Bob Goodlatte

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra).

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 318, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.'' personal explanation

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds. Mr. Chairman, our act only amends the so-called Motor-Voter Act, which is superseded by the Voting Rights Act, which is not affected by this legislation in any way, shape or form. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum).

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, the amendment does call for a Social Security number and proof of citizenship to register to vote.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment to the Shays-Meehan substitute. This amendment contains common sense reforms that will restore integrity to our elections. Mr. Chairman, voting is the most important responsibility of any citizen in a democracy. Many brave men and women have given their lives to protect our right to vote, to determine for ourselves the shape and direction of our government. When individuals are allowed to abuse our electoral process, it destroys the integrity of our democracy. It erodes public confidence in the system and sends a signal to the American people that their vote does not count. It suggests that government is not really the people's but rather a tool of those who would corrupt it for their own personal gain. This breeds cynicism and destroys the motivation of our citizens to participate. This amendment addresses the real problems of voter fraud that demean our democracy. In the past several years, Congress has tried to make it easier for American citizens to participate in the democratic process by enacting legislation which relaxes regulation and voting requirements. We can all agree that this is a noble and responsible goal. In this effort, however, Congress has denied the States the ability to maintain reasonable requirements that protect the security and integrity of our elections. Therefore, we must act now to restore vital protections that ensure our elections will truly represent the will of the people. This amendment restores integrity in our electoral system by targeting three major areas, the voter registration application process, the maintenance of voter rolls, and voting on election day. It is modeled after legislation I introduced last year and is also similar to legislation considered by the House earlier this year. To address shortcomings in the voter registration system, the amendment requires anyone registering to vote to show proof of their citizenship. To make this provision feasible and to further improve the registration process, it repeals the Federal requirement that States must permit individuals to register by mail. Let me be clear on this point. This amendment does not prevent States from allowing voter registration by mail. It simply gives States a choice by removing the current Federal mandate of mail in registration. Currently there is no way to ensure that individuals registering by mail are actually United States citizens or if they are even who they say they are. The American people may be shocked to know there is essentially nothing to prevent an individual from mailing in a registration card with phony information and being allowed to vote. Second, the amendment includes provisions to improve the ability of State election officials to maintain accurate voter rolls. It allows, not requires, but allows a State to purge the rolls or remove the names of voters from the Federal election rolls if they have not voted in two consecutive Federal elections and do not respond to a confirmation notice. In addition, my amendment addresses the problem of double voting by repealing the provisions of current law that allow individuals who have recently moved within a county or district to vote at the voting location of either their old or their new address. To combat voter fraud on election day, my amendment implements two important provisions. First, it permits, but does not mandate, that States require voters to sign their name before entering the voting booth. Then, if it becomes necessary to investigate an election, States will be able to compare the signatures on the voting lists with the signatures on the voter registration forms to verify identity. Second, my amendment permits, but does not mandate, that States require individuals to produce photo ID's in order to vote in a Federal election. The amendment also includes a provision clarifying that none of these provisions interfere with the law governing overseas and military voting. Mr. Chairman, the American people expect their elections to be clean, fair, and honest. This amendment restores the prestige that has long been an integral part of our Nation's electoral process. I urge my colleagues to support this common sense amendment protecting our elections from fraud and abuse.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith).

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth).

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin).

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Horn).

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume to quickly say that this in no way establishes a national I.D. card. This is simply for the purpose of the security of the ballots. I agree with gentleman's concern about the motor voter laws that mandated so many requirements on the States, and this repeals a great many of those mandates upon the States, and it does not use that number for any purpose, nor does it permit it for any additional purpose other than an establishment of the individual's citizenship in this country. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher).

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers). (Mr. EHLERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, for the purpose of closing the debate, it is my pleasure to yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), the majority whip.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to advise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the subject of this special order.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his participation. The gentleman is exactly correct with regard to what this is all about. Both political parties claim Thomas Jefferson and much of his philosophy as a part of their historic tradition, and certainly I from Virginia am very proud of Thomas Jefferson. He said it best: ``To compel a man,'' and of course today we mean men and women, but ``to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves is sinful and tyrannical,'' and that is what we are faced with in this country for the last 63 years because of legislation passed a long time ago that is outdated, certainly not in step with the vast majority of the American people who support right- to-work, and we need to pass this legislation. I am pleased that we have been joined now by the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth), and we welcome him to this discussion.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, we would claim the rest of the time until midnight, because we do have some additional matters.

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

Mr. GOODLATTE. I thank the gentleman for his remarks. I think he is particularly correct in pointing out that Arizona and Virginia have led the way with right-to-work laws, as allowed under an exception to the Federal law that was created some time after the right was taken away from all Americans to have right-to-work. It is important to note that this is not a States' rights issue. I would point out to the gentleman, this entire bill, and we complain about bills that are thousands of pages long, this bill is on one piece of paper. All it does is repeal provisions of Federal law that took away the most precious liberty that an individual can have, and that is the right to decide for themselves what they are going to do with their life, whether when they get a job, they are going to be required to pay dues or belong to something that they may or may not believe in. And we take nothing away from those who want to join labor unions, this does not affect that in any way, to organize, to collectively bargain or even strike as permitted under law. I would like to point out that we have a number of press clippings that under the unanimous consent order previously given we would like to make a part of the Record. And before I do so, I would like to read from one of those from the Chattanooga Free Press of Chattanooga, Tennessee which wrote: One of the most basic human rights that most assuredly should be protected in America is the right of men and women to work and earn a living for themselves and their families without being forced to join or pay tribute to anyone or anything. If an American can be denied the right to work, what liberty remains? Yet in all but 21 of our States that have right to work laws, American citizens can be forced to join and pay dues to a labor union against their will or be denied jobs or be fired. That obviously is utterly wrong. Part of American freedom includes the right of workers to join unions voluntarily and to pay dues to them voluntarily. But tyranny prevails if they are forced to join a union or any other organization and pay it involuntarily or be denied the right to earn self-support. We need a national right to work law. It is as simple as that. No one would tolerate a situation in which any American would have to join a certain church to work or join a certain lodge or fraternal group to work. Why tolerate forced union membership to work? Until a national right to work act is passed, the basic philosophy of our Declaration of Independence and Constitution of the United States is being denied American citizens. This should not be allowed to continue. Does the gentleman have any additional remarks?

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is that those union dues collected and used to influence policy that individuals who are members of a union may not agree with or to influence political campaigns for candidates that they may not support, that money is used all over the country. Even if you are in a right-to-work State, you are affected by forced compulsory unionism in other States. That is why we need to have a national right to work law.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his participation. I would point out that just yesterday petitions signed by more than half a million American citizens were delivered here at the Capitol from right to work supporters all across the country, urging a vote on this important legislation. I urge my colleagues in the leadership to schedule a vote to free independent-minded workers who wish to choose for themselves whether or not to belong to a labor union or pay dues to a labor union. Let them decide for themselves by passing into law the National Right to Work Act. I hope we have the opportunity to vote on this legislation soon. I thank the gentleman again for his participation and the majority whip the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay).

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening to speak in support of legislation that I have introduced, called the national right to work bill. This is a very short bill. In fact, I am very proud of the fact that it is on one piece of paper. That is the entire bill, but it is a very important bill regarding protecting the rights of all American citizens. This legislation deals with the right of every individual in the country to decide for him or herself whether or not they want to join a labor union when they get a job or pay dues to a labor union. The issue is one that stems from changes in the law made more than 60 years ago. Prior to that time, every American had the right to decide for themselves whether or not to join a labor union or pay dues to a union. That right was taken away by the National Labor Relations Act in 1935. So this is not an issue of States rights. There are States today that have State right-to-work laws that are allowed under the Taft-Hartley Act which was adopted in 1948. This is legislation that deals with overturning specific provisions of Federal law to restore to individuals all across this country the right that they had prior to that time. Mr. Speaker, this Chamber has spent the better part of this session discussing the need to reform misguided and counterproductive federal laws. We have made great strides toward reforming the education and welfare systems by taking the federal bureaucracy out and returning the focus back to individuals. We have taken a great step towards scrapping the counterproductive Tax Code and allowing the American people to keep what they have earned and spend it as they see fit. Yet, Mr. Speaker, this Chamber has remained almost silent on one of the most abusive intrusions on individual liberties ever enacted by Congress. The passage of the National Labor Relations Act in 1935, some 63 years ago, granted union officials a unique package of coercive powers and privileges at the expense of working Americans. Foremost among these coercive powers granted to union officials are monopoly bargaining, the power to force workers to accept representation they disagree with, and compulsory unionism, the power to force independent workers to join or pay fees to unions as a condition of employment. Compulsory unionism and monopoly bargaining are contrary to the American tradition of individual liberty and allow a tiny elite of union officials to wield dictatorial power over millions of working Americans. Mr. Speaker, the National Labor Relations Act created a massive increase in the federal government's regulation of and interference in labor relations. It is time for reform. The antidote to compulsory unionism is right to work, the principle that Americans must have the right, but not be compelled, to join or financially support a labor union. That is why I have sponsored H.R. 59, the National Right to Work Act. H.R. 59 does not add one word to federal law, it simply removes the forced union dues provisions from the National Labor Relations Act and the Railway Labor Act guaranteeing every American's right to work and decreasing Federal intervention of labor policy. 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. This legislation is designed to cure that limitation on the rights of all Americans that Congress passed 63 years ago. Indeed, compulsory unionism blots the American tradition of individual liberty by stripping working Americans of their right to join, or not join, or financially support a labor union. This legislation in no way interferes with the right of individuals to form labor unions, to engage in collective bargaining, indeed to strike under current law. It simply gives the employees the right to decide for themselves whether or not they want to join. By forcing independent employees to join or pay fees to a union, big labor officials have embraced collectivism based on coercion and have discarded individual liberty. And how did the defenders of compulsory unionism justify their beliefs? They do not. In fact, union officials and their allies, who support forced union dues, offer no apologies at all. Robert Reich, former Secretary of Labor for President Clinton summed up the sentiments of big labor when he said: In order to maintain themselves, unions have to strap their members to the mast. The only way unions can exercise countervailing power is to hold their members' feet to the fire. Mr. Speaker, that statement speaks for itself. It goes against the very values of the founders of the modern labor union movement. And I point to this quote from Samuel Gompers: Union officials long ago abandoned the principles of Samuel Gompers, the grandfather of the American trade union movement and the founder of the American Federation of Labor who once said the workers of America adhere to voluntary institutions in preference to compulsory systems which are not only impractical, but a menace to their welfare and their liberty. Mr. Speaker, compulsory systems are a menace to the workers' welfare and to their liberty. That is what the grandfather of the American trade union movement and founder of the American Federation of Labor thought of today's system. What a contrast. While Samuel Gompers spoke of the welfare and liberty of workers, today's union officials and their supporters are concerned with maintaining their power and strapping their members' to the mast. Mr. Speaker, the American worker has the right to know where their elected representative in Congress stands on the issue of compulsion versus freedom. The American worker has the right to know whether their elected representative in Congress supports the liberty of workers or supports the government-endorsed policy of allowing union officials to strap their members to the mast and hold their feet to the fire. It is clear where the American people stand. A poll conducted by Mason Dixon shows that 76 percent of all Americans support the individual rights of workers to decide for themselves, 76.6 percent support right to work, 17.1 percent support forced union dues, 6.3 percent had no opinion in that poll, and I might point out that the vast majority of members of labor unions in the United States support right to work. And why would they not? It increases their ability to assure that their union is responsive to their needs because, if they belong to a union and have the right to decide for themselves whether they are going to leave the union or remain a member of the union, pay dues to the union or not, that union leadership is going to be far more responsive to their needs and their concerns because they know that if they are not responsive to the needs of their members, those members can walk out, and that is the right that every American should have. Just yesterday 500,000 petitions were delivered to the United States capital from right to work supporters across the country urging a vote on H.R. 59 this session. I urge my colleagues and the leadership to schedule a vote to free the independent-minded voters, and I urge a vote on H.R. 59, the National Right to Work Act. At this time I am delighted that we have been joined by the majority whip of the House of Representatives, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) to speak on this important issue.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of this rule and H.R. 3682, the Child Custody Protection Act. I want to commend my good friend, the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen) for introducing this important legislation. The legislation before the House today is the product of extensive consideration and examination by the Committee on the Judiciary. The Subcommittee on the Constitution held a markup during which more than 10 amendments were considered. The full committee markup lasted 2 days, and more than 20 amendments were considered. This bill has been examined and debated more exhaustively than much of the legislation that comes before this body. It is now time for Congress to pass this bill and protect the fundamental rights of parents to be involved in their children's lives. Mr. Speaker, the American people overwhelmingly support this legislation. This is a common-sense bill that will protect the integrity of State laws which require a child seeking to obtain an abortion to involve her parents in that decision. State parental notification laws are designed to secure the rights of parents to protect their daughters' physical and emotional health. However, these laws are frequently circumvented by individuals who transport minors to States without parental involvement laws. Some abortion clinics even advertise their own State's lack of parental involvement laws to encourage minors from other States to cross State lines so they may obtain an abortion without involving their parents. Loving parents, not friends, counselors, boyfriends or other adults, should be the ones most intimately involved in a minor child's decision as important as obtaining an abortion. An abortion is a complicated medical procedure that poses significant risks to the mother upon which the abortion is performed. Someone transporting a young girl to another State to obtain an abortion exposes her to many physical and emotional dangers that could be avoided by involving her parents, who may possess essential information about her medical and psychological history. Mr. Speaker, it is simply outrageous that any individual should be allowed to subvert State laws designed to protect families and children simply by going behind a parent's back. This bill protects the rights of parents to be involved in the decisions of their own children, it protects the rights of States to enforce their own laws, and it protects the safety of our children. I urge my colleagues to support this rule and to vote yes on the Child Custody Protection Act.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce a bill that is designed to alleviate a serious problem for flood victims. In 1996, much of the southeastern region of our country took the brunt of the punches hurricane Fran could muster. Soon thereafter, Congress reacted by sending emergency aid to help rebuild the lives of those caught by this natural disaster. Many of my constituents were recipients of that aid and were grateful for it. However, the bureaucracy that accompanied some of Congress' best intentions was not as welcomed. The people of the 6th district of Virginia are good, hard working, self-reliant people. Their first reaction was not to look for government intervention when calamity struck. Instead, they turned to their families and neighbors and told each other that it was time to go to work. The flooding caused by Hurricane Fran in Allegheny, Augusta, Rockbridge, and Rockingham Counties dumped tons of rock and other debris in fields, pastures, living rooms and basements. My constituents, the farmers and landowners, wanted simply to start their tractors, put their gloves on and begin moving rocks. However, federal bureaucrats told them they needed to apply for a permit to put their lives back together. If the farmers and landowners came crying to the government for help to move the debris, one might understand the federal cries for delay. But these folks were simply doing what they were always taught; if you want to get a job done right, do it yourself. Imagine their frustration when someone, probably from Washington, DC, came by and threatened to fine them if they continued to move the rocks without a permit. Homer Allman, a landowner in Rockingham County, told me the so-called ``repairs'' the government so readily provided left nothing to be spoken for. ``The work they did is already eroding,'' he said. ``they provided me with six people who took three or four days to work on a plot of 1500 square feet of land that needed attention. In result, they made no banking and bore out a 50-foot channel. I could have done that in one afternoon with my bulldozer, and saved the taxpayer money.'' Another landowner and constituent of mine, Page Will, observed that once the Army Corps of Engineers relaxed some permitting requirements, regular folks dug in and the work was completed. This is the impetus and spirit of my bill. Once we get the federal bureaucrats and their political way of prioritizing emergency projects out of the way, stream beds were cleared, banks were stabilized, and debris removed from pastures.'' My bill prohibits the Secretary of Agriculture, or other executive branch officials, from preventing a State or local government to remove any rocks or other debris from land or water when the primary purpose of the removal operation is to reduce the risk and severity of subsequent flooding. I fail to see the need for federal intervention in what is seemingly their right to fix as landowners. It's as simple as that. Why does the federal government have to get involved if it isn't being asked to supply the equipment or human resources to get the removal projects underway? My constituents and I strongly believe that they should not be. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 3303, the Department of Justice Authorization Act. I would like to comment briefly on provisions in Section 204 (Communications Assistance). The original purpose of the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (CALEA) was to preserve the government's ability, pursuant to a court order, to intercept communications which utilized advanced telecommunications technology, while protecting the privacy of communications and without impeding the introduction of new technology, features, and services. CALEA was intended to refine the telecommunication's industry's existing duty to cooperate in the conduct of electronic surveillance and to establish procedures based on public accountability and industry standard-setting. CALEA permitted the telecommunications industry itself to develop technical standards to implement the requirements of the Act, and established a process for the Attorney General to identify law enforcement's capacity requirements for electronic surveillance. Unfortunately, these standards have been delayed due to a dispute over their breadth and scope, and are now under review by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). CALEA also required the FBI, on behalf of the Attorney General, to issue its notice of electronic surveillance capacity in 1995. However, this notice was not provided to the industry until March, 1998. The Act requires the federal government to reimburse telecommunications carriers for their just and reasonable costs to develop and implement the assistance capability requirements of CALEA. Existing carrier networks were to be ``grandfathered'' unless the government agreed to pay for their retrofitting. Increases in carrier network capacity to accommodate law enforcement's electronic surveillance needs were to be paid for by the government. To date, however, virtually no funds have been expended to implement CALEA. Mr. Speaker, delays in the implementation of CALEA have prevented the telecommunications industry and law enforcement from complying with its provisions. It is appropriate to recognize the effect of the delays of the implementation of CALEA by moving both its effective and ``grandfather'' dates. H.R. 3303 recognizes the reality of the delays of implementing this important crime-fighting legislation and gives both the telecommunications industry and law enforcement additional time to prepare for CALEA's implementation.