks with the tab. Enactment of this conference report will send a big signal toward those who would abuse our bankruptcy system that the free ride is over. I urge my colleagues to support this fair and reasonable compromise. Thank you.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, in a short while this House will vote on whether or not to begin an impeachment inquiry against the President of the United States. A very serious matter. We will have a vote that will, I think, result in a substantial majority of the Members voting to proceed unhindered by artificial time constraints that simply subject the body to political gamesmanship of delay rather than expedition of the process. We will vote to allow ourselves to look at other credible evidence of impeachable offenses from other credible sources, if those come before the body. We should not engage in a fishing expedition, but we should exercise our constitutional responsibility in a full and open way, the same way we have always exercised that responsibility for every other impeachment inquiry in more than 200 years of American history. And we should do it in the way suggested by our former colleague, Representative Barbara Jordan, who said at another time, ``It is reason, not passion, which must guide our deliberations, guide our debate and guide our decision.'' The charges against the President include perjury, witness tampering and obstruction of justice. These are serious charges, charges that cannot be wiped away with a mere wink and a nod, an apology, or someone's interpretation of the latest opinion poll. The standard that we follow, and the standard we teach our children, is that no person is above the law, including the President of the United States. Amid the intense glare of the moment, we must keep in mind that what the House is considering today is not impeachment or articles of impeachment, nor is it about matters for which the President has apologized. Rather, the House must decide, in light of the documented allegations of serious crimes committed by the President, all of which the President has repeatedly denied, whether we should take the next step in the constitutional process by fully and completely investigating whether the charges are well-founded. I urge my colleagues to take that step because it is the right thing to do. We must follow the truth wherever it leads.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the Senate bill (S. 2392) to encourage to disclosure and exchange of information about computer processing problems, solutions, test practices and test results, and related matters in connection with the transition to the year 2000, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

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. 2392, the legislation just passed.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as he may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Trademark Anticounterfeiting Act of 1998. This important legislation will provide law enforcement the tools they need to combat the growing crime of altering or removing product identification codes from goods and packaging. This bill will also provide manufacturers and consumers with civil and criminal remedies to fight those counterfeiters and illicit distributors of goods with altered or removed product codes. Finally, this bill will protect consumers from the possible health risks that so often accompany tampered goods. Product codes play a critical role in the regulation of goods and services. For example, when problems arise over drugs or medical devices regulated by the Food and Drug Administration, the product codes play a vital role in conducting successful recalls. Similarly, the Consumer Product Safety Commission and other regulators rely on product codes to conduct recalls of automobiles, dangerous toys and other items that pose safety hazards. Product codes are frequently used by law enforcement to conduct criminal investigations as well. These codes have been used to pinpoint the location and sometimes the identity of criminals. Recently, product codes aided in the investigation of terrorist acts, including the bombing of Olympic Park in Atlanta and the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbee, Scotland. At the same time, manufacturers have limited weapons to prevent unscrupulous distributors from removing the coding to divert products to unauthorized retailers or place fake codes on counterfeit products. For example, one diverter placed genuine, but outdated, labels of brand name baby formula on substandard baby formula and resold the product to retailers. Infants who were fed the formula suffered from rashes and seizures. We cannot take the chance of any baby being harmed by infant formula or any other product that might be defaced, decoded or otherwise tampered with. FDA enforcement of current law has been vigilant and thorough, but this potentially serious problem must be dealt with even more effectively as counterfeiters and illicit distributors utilize the advanced technologies of a digital age in their crimes. Mr. Speaker, my legislation will provide Federal measures which will further discourage tampering and protect the ability of manufacturers to implement successful recalls and trace product when needed. It would prohibit the alteration or removal of product identification codes on goods or packaging for sale in interstate or foreign commerce, including those held in areas where decoding frequently occurs. The legislation will also prohibit goods that have undergone decoding from entering the country, prohibit the manufacture and distribution of devices primarily used to alter or remove product identification codes, and allow the seizure of decoded goods and decoding devices. It will require offenders to pay monetary damages and litigation damages in the event of repeat violations. The bill will also impose criminal sanctions, including fines and imprisonment, for violators who are knowingly engaged in decoding violations. The bill would not require product codes, prevent decoding by authorized manufacturers, or prohibit decoding by consumers. It also includes language offered by my colleague, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Wexler) that would allow for repackaging of products for legitimate resale purposes. The bill also includes language to address concerns raised by the gentleman from Arkansas, (Mr. Hutchinson), on behalf of Wal-Mart, to protect those who unknowingly had violated any portion of the bill. This legislation is a good approach designed to strengthen the tools of law enforcement, provide greater security for the manufacturers of products, and most importantly, provide consumers with improved safety from tampered with or counterfeit goods. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting passage of this bill which will go a long way toward closing the final gap in Federal law enforcement tools to protect consumers and the products they enjoy. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. GOODLATTE. The gentleman asked the question. I will be happy to answer it.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3891) to amend the Trademark Act of 1946 to prohibit the unauthorized destruction, modification, or alteration of product identification codes, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Intellectual Property.

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

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. The reason why items need to be covered is----