Bob Goodlatte

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 3097, the Tax Code Termination Act, offered by my good friend from Oklahoma, Mr. Largent. I want to commend the gentleman for offering this important legislation. Mr. Speaker, our tax code is a seven million word monster that has simply grown out of control. Hard working Americans are being punished every day by a tax code that is complicated and confusing. It penalizes success, discourages growth and overburdens individuals and families. Mr. Speaker, something's clearly wrong with our system when Money magazine asks 50 professional tax prepares to file a return for a fictional family and not one of them--not one out of fifty--came up with the same total, nor did any of the preparers calculate what Money magazine thought was the correct federal income tax. How can we expect the American people who are busy working and taking care of their families to sort through a tax code that is too complicated for professional tax preparers to figure out? Something's wrong when Americans have to devote 5.4 billion hours each year just to comply with the tax code--that's more time than it takes to manufacture every car, truck and van made in the United States. Something's wrong when the American people spend hundreds of billions of dollars each year to pay for tax lawyers, accountants, and other related expenses just to make sure they don't violate any of the seven thousand pages of burdensome IRS rules and regulations. That's money taken from the taxpayers' pockets that could be put toward retirement savings or invested to pay for the child's education. The Tax Code Termination Act will force us to work together to develop a new system. By setting definite date when the current, abusive code is terminated, we will ensure that action is taken immediately to study new and innovative proposals to create a system that is simple and fair to every American. Mr. Speaker, our system is broken. It's time to stand up for the American people and scrap this abusive tax code. It's time we take action and get this monster off the back of the American people once and for all. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this important legislation.

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 and urge a favorable vote.

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. 1847, the bill under discussion.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds, and I do so to thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for his strong support for this legislation. He speaks from authority when he talks about this as a former prosecutor, and I very much respect his remarks and welcome them and welcome his support for this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Saxton).

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and concur in the Senate amendment to the bill (H.R. 1847) to improve the criminal law relating to fraud against consumers.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge my colleagues to support the final passage of H.R. 1847, the Telemarketing Fraud Prevention Act. This important legislation, which I introduced in January of last year, will take the strong action that is needed to step up the fight against a common enemy, the fraudulent telemarketer. Telemarketing fraud has become a critical problem across the country, but especially in my home State of Virginia where it has made victims of countless unsuspecting folks and their families. The tragedy of telemarketing fraud is that its perpetrators often target elderly victims who have contributed so much to society. Who are these victims? They are our veterans of World War II and Korea. They are our retired schoolteachers. They are our parents and grandparents. Many of the victims, long-time residents of areas like the Shenandoah Valley in my district, come from a time when one's word was his or her bond, and they are often deceived by a con artist who will say whatever it takes to separate victims from their money. It has been estimated by the FBI that nearly 80 percent of all targeted telemarketing fraud victims are elderly. Who are these people who victimize our Nation's elderly? They are white collar thugs who contribute nothing to our society but grief. They choose to satisfy their greed by bilking others instead of doing an honest day's work. They strip victims not only of their hard-earned money, but also of their dignity. They are swindlers who con our senior citizens out of their life savings by playing on their trust, sympathy, and if that does not work, by playing on their fear. These criminals have said that they do not fear prosecution because they count on their victims' physical or mental infirmity or the embarrassment that victims feel from being scammed that prevent them from testifying at trial. If they are brought to trial, they are currently not deterred in engaging from telemarketing fraud because the penalties are so weak. In one example of how large a problem telemarketing fraud has become, more than 400 individuals were arrested in 1996 as a part of Operation Senior Sentinel. Retired law enforcement officers and volunteers recruited by the American Association of Retired Persons went under cover to record sales pitches from fraudulent telemarketers. Volunteers from the 2-year-long operation discovered various telemarketing schemes. Some people were victimized by phony charities or investment schemes. Others were taken in by so-called premium promotions in which people were guaranteed one of four or five valuable prizes, but were induced to buy an overpriced product in exchange for a cheap prize. One of the most vicious scams preyed on those who have lost their money already, some telemarketers charge a substantial fee to recover money for those who had been victimized previously, and proceeded to renege on the promised assistance. By the time the operation was over, it took the Department of Justice, the FBI, the Federal Trade Commission, a dozen U.S. Attorneys and States attorneys general, the Postal Service, the IRS, and the Secret Service to arrest over 400 fraudulent telemarketers in five States. Clearly, telemarketing fraud is on the rise. According to Attorney General Reno, it is not uncommon for seniors to receive as many as five or more high-pressure phone calls a day. Mr. Speaker, malicious criminal activity like this must be punished with the appropriate level of severity. H.R. 1847 will take a number of steps to raise the element of risk for fraudulent telemarketers by directing the U.S. Sentencing Commission to provide for substantially increased penalties for those convicted of telemarketing fraud offenses. It also requires the Commission to provide an additional appropriate sentencing enhancement for cases in which a large number of vulnerable victims are affected by a fraudulent scheme or schemes. This provision will help to protect those most vulnerable in our society, including seniors and the disabled, from these malicious crimes. Let me repeat that language from the bill, Mr. Speaker: substantially increased penalties. This language is different from the House-passed version of the bill, which included specific sentencing increases for four levels for general telemarketing fraud and eight levels for telemarketers who defraud the most vulnerable in our society. Nevertheless, the language in the Senate-passed version was carefully chosen. A minimum increase of two levels is not substantial. The Sentencing Commission recently issued an amendment that would increase by two offense levels, the smallest increase possible, the penalties for fraud offenses that use mass marketing to carry out fraud. While their amendment was a step in the right direction, the step is much too small. Telemarketing fraud is a serious problem that is growing even as we speak. The Sentencing Guidelines should reflect this; but even with this recent action, they do not. From the House- and Senate-passed bills, it should have been clear to the Sentencing Commission last year the kind of significant increases Congress wanted. Unfortunately, it appears that our intention was not clear. Therefore, let me make it clear right now, along with my colleague, the gentleman from Florida, and along with the good Senator from Arizona who sponsored this legislation in the Senate, that in the next year we expect the Sentencing Commission to make the kind of substantial penalty increases that are needed to adequately address the growing crime of telemarketing fraud. In addition to this provision, the bill would also require the Commission to provide an additional appropriate sentencing enhancement if the offense involved sophisticated means, including, but not limited to, sophisticated and concealment efforts, such as perpetrating the offense from outside the United States. This provision will target those who set up their telemarketing fraud operations in other countries, particularly Canada, in order to evade prosecution. Of the top 11 fraudulent telemarketing company locations in 1996, four were Canadian provinces. The bill also addresses the problem of victims who are unable to recoup any of their losses after the criminal is caught and convicted. It includes provisions to requiring criminal asset forfeiture to ensure that the fruits of telemarketing fraud crimes will not be used to commit further crimes. It also includes mandatory victim restitution language to ensure that victims are the first to receive restitution for their losses. The bill includes conspiracy language to the list of enhanced telemarketing fraud penalties. This provision will enable prosecutors to seek our masterminds behind the boiler rooms, the places where the fraudulent telemarketers conduct their illegal activities. Finally, the bill includes a Senate-passed provision that will help law enforcement effectively combat the problem of telemarketing fraud operations that set up boiler rooms for a few months and then simply disappear. The provision would protect telemarketing fraud victims by providing law enforcement with the authority to more quickly obtain the name, address, and physical location of businesses suspected of telemarketing fraud. This would only be allowed if the official submitted a written request for this information relevant to a legitimate law enforcement investigation. Mr. Speaker, the Telemarketing Fraud Prevention Act will serve as a vital tool in the Federal arsenal of weapons available to law enforcement officials in the fight against this crime. I urge my colleagues to support the passage of this important legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary. (Mr. HYDE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Dickey).

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns).

Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts).

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Cook).

Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Riley).

Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of House Joint Resolution 78, the Religious Freedom Amendment offered by the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook). I would like to commend the gentleman for offering this much-needed constitutional amendment. Madam Speaker, in the last few decades courts throughout the United States have twisted the traditional understanding of the first amendment to require the government to favor the nonreligious over the religious. The courts have pitted the Constitution's establishment clause against the free exercise clause rather than reading them as equal parts of the same first amendment. This misinterpretation has led to the government, whether it be through teachers, judges or public officials, placing barriers on all types of religious expression. Abusive courts are using the first amendment as the club to drive anything with even the slightest religious overtone out of the public sphere. Religious expression now enjoys no more protection in our culture than obscenity or libel. According to the courts, flag burning is protected by the first amendment, pornography is protected by the first amendment, but posting the Ten Commandments on a public school wall is not. Madam Speaker, where is the common sense? Religious expression, the one form of expression specifically carved out for protection by the first amendment, is the one form of expression under the heaviest attack. We clearly have a problem in this country when children are told they cannot sing Christmas carols or Chanukkah songs at school, when students in our schools are not allowed to have open prayers, even observe moments of silence. The Religious Freedom Amendment does not amend the first amendment, it restores it. This amendment merely restates the understanding of our Founding Fathers and the vast majority of the American people today that government should protect the religious freedom of its citizens, not infringe upon it. The Religious Freedom Amendment protects the rights of Americans to express their religious views in the same way that Americans currently enjoy the right to express nonreligious views. It does not permit the government to compel prayer to occur or to compel participation in religious activities. It simply permits prayer or other religious activity to occur on a voluntary basis among those individuals who choose to participate. Madam Speaker, as Americans, we should encourage the open expression of our many religious backgrounds and the knowledge and tolerance that can be gained from the sharing of our religious histories. We should once again embrace our Nation's diverse religious heritage, not reject it. I urge my colleagues to vote in support of this important amendment.

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

Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham).

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce 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. Most of us think of UPC codes when we think of product identification codes--that block of black lines and numbers on the backs of cans and other containers. However, product ID codes are much more than simple UPC codes. Product ID codes can include various combinations of letters, symbols, marks or dates that allow manufacturers to ``fingerprint'' each product with vital production data, including the batch number, the date and place of manufacture, and the expiration date. These codes also enable manufacturers to trace the date and destination of shipments, if needed. 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 Lockerbie, 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 have been defaced, decoded or otherwise tampered with. FDA enforcement of current law has been vigilant and thorough, but this potentially serious problem must be dealt will even more effectively as counterfeiters and illicit distributors utilize the advanced technologies of the digital age in their crimes. Manufacturers have attempted, at great expense and with little success, to prevent decoding through new technologies designed to create ``invisible'' codes, incapable of detection or removal. However, decoders have proven to be equally diligent and sophisticated in their efforts to identify and defeat new coding techniques. We therefore must provide manufacturers with the appropriate legal tools to protect their coding systems in order for them to protect the health and safety of American consumers. Currently, federal law does not adequately address many of the common methods of decoding products and only applies to a limited category of consumer products, including pharmaceuticals, medical devices and specific foods. Moreover, current law only applies if the decoder exhibits criminal intent to harm the consumer. It does not address the vast majority of decoding cases which are motivated by economic considerations, but may ultimately result in harm to the consumer. 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 costs, and treble damages in the event of repeal 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 is a good approach designed to strengthen the tools of law enforcement, provide greater security for the manufacturers or products, and most importantly, provide consumers with improved safety from tampered or counterfeit goods. 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. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I especially want to give my thanks to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis) for moving this legislation through his subcommittee and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bliley) for moving it through the full Committee on Commerce, and I also want to thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) for his assistance as well. Mr. Speaker, I rise today along with my good friend and colleague from Virginia (Mr. Goode) in supporting House Concurrent Resolution 171 which I have introduced to honor emergency medical services personnel and, in particular, those who have given their lives in the line of duty and also to name Roanoke, Virginia, as the official site of the National Emergency Medical Services Memorial Service held each year to honor those fallen EMS personnel. In 1928, an aptly-named gentleman from Roanoke, Virginia, Julian Stanley Wise, founded the first volunteer rescue squad in America, the Roanoke Life Saving and First Aid Crew. This organization was the forerunner of today's emergency medical services programs. Today, thousands of dedicated citizens give their time and energy to community rescue squads across the country as EMS personnel, and many have made the ultimate sacrifice by giving their lives for the safety and welfare of their fellow citizens. To further recognize the contributions of both Julian Wise and countless EMS personnel nationwide, a museum was established in Roanoke to pay tribute to both volunteer and career EMS personnel. This museum called, To the Rescue, includes a memorial ``Tree of Life,'' which includes a bronze oak leaf that has inscribed on it the names of all those who have been recognized. A national EMS Memorial Book, located beside the Tree of Life, contains a picture and brief biography of each person recognized. In 1993, to honor EMS personnel from across the country who have died in the line of duty, the Virginia Association of Volunteer Rescue Squads, Incorporated, and the Julian Stanley Wise Foundation, in conjunction with To the Rescue, organized the first annual National Emergency Medical Services Memorial Service in Roanoke. Since then, the National Emergency Medical Services Memorial Service has captured national attention by honoring 119 providers of emergency medical services from 35 States who have given their lives in the line of duty. The life of every American will be affected directly or indirectly by the uniquely skilled and dedicated efforts of the EMS personnel who work bravely and tirelessly to preserve America's greatest resource: her people. Because the memorial service held in Roanoke is a fitting reminder of that bravery and sacrifice, it is only appropriate that Congress recognize the City of Roanoke as the official site of the National Emergency Medical Services Memorial Service. Similar legislation has been introduced in the Senate by Senator Gregg of New Hampshire, as well as Senators Warner and Robb of Virginia. I join my colleague from Virginia (Mr. Goode) today in urging my colleagues to support this resolution, and I also would urge the Senate to act swiftly to pass this important resolution and recognize the important role that EMS personnel play in the life of every American citizen.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time; and I also want to commend him and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon) for introducing this important legislation; and I rise in strong support of H.R. 3717, which would prohibit the Federal Government from subsidizing the distribution of hypodermic needles or syringes for the injection of illegal drugs. The argument behind needle exchange programs is fundamentally flawed. Needle exchanges facilitate and even encourage illegal activity. Is this really what we want our Federal Government to stand for? While some in the administration may be able to tell our children, ``Don't do drugs'' on one hand, while giving our other children clean needles to shoot up with in the other hand, Mr. Speaker, I cannot do that. Not only are needle exchange programs inconsistent with Federal law, the results of community-based needle exchange programs have been disastrous. Needle exchange programs have resulted in communities with higher crime, communities that are littered with used drug paraphernalia and communities that are magnets for drug addicts and the high-risk behavior that accompany them. David Murray, Director of Research for the nonpartisan, nonprofit Statistical Assessment Service here in Washington, has pointed out the weakness in the methodology of many of the studies cited by the other side and pointed out the strong evidence in two Canadian studies in Montreal and Vancouver. In the Vancouver study, where two-and-a-half million clean needles were handed out last year, death caused by illegal drug skyrocketed. Needle exchange programs result in higher drug use. They result in communities that have serious criminal problems. And the answer to this problem is twofold: combined strict enforcement of our anti-drug laws with education of our young people about the dangers of illegal drug use. And there we have seen real reduction in communities that have followed that approach. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, oppose the use of needle exchange programs, and make sure that we continue the fight on drugs in a sensible way by cracking down on drug traffickers and educating people in this country about the dangers of using illegal drugs.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, House Joint Resolution 111 requires a two-thirds vote in both the House and Senate for any bill that changes the internal revenue laws by more than a de minimis amount. The resolution allows Congress to waive the supermajority requirement to pass a tax increase during a period of declared war between the United States and another country, or when the Congress and the President enact a resolution stating that the United States is engaged in a military conflict which threatens national security. Tax legislation enacted under this waiver can be enforced for no longer than 2 years after its enactment. H.J. Res. 111 provides a simple mechanism to curb wasteful and abusive government spending by restraining the government's unquenchable appetite for taking the American people's money. The more the government has, the more it spends. The tax limitation amendment will ensure that when the government needs money it will not simply look to the American people to foot the bill. A constitutional amendment is the only way we can assure the American people that Congress will only take from their pocketbooks that which is truly needed. This constitutional amendment will force Congress to focus on options other than raising taxes to manage the Federal budget. It will also force Congress to carefully consider how best to use current resources before demanding that taxpayers dig deeper into their hard-earned wages to pay for increased Federal spending. Furthermore, if Congress has less to spend on programs, it will be forced to act responsibly and choose what is truly important to the American people, and it will be forced to make sure government programs are run as effectively and efficiently as possible. Simply put, the harder it is for Congress to tax the American people, the harder it will be for Congress to spend their hard-earned money. Government will spend less when the American people give it less. Mr. Speaker, tax limitation requirements have been proven to work. In the 14 States that have adopted supermajority requirements for tax increases, taxes grew at a rate about 10 percent less than States without tax limitation requirements. Between 1980 and 1992, in States with a supermajority requirement economic growth was 43 percent, compared to 35 percent in States without such a requirement. Employment growth was 26 percent, compared to 21 percent in States without such a requirement. The need for this amendment is clear. The tax burden on our citizenry is out of control. In 1934 Federal taxes were 5 percent of the average family's income. Today that figure is nearly 25 percent. Overall taxes consume nearly 40 percent of an average family's income. That is more than food, housing and clothing combined. To support this huge level of taxation we have developed a cumbersome Tax Code that causes needless confusion and delay. In 1914 the Internal Revenue Code contained 11,400 words. Our current code contains over 7 million words. American taxpayers spend over $200 billion and 5.4 billion hours a year just to comply with Federal taxes. Sixty percent of taxpayers must hire a professional just to sort through their own return. Just think how small, simple and fair our Tax Code would be if we would have had a supermajority requirement when the taxes that created this monster were enacted. In fact, four of the last five major tax increases, including the 1993 increase, the largest tax increase in American history, four out of five would not have passed if the tax limitation amendment had been in effect when they were enacted. This would have saved the American people hundreds of billions of dollars. That is money the American people could have used to invest, pay for retirement, or for their children's education. It is simply too easy for Congress to tax the American people too much and too often by a Tax Code that is too complicated. Our Constitution contains a Bill of Rights designed to preserve freedom by restricting government intrusion into the lives of the people. But the power to tax is the power to reach the lives of the people in a very direct way, controlling what and how much the people can do with their own resources. Taxes affect how you invest your money, how you spend it, where you live, and many other aspects of everyday life. The power to tax has been abused by the government, using it as a club to drive the government's will into the lives of the people at the expense of freedom and opportunity. Mr. Speaker, this amendment simply returns control of the American taxpayer's pocketbook to where it belongs, the American taxpayer. While this Congress has shown discipline and restrained increases in spending leading to the first balanced budget in three decades, it is simply too easy for Congress to spend the people's money. As long as Congress can continue to raise taxes every time it wants to spend more money, we will never have true tax relief; we will never have true debt reduction. The Constitution entrusts Congress with the power of the purse. Unfortunately, Congress time and time again, has taken that to mean it can pay for its own bloating simply by pulling the American people's already tight purse strings. This amendment reminds Congress it is not the government's money; it is the people's money. I believe in good and effective government, but more money does not mean better government. Better government means doing more with less of the American people's money. Requiring a two-thirds vote in both Houses to raise taxes will force Congress to do more with smaller and more efficient government. I have great confidence in the American people. Americans have shown they are the most ingenuous, creative, and hard-working people in the world. The government should not punish those very traits that have made the United States the most effective and productive Nation in history. Working hard to make more money for your family is rewarded by tax after tax after tax. There is the income tax, the marriage tax, the death tax, the Social Security tax, the sales tax; you name it, government can find a way to tax it. Well, Mr. Speaker, this amendment says no more. The American people have had enough. Our tax system is out of control, unfair, and abusive. The least we can do is take action to prevent it from becoming more so. It is time for Washington to stop asking American families to shoulder the financial burden brought by bloated budgets and wasteful spending. Once and for all, it is time for Washington to get off the American people's backs and out of their pocketbooks. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, in response to my good friend, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), I would like to include for the record a letter from the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer), the chairman of the House Committee on Ways and Means, to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary. The letter referred to follows: U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Ways and Means, Washington, DC, April 7, 1997. Hon. Henry J. Hyde, Chairman, Committee on Judiciary, Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC. Dear Chairman Hyde: I understand that the Judiciary Committee is scheduled to consider H.J. Res. 62. Section 1 of the resolution would generally require a supermajority vote for any bill that amends the internal revenue laws unless that bill is determined at the time of adoption, in a reasonable manner prescribed by law, not to increase the internal revenue by more than a de minimis amount. In relevant respects, this language in H.J. Res. 62 is substantially identical to the language of H.J. Res. 169, as considered by the full House last year. That language was carefully crafted by myself and Mr. Barton and the other sponsors of the legislation. Moreover, Mr. Barton and I entered into a colloquy on the House floor, describing how we interpreted the language of the resolution. First of all, the Constitutional amendment would not apply to tax legislation that is a net tax cut or that is revenue neutral overall. Thus, the supermajority requirement would not have applied to the ``Balanced Budget Act of 1995'' or the ``Contract with America Tax Relief Act'' since those bills provided a net tax cut. Similarly, it would also not apply to legislation that replaces one tax system with another as long as that replacement is revenue neutral. For example, if we were successful in replacing the current income tax with a broad- based consumption tax, that legislation would be subject only to a simple majority vote provided that the replacement tax raised the same amount or less revenue than the current tax. Second, the Constitutional amendment excepts from the \2/3\ requirement tax legislation that raises no more than a ``de minimis'' amount of revenue. The amendment states that Congress may ``reasonably provide'' how this exception is applied. Details may be very important, but they do not belong in the Constitution. Instead, Congress would adopt legislation that implements the Constitutional amendment by defining terms and fleshing out procedures. It is up to this or a future Congress to design this ``implementing legislation.'' However, it is my understanding and intent that such legislation will have the following characteristics: Revenue would be measured over a period consistent with current budget windows. For example, measuring the net change in revenue over a 5 year period would be appropriate. Estimation would be made employing the usual revenue estimating rules. As under the Budget Act, a committee of jurisdiction or conference committee would, in consultation with the Congressional Budget Office or the Joint Committee on Taxation, determine the revenue effect of a bill. A bill would be considered to raise a ``de minimis'' amount of revenue if it increased Federal tax revenues by no more than 0.1 percent over 5 years. For purposes of determining whether a bill raises more than a ``de minimis'' amount of revenue, only tax provisions (i.e., provisions modifying the internal revenue laws) in the bill would be considered. Other provisions that increase Federal revenues or receipts (such as asset sales, tariffs, user fees, etc.) would not be taken into account in determining the revenue raised by the bill. ``Internal revenue laws'' means the current Internal Revenue Code (i.e., the Federal individual and corporate income tax, estate and gift taxes, employment taxes, and excise taxes). It would also include any new tax that may be added to the current Internal Revenue Code or that is analogous to any tax in the Internal Revenue Code. It does not, however, include tariffs. Accordingly, a supermajority vote would not have been required for H.R. 831, which increased and extended the health insurance deduction for the self-employed; H.R. 2778, which provided tax relief to our troops in Bosnia; H.R. 3103, the Health Coverage Availability and Affordability Act of 1996;'' and H.R. 3448, the ``Small Business Job Protection Act of 1996.'' Each of the bills was designed to be revenue neutral but, due to the strictures of the Budget Act, was slightly revenue positive and raised a ``de minimis'' amount of revenue. I hope that this information is helpful in the deliberations of the Committee on Judiciary. With best personal regards, Bill Archer, Chairman. Mr. Speaker, I would note that as a part of this letter, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer) says, ``Second, the Constitutional amendment excepts from the two-thirds tax requirement legislation that raises no more than a de minimis amount of revenue.'' The gentleman from Virginia asks what that might be. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer) continues, ``The amendment states that Congress might reasonably provide how this exception is applied. Details may be very important,'' and they are, ``but they do not belong in the Constitution. Instead, Congress would adopt legislation that implements the constitutional amendment by defining terms and fleshing out procedures. ``It is up to this or a future Congress to design this implementing legislation. However, it is my understanding and intent that such legislation will have the following characteristics: ``Revenue would be measured over a period consistent with current budget windows. For example, measuring the net change in revenue over a 5-year period would be appropriate. ``Estimation would be made employing the usual revenue estimating rules. As under the Budget Act, a committee of jurisdiction or conference committee would, in consultation with the Congressional Budget Office or the Joint Committee on Taxation, determine the revenue effect of a bill. ``A bill would be considered to raise a de minimis amount of revenue if it increased Federal tax revenues by no more than 0.1 percent over 5 years. ``For purposes of determining whether a bill raises more than a de minimis amount of revenue, only tax provisions in the bill would be considered. Other provisions that increase Federal revenues or receipts, such as asset sales, tariffs, user fees, et cetera, would not be taken into account in determining the revenue raised by the bill. ``Internal Revenue laws means the current Internal Revenue Code. ``Accordingly, a supermajority would not have been required for House Resolution 831, which increased and extended the health insurance deduction for the self-employed; House Resolution 2778, which provided for tax relief to our troops in Bosnia; H.R. 3103, the Health Coverage Availability and Affordability Act of 1996; and H.R. 3448, the Small Business Job Protection Act of 1996. Each of the bills was designed to be revenue neutral, but due to the strictures of the Budget Act, was slightly budget positive and raised a de minimis amount of revenue. ``I hope that this information is helpful to the deliberation of the Committee on the Judiciary.'' Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) and I ask unanimous consent that he be permitted to control that time and yield to other Members.

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 House Joint Resolution 111.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 407, I call up the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 111) proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States with respect to tax limitations, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to one of the finest Capitol Police officers we have known, Officer T.O. ``Tommy'' Robinson, whose life was tragically taken by cancer on March 23. While Officer Robinson was a dedicated law enforcement officer and public servant, his life was a testimony to others as well. He will be deeply missed by all who had the great privilege of knowing him. Tommy Robinson served his country in the U.S. Army from 1965 to 1968, and served honorably as a member of the Capitol Police for 27 years. He leaves behind his wife of 20 years, Denise, as well as their 12-year- old son Christopher. He was a man of steadfast faith, which he lived out on a daily basis. Mr. Speaker, I would like to insert into the Record a copy of the eulogy given by our Capitol Police Chief Gary Abrecht in memory of Tommy Robinson, which pays tribute to his life and testimony. Everyone who came in contact with Officer Tommy Robinson is a better person for having done so. I know that the entire House joins me in expressing our deepest sympathies and prayers for Denise and Christopher. I submit the following article. In Memory, Officer T.O. ``Tommy'' Robinson As I consider all the men and women of the US Capitol Police, I'm struck by the particular strengths each individual brings to the job. Some are outstanding in their enforcement of laws; some, in their interviewing and interrogation of criminal suspects; still others in their expertise in utilizing a specific technique or method in the performance of their duties. While Officer Robinson was a dedicated law enforcement practitioner, his particular skill, and one critical to a successful career in policing, was his memorable and exceptional ability to interact positively with others. As difficult as this is to achieve in life, Officer Robinson seemed to have no enemies. Whenever his name is mentioned, people consistently use phrases such as ``courteous, friendly, helpful, professional, and genuine.'' Officer Robinson's impact on the lives of his co-workers and others he came into contact with is truly remarkable. He truly epitomized the underlying ideals of law enforcement by his dedication and cooperative spirit, and not only will his pleasant demeanor be missed, but so also will his positive influence on others. Officer Robinson's twenty-seven year career with the US Capitol Police included many different assignments. Most of his service was divided between the Capitol Division, FRU, and the House Division, where he leaves behind a host of friends and co-workers. Officer Robinson was an original member of the First Responder Unit of the Capitol Division, and stories abound of his selflessness and enthusiastic attitude. The First Responder Unit carries out their duties while confronting the harshest weather this area offers. Officer Robinson worked in these conditions as a member of the FRU for ten (10) years, and all reports indicate that he did so without complaint. In fact, Officer Robinson was an example to others in his dedication to duty, and strict adherence to the policies and directives of his unit. Some thirteen years of Officer Robinson's career were spent with the House Division. Officer Robinson, consistent with his actions wherever he worked, endeared himself to his House Division co-workers and the staff and visitors, ensuring he will be missed, but not forgotten. One of the most well-known facts about Officer Robinson was that he was a man of faith. His belief in GOD, and Jesus Christ as Lord, overshadowed every aspect of his being, and he made no secret of this important matter to all who knew him. He was quick to point to this belief as the reason that he carried himself as he did, with compassion, understanding and forgiveness. He often remarked to others how he wished more people on the Department shared a belief in GOD, and how he felt this would resolve some of the issues that divided not only his co-workers, but humanity in general. As an example of faith-in-action, Officer Robinson established a monthly prayer breakfast for benefit of his co-workers and friends. Meeting every first Wednesday of the month at 0600 hours, these meetings were well-attended by a wide cross- section of ranks from within the Department, and eventually interested parties form outside the agency attended to participate in prayer, reading of Scripture, and occasionally even song. Officer Robinson ensured that all attendees were welcomed openly, and had an opportunity to express themselves freely. Even when Officer Robinson fell ill, he often encouraged others to maintain their attendance at these meetings, feeling, and stating, that his absence should not be a reason for the discontinuation of the meetings, or the failure of others to attend. After each of these Wednesday morning meetings, Officer Robinson could be seen making his way to groups of officers who had not attended the meeting, offering them the ``goodies'' that had been brought to the breakfast by himself and the other attendees. This vision of Officer Robinson, walking up to groups of his friends and offering food and a certain word of good-will is one that many of us will reflect on with fondness in the coming days. Officer Robinson was never swayed in his projection to us all of a peace that passes understanding. In the midst of confronting his illness, Officer Robinson was always upbeat and positive, rarely making reference to his ailment, and never complaining about it. He was truly remarkable in his ability to make whoever he was talking to feel better, even if that person was attempting to encourage Officer Robinson. Because of his illness, Officer Robinson was unable to work for several weeks during the past months. Whenever he was contacted at home, he invariably spoke of his return to duty, often apologizing to his supervisors for not being at work. After his most lengthy absence, one of the first things Officer Robinson did was to request an opportunity to address his co-workers at roll call. This request was quickly granted, and in his comments to his co-workers, Officer Robinson not only thanked everyone for their prayerful support of him, but insisted that everyone should ensure that they maintained an adequate balance of sick leave, because you never know when you may need it. This type of comment most often comes from supervisors, and is often met with varying degrees of belief or acceptance, but when it came from Officer Robinson, it was received with interest and respect, for this is the type of response that Officer Robinson's character demanded and generated. As a further testimony to Officer Robinson's character, soon after he had addressed his co-workers at roll call, he approached his supervisors with a suggestion that typified his selfless nature. With great humility, he asked if he might be allowed to provide a meal for the co-workers he so appreciated. With a great amount of awe, his request was granted and soon afterwards, Officer Robinson enlisted the services of a friend who catered the lunch-time meal for the entire daywork section of the House Division. Not a small undertaking, Officer Robinson ensured that all of the approximately 66 individuals present for an average workday were invited to the meal, and were able to enjoy not only his company, but a superb meal as well. This generosity is unheard of, and many officers remarked how humbled they were by Officer Robinson's act of charity and kindness. Officer Robinson's friends and co-workers will remember him for these acts of generosity and compassion. His humble nature and patient endurance serve as an example to us all of how to face life and difficult circumstances with grace, courage, and thoughtfulness. He will be missed not only for his pleasant demeanor and positive attitude, but for the tremendous influence for good that his mere presence infused into the lives of everyone. One officer has remarked recently that Officer Robinson was too good for this world. Perhaps we can all learn from Officer Robinson how to live lives that honor those around us. His legacy to the men and women of the Capitol Police calls us to righteousness and servanthood, hallmarks of not only a good police officer, but of a good human being.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, strong encryption products are the locks and keys of the digital age. To ensure that the computer files of American citizens are protected, I have introduced H.R. 695, the SAFE Act, Security and Freedom through Encryption, which has 250 bipartisan cosponsors. The SAFE Act is supported by organizations from across the political spectrum. It is not often that legislation brings together such a diverse array of Members and interest groups. On one side of this debate are the United States Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers, the Law Enforcement Alliance of America, the American Civil Liberties Union, the National Rifle Association, Americans for Tax Reform, Eagle Forum, the Center for Democracy and Technology, and a whole host of business organizations concerned about the security of their computer communications. Who is on the other side? The administration, which continues to pursue a policy that threatens the privacy of American citizens. If the Government can access your encrypted computer files, medical records, tax returns and personal financial information, then hackers can, too. I am pleased to be the sponsor of this legislation with the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren), the lead Democrat cosponsors. There are about 150 Republican cosponsors of this legislation, and over 100 Democrat cosponsors as well. This is truly a bipartisan effort. This legislation is designed to do three things: First, protect the privacy of law-abiding American citizens. People know today that their e-mail, their credit card numbers, their medical records, their tax returns, if they are submitted electronically, their industrial trade secrets, their copyrighted material, are all subject to invasion by hackers, by criminals and others who will make their communications available to who knows who for what reason. Privacy is important in the Information Age, and we need to protect it. Secondly, this is an important anticrime measure. This legislation will help to make sure that people who do use the Internet for electronic commerce will have that credit card number protected from a hacker stealing it. The New York Stock Exchange, which has to encrypt its financial communications, which go all over the world, to make sure somebody does not break into that system and cause a financial crisis by changing the numbers in the computer system, or the same thing for a nuclear power plant, somebody breaking into its computer system and causing a meltdown. This is something that protects the infrastructure of our country and it protects individuals using the Internet, making sure their medical records are secure. Industrial espionage is one of the largest problems we have in the criminal area in this country. The FBI has estimated more than $24 billion and/or more a year in industrial espionage takes place, and what is the prime place of that? Breaking into somebody's computer to steal information. Encryption, the scrambling of information to make sure it cannot be decoded by somebody intercepting it, is the Number one way to make sure this is safe. Finally, this is an issue about jobs, jobs of American citizens. We dominate the software industry in the world. Today, nearly 75 percent of all the software sold in the world is created in the United States. But our foreign competition is on to the fact that this administration is using our export control laws to limit access to strong encryption by our software companies, by our citizens, and by those overseas who would like to buy the quality software products American companies make and cannot do so because of the fact that we have these export laws that limit access to this valuable software. So they are using that to gain a competitive advantage, and we will lose the advantage we have in the world as we move more and more into encrypted software, as we move into the next century. So these three things, protecting the privacy of American citizens, fighting crime, and making sure that we protect and create new jobs in a growing dynamic Information Age industry, are reasons why this legislation has been offered. What does it do? It eases our export control laws and says that if foreign competition is offering a particular type of software, or if it is available off-the-shelf, our American industry should be allowed to compete and offer the same software overseas. It prohibits the Federal Government from setting up what is called a mandatory key recovery system. What is that? That is where the government requires you to put the key to your computer, your encrypted computer software, the contents of your computer, in a location where government can get ahold of it without your knowledge. Mr. Speaker, this is something that I would urge my colleagues to strongly support. This legislation has bipartisan support. Support the SAFE Act, H.R. 695.