Bob Goodlatte

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Washington for yielding me this time and for his leadership on this issue. I too have introduced legislation to require electronic filing of Federal Election Commission reports, and I would hope that our colleagues on the other side of the aisle who have complained about the lack of opportunities to support real campaign finance reform will join us in supporting this important measure, because who could possibly be opposed to this common sense reform? It ensures accountability and provides access to essential information regarding our political system. Right now when we file a campaign finance report with the FEC, we have to file it by the deadline imposed by the FEC. But that filing simply means putting it in the mail, the U.S. Postal Service, and sometimes it can take a week to get that report to the FEC. They then might take another several days or more to get it up and available to the public, so the news media, campaigns, the general public have a delay of sometimes 10 days or even 2 weeks between when a contribution is made and when they can learn about who contributed to whom in this situation. I think it is critically important that we adopt this legislation with electronic filing. We can still file on the deadline, but they will receive it on the deadline as well. And if we require them to immediately put it up on the Internet, everyone in the country with access to a computer in their home and libraries and schools can have access to this information instantaneously, and that is a critical reform, letting people decide for themselves what the purpose of campaign contributions are, who is receiving what for what purpose. The best way to deal with campaign finance is to lay it out on the table and let the public know exactly who has received what. Who could possibly oppose requiring campaign committees that raise or spend more than $50,000 to file their reports electronically with the FEC? Who could possibly oppose a requirement that Federal committees immediately report contributions and expenditures made within 90 days of an election? I urge adoption of this legislation.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 3226, the bill just passed.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume simply to thank my colleague from my neighboring district for his support for this legislation, which hopefully will also yield some benefits further across the State to his district as well. This is something that is responsible use of National Forest Service land and good for economic development in Virginia, it is something that has the strong support of the National Forest Service, and I urge my colleagues to adopt this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3226, my bill to convey administrative and other lands in the George Washington and Jefferson National Forests and to utilize the value derived therefrom to acquire replacement sites, where appropriate, and suitable improvements for national forest administrative purposes. H.R. 3226 grants authority for the Forest Service to sell 200 acres of land adjacent to U.S. Interstate 64 to the Allegheny Highlands Economic Development Authority for purposes of developing a corporate area catering to high tech companies. It will be named Innovation Park. Innovation Park should prove to have a positive economic impact by bringing high-tech jobs to those living in the rural areas. This project will not only address a need for good high-paying jobs but also for additional transportation, water, and wastewater system development and improvement. An environmental impact review is currently underway. Preliminary results indicate that Innovation Park will not adversely impact any habitats for plant or animal life. A public notice of environmental assessment was issued in January and not a single complaint has been registered. Mr. Speaker, let me say that I have had the opportunity to visit this site in Allegheny County in my congressional district. It is an ideal location for a transfer of land from the National Forest Service to this economic development authority because this land is not contiguous with any other land in the national forest and it is located in a place where it is particularly suitable for economic development, right along an interstate highway. The plans for this particular park are very exciting for this area of my district, which is a rural area and which needs to have the kind of high-tech jobs that this park we think will draw to the Allegheny Highlands, one of the most beautiful areas in the entire country, one that has a very high quality of life and is in need of higher-paying jobs. My bill also transfers the Natural Bridge Juvenile Correction Center from the Forest Service to the Commonwealth of Virginia, along with nearly 20 other administrative land tracts or land tracts that lost their natural forest character because of proximity to interstate highways. The largest of these tracts is 1.69 acres, but the majority of them are about a third of an acre. They are either residential sites, vacant lots or the lands are not manageable as forestlands and are no longer necessary for administrative purposes. The Forest Service does not object to the land transfers and has been very cooperative in this attempt to gain transfer authority. They believe that the property included in my bill is more conducive to economic development than forest management and therefore are anxious to remove it from their need to manage inventory. I would like to offer special recognition to Glynn Loope, the executive director of the Economic Development Authority. The Innovation Park project would not have made it as far as it has without his perseverance and enthusiasm. This is just the first step in a long journey to bring major economic and high-tech development to the Allegheny Highlands as well as the greater Rockbridge area, Bath, Botecort, and Craig counties in Virginia. I am proud to sponsor and support this bill. I am confident of its success and look forward to being of continued assistance to the Innovation Park project. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3226) to authorize the Secretary of Agriculture to convey certain lands and improvements in the State of Virginia, and for other purposes.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding time to me, and for his leadership on this issue. Mr. Chairman, it has been said that the Solomon amendment is not constitutional. Nothing could be further from the truth. Let me read right from the language of the amendment. It says, ``English is the official language of all business and communication of the Federal Government of the United States, and all communications with the Federal Government will be in English unless generally applicable Federal law provides otherwise.'' Puerto Rico as a State promotes English as the official language of the State government, courts, and agencies. English is the language of instruction in public schools. This is not a mandate, this is similar to what we have required of Louisiana, Oklahoma, and other States in the past, and it is simply not correct that this is inappropriate. In the last Congress, this body overwhelmingly passed similar language to apply to the entire country, and should do so with regard to Puerto Rico today. English is the language used by our government. It is the language of commerce, and it is the common language of the overwhelming majority of the American people. Language differences are the number one barrier to full assimilation, and Puerto Rico is certainly no exception. According to the 1990 U.S. census, less than 24 percent of Puerto Ricans speak English fluently, and a 1997 survey found that 76 percent of Puerto Ricans think it unacceptable to have English as their official language. It is no coincidence, therefore, that a recent poll concluded that only 16 percent of Puerto Ricans consider themselves to be Americans. Before the people of the United States accept Puerto Rico into their Union, they expect the people of Puerto Rico to want to be a part of it. Make no mistake, H.R. 856 will create an American Quebec. If Puerto Rico gains statehood under this bill, it is likely to declare Spanish as the official language, which could then force the U.S. Government to make Spanish the quasi-official language to accommodate the needs of Puerto Ricans. Not only would this significantly undermine the long-term assimilation of Puerto Ricans into American society, but it would also increase the pressure for the rest of the United States to become officially bilingual. Language is the common bond that holds our Nation together. A common language allows the children of Virginia to communicate with and learn from the children of California. Without this amendment, the same will not be true for the children of Puerto Rico. Without this amendment, children will never have the opportunity to participate fully and equally with their fellow citizens. Mr. Chairman, pro-statehood forces have stated on many occasions that their language and culture are not negotiable. Congress is not asking anyone to negotiate away their culture, but the Constitution grants Congress the power to determine the rules for statehood, and that Constitution was established to create a more perfect Union, not a more divided Nation. We must make clear that Puerto Rico must be prepared to be an equal partner. Support the Solomon amendment and oppose the Burton substitute. If Congress passes H.R. 856 without this amendment, we will embroil ourselves in a divisive debate that will last for years to come. When we welcome a new state into our great union, we should do so by building bridges that unite us, not roads that divide us. Puerto Rico statehood without English as the official language is a bad idea that is sure to create tension between the states, enormous administrative nightmares, and huge costs to the American people. Our states are united, and they should remain so. The American people do not want, and cannot afford, another Quebec. I urge my colleagues to vote yes on the Solomon amendment.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 856 because I have serious reservations about the constitutionality of this legislation which authorizes the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico to hold a referendum to determine Puerto Rico's political future and prescribes the wording of the ballot to be submitted to the voters. Under the Act, the voters of Puerto Rico purportedly may choose to maintain the current Commonwealth status, to become a State, or to become an independent Nation. The ballot language mandated by the Act, however, severely mischaracterizes and denigates Puerto Rico's current Commonwealth status. The ballot language mandated by the act, however, severely mischaracterizes and denigrates Puerto Rico's current commonwealth status. These repeated misstatements clearly appear to be designed to ensure that the statehood option prevails. Any doubt on this vanishes when the act's prescribed ballot is read in conjunction with other provisions of the act. For instance, the act calls for a referendum every 10 years until the statehood option prevails. And the legislative history, the committee report is openly hostile to the current commonwealth status. Thus, a referendum using the prescribed ballot would deny the people of Puerto Rico an informed and accurate choice concerning their future political status and would reveal nothing about the true sentiments of the people of Puerto Rico on this important question. The most serious misstatements contained in the act relate to its treatment of the rights enjoyed by the people of Puerto Rico under commonwealth status. The ballot contained in H.R. 856 states that Congress may determine the rights under the United States Constitution that are guaranteed to the people of Puerto Rico. This statement is wrong. The act's description of the citizenship rights of the people of Puerto Rico is similarly flawed. The act states that Puerto Ricans are merely statutory citizens and implies that their citizenship may be revoked by Congress. The people of Puerto Rico, however, right now are United States citizens within the meaning of the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution. The ballot language mandated by H.R. 856 also mischaracterizes Puerto Rico's current political status. The act describes Puerto Rico as an unincorporated territory of the United States. Beyond the pejorative connotations associated with this term, which was used to describe the United States' colonial possessions, this description is inappropriate because the United States Supreme Court has held that Puerto Rico, like a State, is an autonomous political entity sovereign over matters not ruled by the Constitution. But these falsehoods are to be right on the ballot, mischaracterizing the commonwealth's status, when Puerto Ricans vote. The purpose of the proposed referendum is to learn the sentiments of the people of Puerto Rico. In light of the fundamental inaccuracies, any referendum using the prescribed ballot could not be relied upon as an honest reflection of the sentiments of the people of Puerto Rico. Accordingly, the act as currently formulated necessarily fails to accomplish its very purpose. Equally important, these fundamental inaccuracies in the ballot's description of the commonwealth status option effectively deny the people of Puerto Rico their constitutional right to exercise the franchise in a meaningful way. As the proponents of Puerto Rican statehood well understand, the commonwealth option described in the ballot will attract no significant support among Puerto Rico's voters, including voters who are otherwise ardent advocates of continuing Puerto Rico's commonwealth status. Thus, the referendum contained in the act infringes on the voting rights of the people of Puerto Rico by presenting them with a factually inaccurate choice, a false choice as to their political future status. In short, H.R. 856 presents the people of Puerto Rico with a ballot that is stacked in favor of the statehood option. From the very start, the election is rigged. The ballot language mandated by the act is designed to ensure this result regardless of the true sentiments of the people of Puerto Rico. Such a palpably deficient ballot raises serious constitutional issues. Moreover, as a matter of policy, it certainty cannot be justified as an effort to give Puerto Ricans meaningful self- determination. Mr. Chairman, I oppose this legislation and I ask others to do so as well.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas) for yielding this time to me, and I commend him for his hard work in this important issue and join him in supporting his legislation. Nonacquiescence by Federal agencies has been an ongoing problem for most of this century dating as far back as the 1920s. Many Federal agencies, in particular the Internal Revenue Service and the Social Security Administration, have repeatedly held themselves to be outside the rules on which our system of justice is based. They claim to be bound only by Federal, district and appellate court decisions in a particular circuit as they affect the particular litigant in the specific case under consideration. Beyond that, these agencies act without check until either the Congress or the Supreme Court intervenes. This arrogance flies in the face of the reliance on judicial precedent that our system of justice presupposes and undermines the integrity and efficiency of the appeals process, while guaranteeing the claimant due process. By continuing to pursue its policy of nonacquiescence, these agencies are limiting access to the justice system for the claimant, who must pursue lengthy appeals to obtain a decision on an issue of the law that could have been resolved at the agency level, the claimants whose cases are delayed because the agency's resources are spent on duplicative efforts and claimants who may be denied timely access to the Federal court system because the court is forced to reconsider issues of law that it has already decided. The Federal Agency Compliance Act generally bars intracircuit nonacquiescence while at the same time addressing the need in special cases for agencies to relitigate a precedent. In addition, the bill circumscribes the practice of intercircuit nonacquiescence. H.R. 1544 applies to all agencies, thereby recognizing that the policy on nonacquiescence, whether inter or intra, has been applied by various agencies and could be asserted by any agency. In addition, this legislation provides a balanced approach by including exceptions to give Federal agencies sufficient flexibility to adhere to valid established precedent so as not to interfere with continued development of the law. This important legislation preserves the judiciary's constitutional role of interpreting the law. This important legislation preserves the judiciary's constitutional role of interpreting the law while allowing Federal agencies to administer fairly their programs. Madam Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the passage of H.R. 1544, and I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas) for having yielded this time to me.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker today I introduced a bill to convey administrative and other lands in the George Washington and Jefferson National Forests and to utilize the value derived therefrom to acquire replacement sites where appropriate and for suitable improvements for National Forest administrative purposes. In addition, my bill grants authority for the Forest Service to sell 200 acres of land adjacent to U.S. Interstate 64 to the Allegheny Highlands Economic Development Authority via the Commonwealth of Virginia for purposes of developing a corporate area catering to high- tech companies. It will be named Innovation Park. Innovation Park should prove to have a positive economic impact by bringing high-tech jobs to those living in rural areas. This project will not only address a need for good, high paying jobs, but also for additional transportation, water and wastewater system development and improvement. An environmental impact review is currently underway. Preliminary results indicate that Innovation Park will not adversely impact any habitats for plant or animal life. A public notice of the environmental assessment was issued in January and not a single complaint has been registered. My bill also transfers the Natural Bridge Juvenile Correction Center from the Forest Service to the Commonwealth of Virginia along with nearly twenty other administrative land tracts or land tracts that lost their natural forest character because of proximity to U.S. Interstate 64. The Forest Service is fully supportive of the land transfers and have been cooperative in this attempt to gain transfer authority. They believe that the property included in my bill is more conductive to economic development than forest management and therefore are anxious to remove it from their need-to-manage inventory. I would like to offer special recognition to Glynn Lopp, the Executive Director of the Allegheny Highlands Economic Development Authority. The Innovation Park project would not have made it as far as it has without his perseverance and enthusiasm. This is just the first step in a long journey to bring major economic and high-tech development to the Allegheny Highlands as well as the greater area of Rockbridge, Bath, Botetourt and Craig counties. I am proud to introduce this bill, I am confident of its success and look forward to being of continued assistance in the Innovation Park project.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce, along with Representative Howard Coble (R-NC)--my good friend from North Carolina and Chairman of the Judiciary Subcommittee on Courts and Intellectual Property--the ``On-Line Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act.'' I would like to thank Chairman Coble for asking me to lead the negotiations between the various parties on this issue, and also for his support through this process. The issue of liability for on-line copyright infringement, especially where it involves third parties, is difficult and complex. For me personally, this issue is not a new one: during the 104th Congress, then-Chairman Carlos Moorhead asked me to lead negotiations between the parties. Although I held numerous meetings involving members of the content community and members of the service provider community, unfortunately we were not able to resolve this issue. At the beginning of the 105th Congress, Chairman Coble asked me to again lead the negotiations between the parties on this issue. As a starting point, we asked the parties involved to submit written comments on H.R. 2180, the ``On-Line Copyright Liability Limitation Act,'' introduced by Chairman Coble and Chairman Henry Hyde. We then used those comments as a basis for a discussion draft, which I had hoped to offer as a substitute to H.R. 2180 during Subcommittee consideration of the legislation. Comments on the first discussion draft led to a second discussion draft, in which I, along with my staff, Chairman Coble's staff, and Ranking Member Barney Frank's staff, attempted to combine suggestions from both sides into a bill that the parties could support. While both sides attempted to work within the structure of H.R. 2180, it became clear to us that the path we were on would not result in a resolution of this issue. The bill introduced today marks a new beginning of this process. The ``On-Line Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act'' is intended as a codification of the decision in Religious Technology Center v. Netcom, 907 F. Supp. 1361 (N.D. Cal. 1995), in which the Court held that an Internet access provider was not directly liable for copyright infringement committed by a bulletin board subscriber. While I do not yet have a proposal that I can say is supported by both sides of this debate, I am not currently aware of any opposition to the principles adopted by the Court in Netcom. It is my hope that this new bill will encourage the parties involved in this issue to come together and agree on a solution. I do not see the introduction of this bill as the end of negotiations on the issue of liability for on-lone copyright infringement; to the contrary, I believe that it will further the negotiations by beginning with basic principles on which the parties can agree. Undoubtedly both sides will want to see changes made to this legislation, and I am committed to continuing to work with the parties in the hope of reaching a successful resolution to this issue. I would additionally like to discuss the importance of the World Intellectual Property Organization treaties, and the accompanying implementing legislation, which are critical to protecting U.S. copyrights overseas. The United States is the world leader in intellectual property. We export billions of dollars worth of creative works every year in the form of software, books, videotapes, and records. Our ability to create so many quality products has become a bulwark of our national economy, and it is vital that copyright protection for these products not stop at our borders. International protection of U.S. copyrights will be of tremendous benefit to our economy--but we need to ratify the WIPO treaties for this to happen. Mr. Speaker, this is a critical issue to the development of the Internet, and I believe that both sides in this debate need each other. If America's creators do not believe that their works will be protected when they put them on-line, then the Internet will lack the creative content it needs to reach its true potential. And if America's service providers are subject to litigation for the acts of third parties at the drop of a hat, they will lack the incentive to provide quick and efficient access to the Internet. The ``On-Line Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act'' will not solve every problem posed by the content and service provider communities. I do believe, however, that this bill is a good first step towards reaching consensus on this issue, and I encourage the parties involved to work together to create a mutually beneficial solution.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2265, the No Electronic Theft, or NET Act of 1997. I would like to thank the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Coble]; the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank], the ranking Member; and also the gentleman from Utah [Mr. Cannon] for their leadership and support on this important legislation which I introduced. The NET Act closes a loophole in our Nation's criminal copyright law and gives law enforcement the tools they need to bring to justice individuals who steal the products of America's authors, musicians and software producers. Additionally, the bill promotes the dissemination of creative works online and helps consumers realize the promise and potential of the Internet. The Internet is a tremendous opportunity. Its development has contributed to the economic growth we have enjoyed in the last few years. Its true potential, however, lies in the future when students and teachers can access a wealth of information through the click of a mouse, and consumers can fully benefit from electronic commerce. For this to happen, creators must feel secure that they are protected by laws as effective in cyberspace as they are on Main Street. The NET Act clarifies that when Internet users or any other individuals sell pirated copies of software, recordings, movies or other creative works, use pirated copies to barter for other works, or simply take pirated works and distribute them broadly even if they do not intend to profit personally, such individuals are stealing. Intellectual property is no less valuable than other property. Pirating works online is the same as shoplifting a videotape, book, or record from a store. Through a loophole in the law, however, copyright infringers who pirate works knowingly and willfully, but not for profit, are outside the law. This situation has developed because the authors of our copyright laws could not have anticipated the nature of the Internet, which has made the theft of copyrighted works virtually cost-free and anonymous. The Internet allows a single computer program or other copyrighted work to be illegally distributed to millions of users, virtually without cost, if an individual merely makes it available on a single server and points others to the location. Other users can contact that server at any time of day and download the copyrighted work to their own computers. It is unacceptable that today this activity can be carried out by individuals without fear of criminal prosecution. Imagine the same situation occurring with tangible goods that could not be transmitted over the Internet, such as copying popular movies onto hundreds of blank tapes and passing them out on every street corner or copying personal software onto blank disks and freely distributing them throughout the world. Few would disagree that such activities are illegal and should be prosecuted. We should be no less vigilant when such activities occur on the Internet. We cannot allow the Internet to become the Home Shoplifting Network. H.R. 2265 makes it a felony to willfully infringe a copyright by reproducing or distributing 10 or more copyrighted works with a value of at least $2,500, within a 180-day period, regardless of whether the infringing individual realized any commercial advantage or private financial gain. It also clarifies an existing portion of the law that makes it a crime to willfully infringe a copyright for profit or personal financial gain. It does so by specifying that receiving other copyrighted works in exchange for pirated copies, bartering essentially, is considered a form of profit and is as unlawful as simply selling pirated works for cash. Additionally, the NET Act calls for victim impact statements during sentencing and directs the sentencing commission to determine a sentence strong enough to deter these crimes. During the Committee on the Judiciary's consideration of H.R. 2265, I offered an amendment to clarify that criminal copyright liability should not apply to those who merely intended to reproduce or distribute a copyrighted work without any accompanying criminal intent. With assurances from the chairman that this issue would be addressed, I withdrew that amendment. I am happy to report that language addressing this issue is included in the bill we are considering today, and would like to make a few comments regarding the intent of that provision. This language is intended to clarify that a finding of willfulness cannot be established solely from evidence of the reproduction or distribution of copyright-protected works and thus, that prosecutions based solely on such evidence will not be pursued. While it is not the majority rule, some cases have held in the past that evidence of the reproduction or distribution of such works by itself is sufficient to establish willfulness under 17 U.S.C. 506. This section rejects the holding of those cases and clarifies that in order for criminal liability to attach to a defendant's conduct, the Government must prove something more than the mere reproduction or distribution of copyrighted works in establishing willfulness. It should be also emphasized that proof of the defendant's state of mind is not required. The Government should not be required to prove that the defendant was familiar with the criminal copyright statute or violated it intentionally. Particularly in cases of clear infringement, the willfulness standard should be satisfied if there is adequate proof that the defendant acted with reckless disregard of the rights of the copyright holder. In such circumstances, a proclaimed ignorance of the law should not allow the infringer to escape conviction. Willfulness is often established by circumstantial evidence and may be inferred from the facts and circumstances of each case. Further, a volitional act of infringement performed by the defendant is required by this section. Evidence of reproductions or distributions, including those made electronically on behalf of third parties, would not, by itself, be sufficient to establish willfulness under this act. Finally, the requirement of a showing of financial gain or commercial advantage under 17 U.S.C. 506(a) is not intended to imply that all types of financial gain or commercial advantage can, by themselves, trigger a finding of willful infringement. It should also be made clear that this act deals only with criminal copyright liability. Nothing in this act affects civil liability for copyright infringement. Mr. Speaker, the United States is the world leader in intellectual property. We export billions of dollars worth of creative works every year in the form of software, books, videotapes and records. Our ability to create so many quality products has become a bulwark of our national economy. By closing this loophole in our copyright law, the NET Act sends the strong message that we value the creations of our citizens and will not tolerate the theft of our intellectual property. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 2265.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, H.R. 2366 is a short bill. It simply transfers the authority to conduct the census of agriculture from the Secretary of Commerce to the Secretary of Agriculture, and eliminates this authority from the Secretary of Commerce as of October 1, 1998. In order to cope with the continuing move to streamline and downsize Federal agencies, it has become apparent that moving the authority to conduct the census of agriculture from the Census Bureau in the Commerce Department to the USDA makes sense from both an administrative and cost-effective point of view. In fact, the fiscal years 1997 and 1998 agriculture appropriations bills have already shifted funding for the census of agriculture to the USDA rather than the Department of Commerce. By moving the authority to conduct the census over to the USDA, it allows the Department of Commerce to free up funds otherwise obligated for this census, eliminates the need for a specific line item in the Commerce Department's appropriation, and locates the census at the agency with the biggest interest in information collected from the census, without precluding the U.S. Department of Agriculture from working with the Commerce Department on actually getting the work done. Madam Speaker, I would like to acknowledge the assistance of the Department of Agriculture in producing this transfer, and I would also like to thank the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight for their cooperation in developing this legislation. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2366) to transfer to the Secretary of Agriculture the authority to conduct the census of agriculture, and for other purposes.

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

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 2366, the bill just passed.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce legislation, along with my colleague from Virginia, Congressman Goode, declaring that the memorial service held each year in Roanoke, VA to honor emergency medical services personnel be designated as the National Emergency Medical Services Memorial Service. In 1928, an aptly named gentleman from Roanoke, VA, Julian Stanley Wise, founded the first volunteer rescue squad, the Roanoke Life Saving and First Aid Crew. This organization was the forerunner of today's emergency medical services, or EMS, 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, Inc., 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 EMS Memorial Service has captured national attention by honoring 119 providers of emergency medical services from 35 States. 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 it as the National Emergency Medical Service Memorial Service. Similar legislation is being introduced in the Senate by Senator Gregg of New Hampshire, as well as Senators Warner and Robb of Virginia. I join Congressman Goode in urging that the House 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, exactly 50 years ago today on September 17, 1947, the Freedom Train began its historic 16-month tour across the United States. This special train, commonly known as the Spirit of 1776, carried over 100 historic documents to hundreds of communities in all of the then 48 States. More than a rolling museum, the Freedom Train was a 16-month experiment in civic awareness that provided a vivid reminder of the greatness of America's heritage to a nation still recovering from economic depression and world war. Imagine what it must have felt like to see the Freedom Train rolling into your hometown in 1947 and open its doors to reveal original documents like the Magna Carta, the Mayflower Compact and the Declaration of Independence. The Freedom Train's tour logged more than 37,000 miles. Today railroading enthusiasts across the country pause to pay tribute to this unique train and to its enlightened mission to renew pride in our Nation's founding principles. I would like to give special thanks to Mary Jayne and John Z. Rowe, two Virginians who have worked tirelessly to ensure that the special story of the Freedom Train will never be forgotten.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Internet Gambling Prohibition Act of 1997, along with my good friend and colleague from New Jersey, Representative Frank LoBiondo (R-NJ). I look forward to my friend from New Jersey in seeing this legislation signed into law. I would also like to thank my friend in the other Chamber, Senator Jon Kyl (R-AZ); for his leadership on this issue. The legislation that Mr. LoBiondo and I are introducing today is intended to be the House counterpart to Senator Kyl's bill, S. 474, and I am looking forward to working wit Senator Kyl on this issue as well. The Internet is a revolutionary tool that dramatically affects the way we communicate, conduct business, and access information. As it knows no boundaries, the Internet is accessed by folks in rural and urban areas alike, in large countries as well as small. The Internet is currently expanding by leaps and bounds; however, it has not yet come close to reaching its true potential as a medium for commerce and communication. One of the main reasons that the Internet has not reached this potential is that many folks view it as a wild technological frontier, with no safeguards to protect children and no legal infrastructure to prevent online criminal activity. The ability of the World Wide Web to penetrate every home and community across the globe has both positive and negative implications--while it can be an invaluable source of information and means of communication, it can also override community values and standards, subjecting them to whatever more may or may not be found online. In short, the Internet is a challenge to the sovereignty of civilized communities, States, and nations to decide what is appropriate and decent behavior. Gambling is an excellent example of this situation. It is illegal unless regulated by the States. With the development of the Internet, however, prohibitions and regulations governing gambling have been turned on their head. No longer do people have to leave the comfort of their homes and make the affirmative decision to travel to a casino-- they can access the casino from their living rooms. The legislation I am introducing today will protect the right of citizens in each State to decide through their State legislatures if they want to allow gambling within their borders and not have that right taken away by offshore, fly-by-night operators. The Internet Gambling Prohibition Act gives law enforcement the tools it needs to crack down on illegal Internet gamblers by accomplishing three main goals: First, providing that anyone convicted of running an Internet gambling business is liable for a substantial fine and up to 4 years in prison; second, subjecting those who place bets or wagers with virtual casinos to a fine and up to 6 months in prison; and third, giving law enforcement the ability to request cessation of service to Web sites engaging in illegal gambling, with enforcement by court order if necessary. Additionally, the bill requires the Attorney General to submit a report to Congress on the effectiveness of its provisions. This legislation is supported by organizations across the spectrum, from Ralph Reed to Ralph Nader, and from the National Coalition Against Legalized Gambling to the American Gaming Association. Additional supporter are the National Association of Attorneys General and the National Football League. It is also important to note that this legislation does not preempt any State laws, does not cover online new reporting about gambling, and does not apply to transactions that are legal in both the State in which they originate and the State in which they are received. The bill simply brings the current prohibition against interstate gambling up to speed with the development of new technology, as the Internet had not been created when the original law was passed and thus is not covered by it. Mr. Speaker, online gambling is currently a $200 million per year business, and could easily grow to $1 billion business in the next few years. It is time to shine a bright light on Internet gambling in this country, and to put a stop to this situation before it gets any worse. The Internet Gambling Prohibition Act, which will keep children from borrowing the family credit card, logging on to the family computer, and losing thousands of dollars all before their parents get home from work, will do just that. I urge each of my colleagues to support the Internet Gambling Prohibition Act of 1997.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the No Electronic Theft [NET] Act of 1997, along with three of my colleagues from the Subcommittee on Courts and Intellectual Property of the Committee on the Judiciary, Representatives Coble, Frank, and Cannon. I would like to thank not only Chairman Coble and ranking member Frank for supporting this important legislation, but also a new and very valuable member of the subcommittee, Chris Cannon of Utah. This legislation will close a loophole in our Nation's criminal copyright law, and will give law enforcement the tools it needs to bring to justice individuals who steal the products of America's authors, musicians, software producers, and others. Additionally, the bill will promote the dissemination of creative works online and help consumers realize the promise and potential of the Internet. The Internet is a tremendous opportunity. Its growth and development are contributing to the economic expansion we have enjoyed in the last few years. Its true potential, however, lies in the future, when students and teachers can access a wealth of high quality information through the click of a computer mouse, and businesses can bring the benefits of electronic commerce to consumers. Before this can happen, creators must feel secure that when they use this new medium, they are protected by laws that are as effective in cyberspace as they are on main street. The NET Act of 1997 clarifies that when Internet users or any other individuals sell pirated copies of software, recordings, movies, or other creative works, use pirated copies to barter for other works, or simply take pirated works and distribute them broadly even if they do not intend to profit personally, such individuals are stealing. Intellectual property is no less valuable than real property. As an example of the problems that creators are currently facing, I have attached an article from the Electronic Engineering Times, discussing the theft of recordings on the Internet. Pirating works online is the same as shoplifting a video tape, book, or computer program from a department store. Through a loophole in the law, however, copyright infringers who pirate works willfully and knowingly, but not for profit, are outside the reach of our Nation's law enforcement officials. This bizarre situation has developed because the authors of our copyright laws did not and could not have anticipated the nature of the Internet, which has made the theft of all sorts of copyrighted works virtually cost-free and anonymous. The Internet allows a single computer program or other copyrighted work to be illegally distributed to millions of users, virtually without cost, if an individual merely makes it available on a single server and points others to the location. Other users can contact that server at any time of day and download the copyrighted work to their own computers. It is unacceptable that today this activity can be carried out by individuals without fear of criminal prosecution. Imagine the same situation occurring with tangible goods that could not be transmitted over the Internet, or an individual making millions of photocopies of a best-selling book and giving them away. Imagine copying popular movies onto hundreds of blank tapes and passing them out on every street corner, or copying your personal software onto blank disks and freely distributing them throughout the world. Few would disagree that such activities are illegal--that they amount to theft and should be prosecuted. We should be no less vigilant when such activities occur on the Internet. We cannot allow the Internet to become the ``Home Shoplifting Network''. The NET Act of 1997 makes it a felony to willfully infringe a copyright by reproducing or distributing 10 or more copyrighted works, with a value of at least $5,000, within a 180-day period, regardless of whether the infringing individual realized any commercial advantage or private financial gain. It also clarifies an existing portion of the law that makes it a crime to willfully infringe a copyright for profit or personal financial gain. It does so by specifying that receiving other copyrighted works in exchange for pirated copies--bartering, essentially--is considered a form of profit and is as unlawful as simply selling pirated works for cash. In other words, if you take a pirated work, such as a software program, and trade it on the Internet and eventually barter to the point where you have a $5,000 portfolio of software, the bill considers such bartering to be a criminal act--just as if you had sold the stolen software for $5,000. In addition, the NET Act expressly calls for victim impact statements during sentencing and directs the sentencing commission to determine a sentence strong enough to deter these crimes. Mr. Speaker, 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, video tapes, sound recordings, and other products. Our ability to create so many quality products has become a bulwark of our national economy. By closing this loophole in our copyright law, the NET Act sends the strong message that we value the creations of our citizens and will not tolerate the theft of our intellectual property.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me, Mr. Speaker, and I especially thank him as chairman of the Subcommittee on Crime for his leadership in helping to move this important legislation forward. Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by reading from an article in last week's New York Times dated June 29. The article describes a recent investigation by Federal prosecutors targeting fraudulent telemarketers based out of Chattanooga, TN. According to Federal officials, at least 100,000 people, most of them elderly, sent $35 million to fraudulent telemarketers based there from 1992 to 1995. According to the Times, and I quote, These scams were connected loosely, if at all. They ranged from single operators to 30-person phone banks. Typically, the lonely grandmothers and grandfathers were told that they had won one of four prizes: a new car, a Hawaiian vacation, $25,000 in cash, or $100. They were then asked to send a check, usually for hundreds or thousands of dollars, by overnight mail to cover taxes, postage, and handling for the winnings. If the taxes were this high, the telemarketer would say, ``Then the prize must be wonderful.'' According to one 80-year-old woman from New York who had fallen prey to the slick criminals, ``I have been a widow for 19 years. It is very lonely. They were nice on the phone. They became my friends.'' Fortunately, Federal prosecutors succeeded in winning convictions of 50 people as a result of their investigation. However, the average sentence in those 50 cases was less than 3 years for each person. Many of these people will be eligible for parole even sooner. The legislation I am offering today will send a loud and clear message to fraudulent telemarketers: the punishment for destroying the lives of our Nation's most vulnerable citizens will fit the crime, and it will be severe. 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. Who are these victims? They are most often the elderly and disabled, those who have contributed so much to our society over the years. They are veterans of World War II and Korea, they are our retired schoolteachers, they are our parents and grandparents. Many of these victims, longtime residents of southwestern and central Virginia, 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, 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 to prevent them from testifying at trial. Even if they are brought to trial, they are currently not deterred from engaging in telemarketing fraud because the penalties are so weak. My bill raises the risk for criminals by directing the U.S. Sentencing Commission to increase by four levels the sentencing guidelines for fraudulent telemarketers and by eight for those who defraud those most vulnerable in our society, those over the age of 55. My bill also includes conspiracy language to help put a stop to the targeting of Virginia as a victim State. Virginia is currently called a victim State by telemarketing criminals because very few of them have set up their boiler room operations here. Instead, they set up their operations in other States or even other countries, in particular Canada, to target Virginia's citizens as part of their scams. The addition of conspiracy language to the list of enhanced penalties will enable prosecutors to seek out the masterminds behind these boiler rooms and bring them to justice. Of the top 11 company locations in 1996, four were Canadian provinces, Quebec 3d, Ontario 8th, British Columbia 9th, and Nova Scotia 11th. My bill will increase by two levels the penalty for those who use international borders to further their scams or evade prosecution. Finally, my bill addresses the problem of victims who are unable to recoup any of their losses after the criminal is caught and convicted. It includes provisions requiring criminal asset forfeiture, to ensure that the fruits of crime will not be used to commit further crimes. 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 telemarketing fraud. Since its introduction it has attracted several cosponsors from both parties, as well as the enthusiastic support of various seniors' groups, consumer protection groups, and law enforcement officials. I thank my colleague for his assistance in advancing this important legislation, and urge my colleagues to support its passage this afternoon.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, when I arrived in this House back in 1993, I was amazed at how desperately Congress was in need of fundamental reform. While we've come a long way since then, we still have a long way to go. Today, I am continuing the effort I began in 1993 to bring fundamental changes to the way our Federal Government operates by introducing a package of five bills to reform our flawed Federal election laws. These bills have been developed in cooperation with renowned political analyst Larry Sabato, professor of government at the University of Virginia and the coauthor of ``Dirty Little Secrets,'' a brilliant yet scathing indictment of our political system and a blueprint for how we can make the changes that are needed to restore the public's faith in its system of government. The five bills are as follows: The first would make it illegal to receive or solicit political contributions in the White House, Camp David, or any other official residence or retreat of the President or Vice President. This would address the ambiguity in current law that has led to the controversy surrounding the current administration. The second bill would clarify that House Members cannot pay their congressional staff to work on their reelection campaigns while also on the congressional payroll. The third bill would require the electronic filing of Federal Election Commission reports and expedite the reporting of large contributions to principal campaign committees. The fourth bill would address the problem of push-polling, a practice by which unnamed persons conduct smear campaigns against opponents by providing misleading or false information while conducting a telephone poll. The bill would require the person or group supporting the push poll to identify themselves if the poll uses a sample of over 1,200 people and is conducted during the final 10 days of a campaign. Finally, the fifth bill would make a number of changes to improve and remove flaws from the motor-voter law enacted in 1993. The bill would require proof of citizenship and/or a Social Security number to register for Federal elections. It would also allow for the removal of certain registrants from the official list of eligible voters. It also permits States to require individuals to produce a photo ID in order to vote in a Federal election. The bill also repeals the provisions of the Voter Registration Act of 1993 that mandate registration by mail. The bill would require a registrant's signature at the time of voting which, if necessary, could eventually be compared to the signature on the registration card. Finally, the bill would repeal the provisions of the act that allows individuals who have recently moved within a county or district to vote at the voting location of either the new or former address. These bills face an uphill fight in the Congress. But, I believe they represent good ideas which bring real reform to a Federal Government that often remains out of touch and unaccountable to the American families and businesses that we are supposed to be representing. Thank you.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to support House Joint Resolution 54, which gives the Congress and the States the power to prohibit the physical desecration of the American flag. This has over 280 cosponsors who share my commitment to giving back to the American people the authority to protect our flag. Opponents of the flag protection amendment say it threatens free speech. Nothing could be further from the truth. ``Surely one of the high purposes of a democratic society,'' wrote Chief Justice William Rehnquist, ``is to legislate against conduct that is regarded as evil and profoundly offensive to the majority of people whether it be murder, embezzlement, pollution or flag burning.'' Talking about the flag is free speech. Criticizing our Government, for those who care to do so, is free speech. But desecrating the American flag is an offensive physical act, not speech to be protected by the first amendment. We can have open and free debate on issues without resorting to burning our flag in public. The U.S. flag is more than a piece of cloth. It is the symbol of our freedom. It represents the sacrifice of those who gave their lives to win and preserve our way of life. Too many Americans have carried our flag into battle against tyranny and oppression around the world for us to tolerate the public desecration of the flag. Those who doubt the need to honor and protect our flag need only visit the Iwo Jima Memorial in Arlington, VA, to be reminded of the heroic sacrifice made by our military veterans who carried our flag into harm's way in faraway battles at Iwo Jima and elsewhere. Justice Rehnquist noted the irony that ``government may conscript men into the Armed Forces where they must fight and perhaps die for the flag, but the government may not prohibit the public burning of the banner under which they fight.'' I am proud to play a part in trying to right that wrong.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak in favor of H.R. 674, also known as the STEP 21 proposal. Like the 21 other States participating in the STEP 21 Coalition, Virginia is what is called a donor State. That means Virginia gets back less than $1 in highway funding for every dollar we send to Washington each year in gas taxes; only 79 cents for each dollar we contribute, to be exact. Other States are given the rest of Virginia's contributions because of an unfair funding formula set forth in the current Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act, or ISTEA. This unfair formula costs the State of Virginia and other donor States hundreds of millions of dollars each year. Under the current formula, some States receive more than double the money they contribute to the trust fund. Massachusetts, for example, receives $2.49 for each dollar it collects in taxes at the pumps. Connecticut has a nearly 168 percent return on its tax payments to Washington. As a result, Virginia families are forced to subsidize transportation projects in these States and many others. While States with large areas and small populations may need to receive more money than they contribute, many of the States on the receiving end of the current ISTEA funding formula are there because of politics and not because of fairness. Every week, as I drive back and forth from Washington to the Sixth Congressional District of Virginia, I see many unmet transportation needs. In the sixth district, road projects, such as widening Interstate 81, building Interstate 73, and improving Route 29, all need funding. Building and maintaining a system of roads is vital to creating jobs and continuing economic development in our region. The STEP 21 proposal will improve Virginia's ability to maintain and improve its transportation system by ensuring that all States, not just Virginia, are guaranteed at least 95 cents return for every dollar sent to the highway trust fund. STEP 21 would also guarantee the integrity of the National Highway System, recognizing the ongoing Federal interest in interstate mobility, economic connectivity, and national defense. The other major component of STEP 21, besides the NHS, would be a streamlined surface transportation program which would provide flexible funding to allow States to respond to their specific State and local surface transportation needs without the current unnecessary Federal restrictions. By ensuring a return of at least 95 cents of every dollar for Virginia, STEP 21 would enable important transportation projects across the commonwealth to move along at a faster pace. Ending an unfair funding formula and giving State and local governments more flexibility in transportation issues are critically important steps for this Congress to take. I urge my colleagues to join the STEP 21 Coalition and support a more equitable, flexible, and streamlined Federal transportation program that benefits the vast majority of States across the Nation.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I want to first congratulate the chairman on his dedication to this important issue and his hard work toward crafting a bill that will help schools improve the quality of education for students with disabilities. This bill includes a number of provisions that I strongly support. It streamlines and consolidates the requirements that States must meet for individualized education plans, allows parents to participate in all IEP decisions, guarantees that parents have access to all records relating to their children, and includes a number of provisions to limit attorney's fees and reduce litigation. While I support most of the provisions in this bill, I am deeply concerned that in an effort to reach a compromise with the administration, this bill includes language that tramples the rights of States and localities to ensure safety and discipline in their classrooms. The bill includes a provision that effectively overturns a recent Federal Appeals Court decision allowing States to suspend or expel disabled students for criminal or other serious misconduct when the action is unrelated to their disability. The administration's policy, which not only exceeds the mandate of IDEA, sets a glaring double standard by establishing two discipline codes--one for disabled students and another for nondisabled students. Including this provision in the bill ties the hands of States and localities when it comes to effectively disciplining students. While I believe that the overall bill is good for disabled students, good for parents and teachers, and good for the American taxpayers, it would have been a great deal better had this provision not been included. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing legislation--the Grand Jury Reduction Act of 1997--to reduce the size of the Federal Government by reducing the size of Federal grand juries. In our effort to streamline the judicial process and cut wasteful Federal spending, we cannot afford to leave any stone unturned. A good place to begin is with the size of Federal grand juries. In fact, the Judicial Conference recommended a reduction in grand jury size as long ago as 1974. Currently, grand juries consist of at least 16 to a maximum of 23 jurors. Indictments may be found only upon the concurrence of 12 or more jurors. According to the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, in fiscal year 1992 the average number of grand jurors sitting on a grand jury in session was 19.8. And some grand juries sit with only 16 jurors, the number necessary for a quorum under present law. A panel of 23 is administratively unwieldy, costly, and unnecessary. In fiscal year 1992 total grand jury payments totalled $16,526,275-- that's $67 per day per juror. By reducing the size of Federal grand juries to a minimum of 9 and a maximum of 13, as proposed by the Judicial Conference Committee on the Administration of Criminal Law 20 years ago, we will see significant cost savings as well as a necessary streamlining of the judicial process. The Grand Jury Reduction Act is a practical, as well as a fiscal, reform. In a 1977 hearing on this issue, the Counsel of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts testified: ``our experience is that it is easier to summon a smaller panel than a larger one from throughout the larger districts.'' Therefore, reducing the size of grand juries will make the grand jury process more efficient. The Grand Jury Reduction Act amends 18 U.S.C. 3321 to reduce the number of grand jurors necessary for a grand jury to be impaneled, and reduces the number needed to produce an indictment. Under this legislation, grand juries will consist of a minimum of 9 jurors, and a maximum of 13, with 7 required to indict. The bill does not in any way change the process or the standards required for grand juries--it only affects their size. The Judicial Conference Committee on Court Administration and Case Management will be addressing this issue at its meeting next month, and the full Judicial Conference is likely to take a formal position on the legislation this year. I remain confident that, after reviewing the issue, the Conference will endorse the Grand Jury Reduction Act of 1997. I am pleased to have my good friend and colleague, Virgil Goode--D- VA--join me in this effort to streamline the judicial process and reduce the size and cost of government. I urge each of my colleagues to support the Grand Jury Reduction Act.