Bob Goodlatte

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to close. Mr. Speaker, let me just say, in response to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Forbes), that if his statement were accurate, then organizations like the National Association of Mass Retailers and the National Consumers League would oppose this legislation, and they do not. The reason they do not is that they share the concerns that many have about product safety. They share the concerns that many have about law enforcement and they share the concerns that many have about what motivations somebody has for pulling off the product identification code from a product and then wanting to resale it. What are they hiding from? I would suggest to my colleagues that they are hiding from the fact that there are criminal activities that take place by those who adulterate products, who change products, and they should not be allowed to do that by altering or removing these codes. That is what this legislation clearly addresses. It is clearly needed because all the laws cited by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), which are very good laws, some of which I introduced myself, do not cover the specific facts and the specific instances of removing and tampering with labels that are addressed in this bill, and that is why the legislation is supported by the AFL-CIO. I am pleased to have their support for this legislation. It is not often that they come together and agree with manufacturers, and the United States Chamber of Commerce and consumers, but when we have that kind of collection of support, and the needs of law enforcement, we ought to take advantage of the opportunity to pass a very good bill and ignore the concerns of a very narrow, limited group of people who are not just in the gray market, which we support, but which are involved in criminal activity in the gray market, which we do not support and which this bill attacks. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, if they do so, then they should be prosecuted under the laws that already exist on the books if they are doing so in the discriminatory manner that the gentleman describes. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time, and I inquire how much time is remaining.

Mr. GOODLATTE. I yield further to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, that is against the law, and we have antitrust laws that prohibit that very activity that the gentleman has just described. And when that occurs, I have seen many instances where cases are brought for that kind of discriminatory treatment in the marketplace, and those laws should be enforced. But it certainly should not interfere with a manufacturer's legitimate need and law enforcement's legitimate need to have those product codes not tampered with, falsified on the product. I think that is outrageous.

Mr. GOODLATTE. I yield further to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Reclaiming my time, no, I am only making a case that if a code is put on the product by the manufacturer, the Congress, the people should not be questioning the reason for doing that by allowing the removal of that code for various reasons, one of which is tracing products that may have been adulterated and need to be recalled, may have defects and need to be recalled, products that may be used by law enforcement, may be discovered at the scene of the crime and can trace a crime. There is no compelling argument why somebody should be able to pull the code off the product and continue to sell the product without having that kind of consumer protection. That is why the National Consumer League supports the bill.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would just say to the gentleman that it is impossible to define what products might be used by law enforcement at some point in time to trace a product code.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I like to shop for discounts myself.

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 H.R. 3891, the bill under consideration.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, let me first say to the gentleman from Michigan, nothing is being railroaded. As the gentleman has quite accurately pointed out, for something to pass on suspension, it requires a two-thirds vote. If it were brought up under a rule it would only take a majority vote, so we are not trying to put anything over on anybody. Frankly, it surprised me that the gentleman came down here to oppose it. We had no idea that the gentleman was opposed to the legislation at this point. The gentleman never indicated any reservations about the bill. If he had done so, we would have wanted to include him in any negotiations that we had, because we were working very diligently to pull together the support necessary to pass this important legislation. But the gentleman is entirely inaccurate when he says there is no opportunity for amendment. The bill itself at the desk is a manager's amendment taken from suggestions made by those who had concerns in the Committee on the Judiciary meeting, and we did not reach agreement with everybody. It is hard to reach agreement with everybody. But we reached agreement with some of those who raised reservations, and we changed the bill accordingly. Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that the gentleman has the opposition. I would love to have sat down with him ahead of time and attempted to work those matters out, if it were possible. But I was never notified that the gentleman was going to oppose the legislation. I do not believe the basis on which the gentleman is opposing it is appropriate. It is simply not the case that this is going to damage the parallel markets or the so-called gray markets. We have addressed concerns raised by a number of folks to make sure that that in fact would not be the case. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) since he was kind enough to yield to me a little while ago.

Mr. GOODLATTE. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, in the case of perfume, it is easy to have a product that the code can be tampered with and put in a product that came in the original bottle that has been tampered with, adulterated, could cause harm when applied to the skin. With regard to blue jeans, they might be flammable. They might be in a suitcase in an airplane that is blown up in the sky and could help to identify where it came from.

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

Mr. GOODLATTE. Any item is potentially left at the scene of a crime. Any item could be left at the scene of a crime and could be traced to determine who it was that committed the crime.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I certainly hope that the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) is not attempting to protect those folks who are violating the law and attempting to defraud consumers in this country. Let me just point out who it is that supports this bill. The gentleman says we are attacking the gray market, but the National Association of Mass Retailers does not oppose this bill. It is supported by the United States Chamber of Commerce. It is supported by the AFL-CIO. It is supported by the National Association of Manufacturers, and it is supported by the National Consumers League. We are protecting consumers here, and we are not doing anything to affect those people who legitimately sell in the parallel market. I hope they continue to do so. That is certainly not what we are trying to affect here. We are trying to help law enforcement be able to trace product codes. It would be a shame if the batteries sold to the perpetrator of the Atlanta bombings were tampered with by somebody because it was not against the law to tamper with the identification code, and the FBI was not able to trace, as they were in that case, those products back to where they were sold to help identify the perpetrators. The same thing with the bombing over Lockerbie, Scotland. We do not know what kind of product may be used in a law enforcement investigation. It might be something related to a product that is for health and safety, but it might not be. If Members were to, for example, exempt clothing from this, there are all kinds of product defects that take place with clothing. They can catch on fire, and people need to have the ability to be contacted and notified that there is a problem. Limiting it to health and safety does not take into consideration products like baby toys, batteries. Where do we draw the line? Predatory pricing can be addressed through current antitrust laws. Those laws exist on the books. There are not laws on the books today prohibiting fraud from taking place when somebody tampers with or removes a code. That is why we make this distinction. In response to retail concerns, we have added language making the bill only applicable to those who knowingly perform one of the prohibited acts, so I cannot imagine why there would be any effort to protect those people who knowingly want to perpetrate a fraud like this. That is why we have the support of groups like the National Consumers League. The bill also includes additional protections in the bill for innocent infringers. We are not targeting those folks. The current law does not adequately address the problem of product code tampering. That is what we are addressing in this bill. We are not addressing the parallel market. Those who were concerned about that entered into detailed negotiations with us with other members of the committee. I am sorry that the gentleman did not choose to participate in those negotiations, but we worked with several members of the committee on both sides of the aisle to make changes to address those concerns. Those concerns have been addressed. We are simply going after the bad guys, I would say to the gentleman from Michigan. I would hope that he would change his mind about the importance of this bill, both from the standpoint of protecting consumers, and from the standpoint of helping law enforcement address a serious problem. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) that the legislation that he cited, some of which I authored and he supported, does not address issues where the law is intended to apply for reasons other than harm to the consumer. So if it is a matter of law enforcement, tracing the location of a product, it does not apply. This legislation makes it clear that we cannot tamper with a product code because doing so is perpetrating a fraud, for one reason or another. But secondly, keeping that code on the product helps us to give law enforcement the tools they need to track down criminals. In many, many cases criminals use products in the commission of a crime. When we can trace those products back to what store they were purchased from, where they were distributed from, we have a much greater chance of narrowing the field of suspects and tracking down who it was who actually purchased that product. For that reason, and the others that I have already cited, the bill has strong support from a wide array of groups, from labor unions to retailers to manufacturers to law enforcement to consumers, and ought to deserve the same kind of broad-based bipartisan support here on the floor of the House of Representatives. We did conduct further discussions with the gentleman from New York (Mr. Schumer) and others in the committee following the markup in the committee, and we reached agreement with a number of folks about changes which were made and incorporated into the legislation. Did we make everybody happy? No, because there are some folks out there who want to take labels off of products or change the labels in order to mislead folks about what is going on. That is simply what this legislation is directed at attacking. Mr. Speaker, I would ask the gentleman to reconsider his opposition to the bill. I would love to have his support for the bill, but I think he is on the wrong side of what is in the best interests of consumers, law enforcement, manufacturers, retailers, all across the board. Mr. Speaker, I would again reserve the balance of my time, and urge the Members to support this legislation.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me, and he is quite right. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule and the compromise legislation offered by my good friend, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith), chairman of the Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims. This legislation is the product of extensive work and deliberation between the Committee on the Judiciary, the gentleman from Texas (Chairman Smith), and the high-tech industry. I believe it represents an effective compromise that addresses the needs of the high-tech industry and also provides important and necessary protections for American workers. Mr. Speaker, this country has a vested interest in ensuring that our policies encourage the continued growth of the booming high technology industry. The high-tech industry has contributed over 3 million jobs to the United States economy over the last 3 years. It has also accounted for over 27 percent of the growth in the gross national product. The industry's ability to hire the best and brightest is essential if we are to remain the global leader in this emerging field. Unfortunately, there is currently an insufficient number of American workers available to fill many high technology positions. According to some reports, as many as 300,000 high technology jobs are unfilled due to a lack of qualified American workers in a tight labor market. The current quota of 65,000 H-1B visas was reached months ago, leaving many companies without the resources they need to effectively operate and expand. If we do not responsively address this problem, we risk placing a strain on the expansion of the industry that could end up costing the American people countless jobs. I have consistently worked to ensure our immigration policy is firm, fair, and effective. Immigration laws should not be used as a tool to provide sources of cheap labor, nor should they be used to deprive qualified American workers the opportunity to succeed in the marketplace. However, we are currently confronted with a skilled labor shortage. Our response to this shortage should be targeted yet effective. We should not alter our fundamental commitment to maintain responsible and productive levels of immigration, but we should be willing to permit the necessary number of workers to enter temporarily to respond to the lack of qualified workers. Mr. Speaker, every effort should be made to ensure that qualified American workers are not being laid off or passed over to hire foreign workers. This bill provides necessary protection for American workers. It also takes important steps to support the training of American workers, so we will remain effective and competitive in the future. Furthermore, this is only a temporary measure. It will only increase the numbers until 2002, at which point the numbers will return to current levels. This is a temporary fix to address a problem that needs immediate attention. Mr. Speaker, this is a responsible, reasonable, and necessary piece of legislation that is essential to the continued success of our booming high-tech industry and the millions of American jobs that it creates. I urge my colleagues to support this compromise and oppose the substitute offered by the gentleman from North Carolina.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Emergency Food Assistance Enhancement Act of 1998. My bill increases the mandatory commodity purchase account from $100,000,000 to $120,000,000 and is still expected to save the taxpayers over $200,000,000 over the next 4 years. It is unfortunate, Mr. Speaker, that there is a need for food banks. Even though our farmer and ranchers are the most productive and efficient in the world, the need for food banks continues. Food banks often meet the needs of their communities by managing donations from the government and the private sector. Most government donations are the product of the emergency food assistance program. It is a unique program that has the ability to provide nutritious domestic agriculture products to needy Americans while at the same time providing support to the agriculture community. In the welfare reform bill, Congress made TEFAP commodity purchases mandatory because of the integral role this program has in the provisions of food assistance to needy families. This program is a quick fix, something to get families through tough times. It gives them the support they need, but it doesn't ensnare them into a cycle of dependency for which other federal assistance programs are infamous. TEFAP purchases also provide much needed support to the agriculture community. While other food assistance programs are much larger, TEFAP has a more direct impact for agriculture producers, while at the same time providing food for those in need. To pay for the $20,000,000 increase for the TEFAP program, this bill strikes the provisions for new funding and spending conditions in the Food Stamp Employment and Training (E+T) Program that were included in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. The bill gives TEFAP an additional $20,000,000 a year and returns the rest to the U.S. treasury. In addition, it strikes the mandate that 80% of both new and previous Employment and Training funds must be used to provide state work or training slots for able-bodied adults without dependents who are subject to the work requirements within three months of receipt of food stamps. Many states report that declines in the able bodied adults without dependents caseload has declined more dramatically than the overall food stamp caseload rate. In some states the able bodied adults without dependents caseload decline is ten times the rate of decline for the total food stamp caseload. Due to the declining number of able bodied adults without dependents cases, restrictions on state spending of federal Employment and Training funding are leading to dramatic imbalances in the amount of funds available and services to this population and the rest of the food stamp recipients. For example, the state of Texas estimates that it will have over 12 times more money available for able-bodied adults without dependents than for anyone else on food stamps. In real dollars, for example, that breaks down to $491 for a single 23 year old male that is on food stamps compared to just $40 for a 23 year old mother of four participating in the same program. The able-bodied adults without dependents constitute only 25% of all employment and training program participants yet 80% of all the employment and training money is reserved for them. It is obvious that the needs of the able bodied adult without dependents and everyone else in the Employment and Training programs would be better served if the states could address the needs of all participants on an equal basis and promote self-sufficiency for all recipients. Mr. Speaker, I am hopeful that the Emergency Food Assistance Enhancement Act will enjoy resounding and rapid support from the full House of Representatives. It is important that we increase authority for this important program and stop the wasteful spending on Food Stamp Employment and Training programs for people who refuse to participate. It is equally, if not more important, to send a message to the conferees assigned to the Agriculture Appropriations bill for fiscal year 1999 that TEFAP is a vitally important program and should be funded to its fullest extent.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's interest in this issue. As he knows, illegal gambling on the Internet is a rapidly growing industry. The Justice Department estimates that $600 million was bet illegally on sports alone over the Internet last year, a tenfold increase over the previous year. I applaud my friend from Arizona, Mr. Kyl, in the Senate for moving legislation in the other body. I want to assure my friend from Florida that we are currently working in the Committee on the Judiciary to move corresponding legislation before the August recess. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I appreciate the Gentleman's interest in this issue. Illegal gambling on the internet is a rapidly growing industry--the Justice Department estimates that $600 million was bet illegally on sports alone over the internet last year, a tenfold increase over 1996. Congress must take action this year to curb illegal internet gambling, and I have introduced legislation that would clamp down on this type of activity. I applaud my friend from Arizona for moving legislation in the other body to address this issue, and I want to assure my friend from Florida that we are currently working in the Judiciary Committee to move corresponding legislation before the August recess. As my friend is aware, however, a number of areas and concerns surrounding this issue are still outstanding, and I want to assure the Gentleman that we are currently working with all parties to resolve those issues as we continue to move the process forward. I would therefore at this time ask that the Gentleman withdraw his amendment, so that we might continue working through the Committee process to produce a strong piece of legislation to combat internet gambling.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2281, the World Intellectual Property Organization Copyright Treaties Implementation Act. I would like to thank the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble) and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), as well as the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bliley) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) for their leadership on this issue. Additionally, I would like to thank the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble) 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. Madam Speaker, 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 the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble) 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 sufficient 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 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, tapes, 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. I would like to state for the record my understanding that sections 102(a)(2) and 102(b)(1) of this bill are not intended to address computer system security, such as devices used to crack into computer security systems such as firewalls or discover log-on passwords that protect an entire system. The ban contained in these provisions is intended to cover circumvention devices aimed at technological protection measures that protect particular works covered under Title 17 such as movies, songs or computer programs. Unauthorized hacking into computer programs is already covered by other laws. 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 this legislation.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 2592, the Private Trustee Reform Act of 1998. This bill reflects several months of negotiations between the private trustees and the Executive Office of the U.S. Trustee, and while it was modified slightly from the compromise approved by the Judiciary Committee last month, the core principles agreed upon by both sides remain in the bill. The bill has recently gained the support of the National Association of Bankruptcy Judges as well. Mr. Speaker, I introduced this legislation last year to restore fairness and equity to the relationship between the United States Trustee and private standing trustees. Specifically, this legislation amends title 28 of the U.S. Code to provide private trustees the right to seek judicial review in court, in certain cases following an administrative hearing on the record, of U.S. Trustee actions related to trustee expenses and trustee removal. The bill provides for judicial review of decisions by the U.S. Trustee to terminate, suspend, or cease assigning cases to a panel or standing trustee including a decision not to reappoint the trustee to a panel. This section includes language giving the panel or standing trustees the option of an administrative hearing on the record and includes a maximum of a 90 day time frame for agency review should the panel or standing trustee not elect to have an administrative hearing on the record. The bill also provides for judicial review of a decision by the U.S. Trustee to deny a claim of actual, necessary expenses by a standing trustee. It does not allow for an administrative hearing on the record, but would require the standing trustee to exhaust all available administrative remedies before seeking judicial review. Finally, the bill provides (1) procedures for and (2) the standard of review for conducting judicial review. It allows the district court to retain the case or refer it to a bankruptcy judge in the same district for a recommendation. I strongly support the inclusion of this provision because I believe that bankruptcy courts are best situated to make informed judgments about these issues. Bankruptcy judges understand which expenses are justified and which are not, as well as the nature and purpose of those expenses. Additionally, bankruptcy judges understand the full ramifications of a decision to cease assigning cases to a private trustee. If the case is referred, the district judge shall enter a final order or judgement after considering that recommendation and after reviewing those matters to which any party has timely and specifically objected. The decision of the agency shall be affirmed unless it is unreasonable or without cause based upon the administrative record before the agency. As I mentioned at the outset, H.R. 2592 is simply about fairness-- fairness to those who dedicate themselves to their duties as private trustees. It is also about firmness in the review process, as the U.S. Trustee should be subject to the same checks and balances as other government agencies are required to bear. Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas, Mr. Speaker, although this measure is still being negotiated by the parties involved, I believe that this legislation is an excellent initial effort to streamline the Federal bankruptcy system. By establishing a procedure for private bankruptcy trustees to contest their removal from cases, this bill provides the foundation for a more efficient Federal bankruptcy system. Under this measure, if the U.S. Trustee (part of the Justice Department) declines to reappoint a trustee or assign future cases to a trustee, the affected trustee may seek administrative review, judicial review, or both. Thus, this measure would create ``on the record'' administrative hearings for affected trustees. This bill also provides jurisdiction to the U.S District Court over trustee challenges of administrative rulings from the Office of the U.S. Trustee. I am pleased that we are working hard to protect the due process interests of the trustees. By providing adequate hearing and judicial review processes, we can fashion both an efficient and fair Federal bankruptcy structure. Although the Justice Department and Bankruptcy judges still have some concerns that need addressing, I find our progress very heartening. I hope that the involved parties will continue to negotiate until a workable solution becomes reality.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor two men who gave their lives in defense of freedom--Officer J.J. Chestnut and Special Agent John Gibson. They will be deeply missed by all who had the great privilege of knowing them. As one of my colleagues so eloquently stated, we are the land of the free because we are the home of the brave. Last Friday, our freedom was preserved by the bravery of Officers Chestnut and Gibson, when a deranged gunman tried to invade the People's House. These two heroes were both dedicated family men. Officer Chestnut's wife, Wen Ling, and their children--Joseph, Janece, Janet, Karen, and William--and Officer Gibson's wife, Evelyn, and their children-- Kristen, John, and Daniel--should know that their husbands, their fathers, each served his country with the utmost dedication and honor. They will not be forgotten. The men and women of the Capitol Police are dedicated to preserving and protecting the People's House. They put their lives on the line for us--Members of Congress, our staffs, and each American who comes to visit our great Capitol--every day. Through their selfless act of bravery, Officers Chestnut and Gibson saved the lives of countless Members, staff, and tourists who were working in and walking through the Capitol last Friday. We literally owe our lives to them. I know that the House, Senate, and indeed the entire nation joins me in expressing our deepest sympathies and prayers for the families of Officer Chestnut and Special Agent Gibson. These two men are true American heroes.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Speaker, every year this heinous procedure is performed thousands of times on healthy babies with healthy mothers, usually in the 5th and 6th months of pregnancy. For these tiny children, the difference between a painful death and full protection of the law is literally four inches. Four inches; the difference between death and life. Congress has expressed the will of the overwhelming number of Americans who want to outlaw this inhumane procedure. The people have spoken, but the President has refused to listen. He has ignored the conscience of the American people, who plainly see that this is nothing more than a painful, cruel and unnecessary act. Madam Speaker, this is the people's body. Although the President will not listen to the American people, we will. I urge my colleagues to override the President's shameful veto.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Speaker, I yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn) to respond.