Bob Goodlatte

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be joined by my colleagues, Representatives Hyde, Conyers, Moorhead, McCollum, Frank, Gekas, Smith of Texas, Coble, Canady, Bono, Heineman, Flanagan, and Davis in introducing the Anticounterfeiting Consumer Protection Act of 1995. This legislation, which will provide much-needed additional protections against copyright and trademark counterfeiting, may be the most proconsumer, probusiness bill this Congress will consider. It directly addresses a practice that costs American business more than $200 billion a year, that results in the loss of an estimated 750,000 jobs, and that threatens the health and safety of every American man, woman, and child. There is a myth that counterfeiting is just a penny ante crime, a $2 watch or handbag. In fact, counterfeiting involves billions of dollars, gangs, highly sophisticated equipment, organized crime and terrorists. No area of the United States, no product is safe from the modern counterfeiter. We have seen counterfeits ranging from watches and sunglasses to auto and aircraft parts, from shampoo to baby formula, from food products to computer software. Counterfeit videotape copies of the movie, ``Waterworld,'' were available before the real movie was even released in theaters. The simple fact is that if it is a product sold in America, there is probably a counterfeit being made and sold somewhere around the world. The cost of counterfeiting is staggering. The U.S. Custom Service has estimated that in 1993, counterfeited goods resulted in the loss of 750,000 jobs. Fake auto parts such as brake pads and oil filters cost our domestic auto industry losses of over $12 billion. If the sales of these fake parts alone were eliminated, the industry estimates that it could hire an additional 200,000 workers. The U.S. software industry has estimated that sales of pirated software account for more than 40 percent of total revenues. The counterfeiters have become so sophisticated in duplicating the label, the packaging, and even the hologram that appears on the software package, that it is almost impossible to distinguish authentic products from the fakes. In fact, the International Anticounterfeiting Coalition estimates that American businesses lose nearly $200 billion a year due to the sale of counterfeit products. Every day, the intellectual property of American businesses is being stolen. It often costs hundreds of thousands of dollars to ready a product for marketing, to make sure that it is not only effective but safe. But today, with powerful computers and copying equipment, it only costs counterfeiters a few dollars to manufacture a copy. They do not have to worry about safety or quality. They prey on the good name, the research, the talent and the hard work of others. Because of the lure of enormous profits compared to the relatively low risk of being arrested, prosecuted, and sent to jail, it has not taken long for organized crime to get involved in counterfeiting operations. For example, in three recent raids conducted in Los Angeles, counterfeit Microsoft software and other material with a potential RICO value in excess of over $10.5 million was seized. Implicated in this activity were three Chinese triads: the Wahching, the Big Circle Boys, and the Four Seas. The vast majority of the counterfeit product was produced in southern California. Sheriff deputies seized software, manuals, and holograms. They were surprised when they stumbled upon four pounds of plastic explosives, two pounds of TNT, shotguns, handguns, and silencers. Last month, U.S. Custom agents led massive raids in several States, including California, New York, New Jersey, and Georgia. They seized $27 million worth of counterfeit merchandise such as clothing, accessories, and sporting goods found in a network of factories, warehouses, and shops. Over 30 U.S. trademark holders were affected. Forty-three Korean nationals were charged for manufacturing, selling, and trafficking counterfeit merchandise. The scale of this operation demonstrates the pervasiveness and level of sophistication that is involved. Recently, $400,000 worth of counterfeit handbags were seized in New Jersey. During the raid, law enforcement officials using drug sniffing dogs discovered heroin had been stitched into the walls of a number of counterfeit designer Louis Vuitton handbags. Even more disturbing, however, is the growing threat counterfeits pose to public health and safety. For example, there have been reports of the seizure in 16 States of counterfeit Similac, an infant formula. Such a counterfeit could be deadly to any child who is allergic to the contents of the faked product. In a recent raid in Boston, a bogus butterscotch candy was seized that had been stored unwrapped and in unsanitary conditions. This candy was illegally labeled as a Bordon Eagle brand, however, that company does not even produce such a candy. Even the sale of fake watches it not a victimless crime. The head of the Born to Kill Gang based in New York City, was making an estimated $13 million a year selling fake Cartier and Rolex watches. This revenue stream financed other criminal activities, from extortion to murder. Despite these facts, the risk of arrest, prosecution and incarceration for counterfeiting is slight. Counterfeiting operations have become highly sophisticated, well-financed, mobile and international in scope. These criminal networks have distribution systems as diverse as any modern corporation. Counterfeiters know that although criminal penalties exist on the books, because of the inadequacy of the criminal penalties and prosecutors' misperceptions about the gravity of the crime, criminal actions are rarely initiated against counterfeiters. As for private enforcement actions, trademark and copyright owners are consistently frustrated by an inability to recover any meaningful damages. The Anticounterfeiting Consumer Protection Act of 1995 will help law enforcement officials contend with the sophisticated nature of modern counterfeiting. First, it increases criminal penalties by making trafficking in counterfeit goods or services a RICO offense, consequently providing for increased jail time, criminal fines, and asset forfeiture. Second, the legislation allows greater involvement by all levels of Federal law enforcement in fighting counterfeiting, including enhanced authority to seize counterfeit goods and the tools of the counterfeiters' trade. Third, it makes it more difficult for these goods to re-enter the stream of commerce once they have been seized. Fourth, our bill also adds teeth to existing statutes and provides stronger civil remedies, including civil fines pegged to the value of genuine goods and statutory damage awards of up to $1,000,000 per mark. The Anticounterfeiting Consumer Protection Act of 1995 will provide law enforcement officials with the tools they need to fight back, and to protect American business and the health and safety of American consumers. The time has come to make sure that our fight against counterfeiting is as sophisticated and modern as the crime itself.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Medicare Preservation Act of 1995. This historic legislation will preserve, protect, and strengthen this vital lifeline to our senior citizens. [[Page H 10362]] Mr. Chairman, today we are voting on a realistic solution to a crisis situation. America's seniors, families, doctors, and employers all agree that Medicare is broken and this legislation fixes it. By saving Medicare from bankruptcy, we ensure that the program will be there to serve the health needs of seniors. We are giving seniors the choice in selecting the best health care plan for their needs, including the right to keep the same Medicare coverage and doctors they have now. Finally, we are guaranteeing Medicare's solvency well into the next century so that the program can serve future generations of seniors. Contrary to all of the talk about cuts in Medicare, spending per person will actually increase by nearly $2,000--from $4,800 today to $6,700 in 2002. Total Medicare spending increases by 54 percent from $178 billion this year to $274 billion in 2002. Leave it to the big spenders here in Washington to call such increases cuts. Choice is a key part of this Medicare legislation. Those who want to stay with their current Medicare plan can do so. No one will be forced to change coverage or doctors. Seniors will have the option to choose from additional health care plans under Medicare-plus. Options will include coordinated care plans, a physician service organization, or a MediSave account. These plans are required to offer at least as good a benefit package as Medicare does now. Some of these new plans actually offer more benefits, such as prescription drug and eyeglass coverage which are not available under Medicare. They also can reduce out-of-pocket costs and eliminate the need for MediGap insurance that costs $750 to $1,200 a year. Today, seniors pay 31.5 percent of part B costs and taxpayers pay the remaining 68.5 percent. That rate will not change. Premiums, therefore, will go up only because the cost of the program rises. The only exception will be for affluent seniors who will be asked to pay more. By 2002, part B premiums will be $87 per month instead of the $46.10 per month today. Under President Clinton's budget, which does not offer a plan to preserve Medicare, monthly premiums would increase to $83 per month. That is only a $4 a month difference--which is not too much to pay to help save the Medicare Program. The bill provides fair but limited increases in spending on hospital and doctor services. Health care providers will have to manage under funding limits and compete in the marketplace on the basis of price and quality. There will be a Medicare preservation trust fund created within the part B Medicare Program to ensure that senior's premiums go to save Medicare and are not used for other purposes such as tax cuts. Mr. Chairman, we must not miss this opportunity to offer security for seniors and save Medicare for the next generation. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the Medicare Preservation Act.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, this bill does not apply to proposition 187. My State of Virginia does not have initiatives, it just has referendums. But the State legislature can put a referendum on the ballot, millions of people can take time to go to the polls. The gentleman from California [Mr. Miller] pointed out that when millions of people were overruled by this nine-judge court, the Supreme Court, why is it not better to have a three-judge panel on these rare instances when millions of people participate in this process and want to have a little better assurance? It is a protection on both sides. That judge could have ruled that it was constitutional and the gentleman from California might have thought it was not constitutional. Why not have a three-judge panel and give better protection for the people?

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California [Mr. Moorhead] the chairman of our subcommittee, for yielding this time to me, and I also compliment the gentleman from California [Mr. Bono] for this fine piece of legislation that will simply give greater assurance to people participating in statewide referendums that they are not going to be overturned by a single judge who may be basing his opinion on something that is not sound judgment. Mr. Chairman, this is something that is going to help prevent forum shopping. This is going to help prevent the kind of delays that are experienced in these cases. It has now been nearly a year since proposition 187 was voted on by more than 5 million voters in the State of California and we still do not have a final resolution of this case. Mr. Chairman, when millions of people take the time to vote, time away from work, time away from their family, significant inconvenience, sometimes significant cost, they have the right to be assured that their vote is being effectively and carefully considered and a three- judge panel simply gives them that assurance. Mr. Chairman, this does not apply in the case of proposition 187, but that is a good example of why we need to have this kind of assurance, simply because of the fact that three judges will be more carefully looking at this right from the start, rather than as a situation that has dragged on for a considerable period of time. In the past 10 years, there have been only 10 instances where this has been used. So when judges complain that this is a burden on the judiciary, that simply is not the case. When we add up the collective burden of millions of people gong to vote in a referenda and then being told by one judge that their votes did not count for anything, I think we have a substantial justification for having a three-judge panel in those instances. Mr. Chairman, each time this is used, it is used for very important and very significant reasons and I think it is highly justified and properly called for; very comparable to the other instances in which we use three-judge panels. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the bill.

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

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield further, look ahead prospectively. This does not apply to proposition 187. Whatever the politics of that is, leave it behind and look ahead prospectively and say in the future we are going to tell people when they participate by the hundreds of thousands or the millions that they have the opportunity to be assured they will have a three-judge panel. Mr. Chairman, 10 times in 10 years is all this would have happened. Once a year. Very reasonable, it seems to me, when you bring that many people out, you get that many people aroused about an issue. And you may be right. Sometimes they are ginned up over something that is not a good idea. Let us look at it more carefully with a three-judge panel.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, last week the Democratic leadership sat outside in the rain moaning and groaning and grandstanding for the television cameras about the Republican plan to preserve and strengthen Medicare and increase spending on Medicare. What do others have to say about that? The Washington Post calls them ``medigogues.'' Former Congressman, Democratic Congressman, Tim Penny calls their tactic the ``Medicare mistake.'' He says: There was a time when Democrats were willing to act responsibly, but by politicizing the issue, Democrats are threatening the viability of the very program they created. He goes on to say: We cannot afford to ignore Medicare's shaky financial situation or put it off until after the next election. It is just too important. So, what have the Democrats done? Nothing. Where is their plan? Nowhere. Mr. Speaker, that is not surprising for people who do not even know enough to come in from out of the rain.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Utah for yielding me the time. I especially thank him and his outstanding staff for their efforts in moving this legislation through their committee, and the gentleman from Alaska [Mr. Young] for moving it through the full committee. Mr. Speaker, we have been working on this legislation now in various forms for several years, certainly since I came to the Congress in 1993, and I am just delighted that it has bipartisan support from other members of the delegation from Virginia and from the gentleman from New Mexico. This legislation is vitally important to my congressional district because 3 of the 5 aspects of the bill affect my district. The Shenandoah National Battlefield legislation was authored by the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf], who has done an outstanding job in creating a new piece of legislation and a new type of national park that I think will serve as a model for other national parks in the future; and the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bliley] authored other aspects of this legislation dealing with the Shenandoah National Park. First the Shenandoah National Battlefield parks, new legislation, as the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf] indicated, to protect 12 battlefield sites up and down the Shenandoah Valley, the last major part of our country where we had important Civil War battles fought, that are at this point receiving no protection and are not recognized as a national park. These 12 are the most important of several hundred different sites around the area. Three of them, the Cross Keys, Port Republic, and McDowell Battlefield sites are in my district, in Rockingham County and Highland County, respectively. This legislation, unlike the creation of battlefields in the past where the Government has bought up in many instances thousands and thousands of acres of land, often at enormous cost, this creates this park in a very different way. This land will largely remain in the hands of private owners who will continue to farm it, as it is primarily an agricultural area today, as it was during the Civil War 130 years ago. We have the opportunity here to create a protection for battlefields, but also at the same time have an opportunity for local governments to have the maximum amount of input about these lands and to protect the rights of private property owners. There will be no condemnation of lands allowed in this park, and we will have this as an opportunity to both utilize the land for agriculture and to promote tourism and the preservation of these important sites, all at the same time. In addition, the legislation offered by the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bliley] dealing with the Shenandoah National Park is vitally important as well. Those of you who are familiar with the creation of this park in the 1920's and 1930's know that there was a great deal of hardship and animosity on the part of many people who lived in that park at that time and were forcibly removed from the park. There is documentation of individuals whose homes were burned while they had been forcibly removed from the home, their furniture removed, put out on the ground outside, and they stayed there and watched while their home was burned to the ground. There is a long history of difficult relations between the national park, which is a precious resource that every one of us values, but at the same time respect for the rights of those people who live around the park and are concerned about the manner in which it was created and about the manner in which it could be expanded, because of the authorized boundary of some 521,000 acres which is more than 2\1/2\ times the size of the park today. That would mean that, for example, the city of Waynesboro in my congressional district, a city of more than 20,000 people, half of that city is in the authorized area of the national park. It simply does not make any sense. We are not in any way shrinking the size of the park. We are not taking any land out of the park except for the specific 16 acres designated by the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bliley], which will be used to improve roads going through the park, to widen the roads, straighten the roads for safety purposes because they are used by the public, used by school buses traveling through the area. That will be removed, but other than that, there is no change in the boundary of the park. This simply says that in the future if people want to add to the Shenandoah National Park, they are going to have to go through the process of getting congressional support for legislation that will add the land. No longer can they do so simply as an administrative decision. This is something that I think is vitally important for the protection of the counties that surround the park, that are worried about losing the tax base for land that might be donated to the park, and it is also vitally important for the adjoining landowners who fear they may see a diminution of the value of their property. I strongly urge passage of this legislation. As an original cosponsor and one who has worked hard and waited long to see this day come to pass, I am pleased to rise in support of H.R. 1091, the Virginia National Parks Act. I want to congratulate Congressman Bliley for spearheading the introduction of this much- needed effort and Chairmen Young and Hansen for their excellent leadership in bringing this bill to the floor. Three components of this legislation directly impact my congressional district, the sixth district of Virginia: setting the boundaries of the Shenandoah National Park; the transfer of secondary roads within the Shenandoah National Park to the State; and the Shenandoah Valley National Battlefields Partnership Act. These land-related concerns all have one common thread--they all achieve their ends through local control by communities and property owners. I am extremely pleased that the Shenandoah Valley National Battlefields Partnership Act which our colleague Frank Wolf has championed since the 103d Congress is contained in this legislation. As an original cosponsor of the battlefields bill I was very disappointed when it was caught in the end of the session rush of the 103d Congress and not taken up by the House. Committee testimony last Congress pointed out the national significance of the battlefields and related areas in the Shenandoah Valley and the danger they face if left unprotected. Congressman Wolf and constituents in both of our congressional districts have worked very hard to craft this balanced legislation. Extensive local involvement was instrumental in developing a solid bill securing the Valley's rich heritage without treading on the authority of local governments or the rights of private landowners. This act represents a model partnership between Federal and local governments to preserve 12 critical Civil War battle sites throughout the Shenandoah Valley. These include three sites in the sixth congressional District: Cross Keys and Port Republic [[Page H 9083]] in Rockingham County and McDowell in Highland County. Residents of the Shenandoah Valley are fiercely proud of their heritage and the role that their valley played in the American Civil War. Not only did the battles fought in the valley play a pivotal role in the Civil War and have national importance, but the ravages from these battles on the lives of local citizens and their property were great and remain an important part of our local history. Many of the descendants of the native valley families who farmed the land where these battles were fought some 130 years ago still reside on those same family farms today. This tremendous pride in the valley's rich heritage is the key to why public participation in the drafting of this legislation was overwhelming. More than two dozen public hearings were held throughout the valley and support has been widespread. Prior to the introduction of the bill, I participated in a public meeting held in my congressional district by the Rockingham County Board of Supervisors to find out if support for the proposal to create the Shenandoah Valley National Battlefields Park was as widespread as we anticipated. This meeting provided a forum where all voices in the area could be heard. The community's support was very strong. Property owners, preservation groups, and local government officials and businesses voiced their support for the bill and the Rockingham County Board of Supervisors subsequently endorsed it. This type of support has been universal. Every Chamber of Commerce and Economic Development Council in the five counties affected have endorsed this bill. That is because our bill not only protects the irreplaceable resources of the battle sites, it also protects property rights through its entirely voluntary approach and provides opportunity for continued economic development for the region. This is achieved in a cost- efficient manner. This legislation does not involve acquisition of thousands of acres of land by the Federal Government. There will be no Federal ``taking'' of local property. That approach would be antithetical to the residents of the valley who as I mentioned earlier are fiercely proud of their heritage, yet deeply suspicious of big Government. Rather, this legislation is built on providing incentives designed to encourage local governments and landowners to voluntarily manage their communities and property in ways best to further the preservation of these sites and park objectives. It respects private property rights and recognizes federal budgetary limitations resulting from the Federal budget deficit. It creates a model, partnership between the local communities and the Federal Government to protect our valley's rich historic resources for future generations. With regard to provisions modifying the boundary of the Shenandoah National Park--ever since my first campaign for Congress in 1991, I have heard from citizens and local governments concerned about the possible expansion of the Shenandoah National Park and the impact such an expansion would have on their property values and those communities which lie on the parameters of the park. Since 1991 this issue has been one of my top priorities. Shenandoah National Park now encompasses 196,000 acres of land, however it has a much larger authorized boundary of 521,000 acres created by Congress in 1926. Under this authorization, the SNP has the potential to expand in three ways without any action by Congress: by accepting donated property, by purchasing property with donated funds and through land transfers with private property owners. In fact, the only time that the park must come to Congress in order to expand is if they seek to purchase property with appropriated funds. This situation causes local communities and property owners to constantly fear such an expansion and the potential for crippling effects upon property rights and local tax bases. In Rockingham County for example, there is the community of Beldor Hollow which has lived for several generations with the threat that citizens of the community could actually be surrounded by park land, ``land-locked'' if you will. In fact two members of the Rockingham County Board of Supervisors spoke to the National Parks Subcommittee about those concerns back in March when the subcommittee held hearings on this bill. By freezing the boundaries of the park to the land that the SNP currently owns we will alleviate this threat of out-of-control expansion that has plagued these communities since the 1930's. This bill does not eliminate the potential for the park to expand in the future--it just requires that Congress approve such an expansion which provides the park's neighbors the opportunity to have a voice in the matter. We've also taken care of another Shenandoah issue with this legislation by transferring secondary roads within the park to the state so that they can continue to be maintained. Virginia has maintained and operated these secondary roads under a series of temporary use permits since the park's creation. These permits have expired and since the National Park Service has not renewed them the State can no longer maintain these roads, many of which are in need of repairs. Our bill returns these roads to the State so that they can be maintained. I urge my colleagues to pass this legislation which is vitally important to the entire State of Virginia.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I just want to make the point with regard to the Shenandoah National Park and Richmond Battlefield that we are in no way saying additional lands should not be added. Those studies should and can go forward. All we are saying is the same criteria which provides for taking lands out of the park should apply to putting land into the park; that is, congressional action. After this is completed, if there are proposals to add land, they can bring that before the Congress and have it considered. Now local governments and local private owners in the area have no say on land going into the park.

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

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Conyers amendment. Mr. Chairman, when Congress acts to end the current judicial consent decree management of the telecommunications industry, the Department of Justice should not simply take over. H.R. 1555 preserves all of the Department of Justice's antitrust powers. I agree with the chairman of my committee that when there are antitrust violations, the Department of Justice should step in. Mr. Chairman, the Conyers amendment would dramatically increase the Department's statutory authority to regulate the telecommunications industry, a role for which the Department of Justice was never intended. Currently, the Federal Communications Commission and the public service commissions in all 50 States and the District of Columbia regulate the telecommunications industry to protect consumers. This combination of Federal and State regulatory oversight is effective and will continue unabated under both the House and the Senate legislation. There is no reason why two Federal entities, the Federal Communications Commission and the Department of Justice, should have independent authority in this area once Congress has set a clear policy. The Department of Justice seeks to assume for itself the role currently performed by Judge Greene. The Department, in effect, wants to keep on doing things the way they are, but they are going to replace Judge Greene with themselves. Mr. Chairman, I voted for the separate standard for the Department of Justice in the Committee on the Judiciary, but that was presuming, as the chairman of the committee informed us, it would be the sole separate standard. Now, they are seeking to impose that standard on top of the authority provided to the Federal Communications Commission in the bill. All of the tests, one after the other, that the FCC will require, will have to be met and then a dual review will be imposed where the Department of Justice will step in at the end. Mr. Chairman, I urge opposition to the amendment and support for the bill. Mr. Chairman, I include the following for the Record. Statement of Representative Goodlatte on H.R. 1555, August 2, 1995 Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 1555. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank Chairmen Hyde, Bliley and Fields for their able leadership in bringing this important legislation to the House floor. The American people will benefit from the increased availability of communications services, increased number of jobs, and a strengthened global competitiveness from this bill. Throughout the debate on this legislation, I have aimed at bringing these benefits to Americans as soon as possible. I continue to believe that this goal can best be achieved by lifting all government-imposed entry restrictions in all telecommunications markets at the same time. Whether they are State laws that pervent cable companies or long distance companies from competing in the local exchange or the AT&T consent decree that prevents the Bell companies from competing in the long distance market, these artificial government-imposed restraints all inhibit the development of real competition. Under this legislation, State laws that today prevent local competition will be lifted. Upon enactment, the local telephone exchange will be legally opened for any competitor to enter. But the bill does not stop here and merely trust to fate. It goes further. It requires the Bell companies and other local exchange carriers such as GTE and Sprint-United to unbundle their networks and to resell to competitors the unbundled elements, features, functions, and capabilities that those new entrants need to compete in the local market. It also requires State commissions and the FCC to verify that the local carriers meet these obligations. It gives new entrants the incentive to build their own local facilities-based networks, rather than simply repackaging and reselling the local services of the local telephone company. This is important if the information superhighway is to be truly competitive. The bill also contains cross checks to ensure either that facilities-based competition is present in the local exchange or that the Bell companies have done all that the bill requires of them before they will be permitted to offer interLATA services and to manufacture. This is a strong incentive for them to comply with the requirements of this legislation. It will take time for the Bell companies to satisfy all of the conditions in the bill. This built-in delay will provide the long distance and cable companies a head start into the local exchange. The bill recognizes that there are several significant problems with such a government-mandated head start. And, it deals with those issues. While the bill does not create the simultaneity of entry that the Bell companies have requested, it also does not impose the artificial delay sought by the long distance companies. This bill achieves a sound public policy. First, it gets the conditions right. Second, it requires verification that the conditions have been met. Third, it assures that they have begun to work. Then, fourth, it lets full competition flourish by lifting the remaining restrictions on the Bell companies. You don't have to take my word on the soundness of this approach. None other than the Department of Justice advocated it 8 years ago. As a member of the Judiciary Committee, I have been following this particular matter for several years. In 1987 the Department filed its first and only Triennial Review with the Decree Court. It recommended that if a Bell company shows that an area in its region is free of regulatory barriers to competition, then the interLATA restrictions should be lifted, even if--the Department noted--a residual core of local exchange services remains a natural monopoly at that time. That is, when there are no restrictions on either facilities-based intraLATA competition or on resale of Bell company services, interLATA relief should be granted. The Department acknowledged that, with the removal of entry barriers and the requirement for resale of local exchange services, a majority of customers would likely stay with local exchange carriers and some areas of local exchange might remain natural monopolies. Nevertheless, it believed that the potential for discrimination would be significantly reduced because of (1) increased alternatives, especially for higher volume customers, and (2) increased need for Bell companies to interconnect with private networks. Bell companies, according to the Department, immediately would be subject to substantial competitive pressures. The threat or possibility of competition would be sufficient that the residual risk posed by the Bell companies could be contained effectively through regulatory controls, according to the DOJ. Noting that competition will reduce intraLATA toll and private line rates, the Department correctly concluded that only basic local exchange service and residential [[Page H 8466]] exchange access would remain as services capable of being inflated to cover misallocated costs of competitive activities. Indeed, intraLATA toll competition has been and is allowed in virtually every state and has already significantly eroded the Bell companies' market share of these services. Moreover, competition in the exchange access market also has grown significantly as the successes of companies like Teleport and MFS attest. And, some very powerful and well-financed companies have targeted the local telephone market for competition. Companies like MCI are investing in local networks. So are cable companies that already have strong local presences. Significantly, AT&T has spent billions to move back into local telephony through its acquisition of McCraw Cellular and its success in bidding on PCS licenses. As the Department prognosticated, this leaves only local services as a potential source of subsidy. However, as it also correctly recognized, basic local exchange and residential services are a very unlikely source of subsidy. Those rates have been and are currently subsidized by other rates (i.e., residential rates are below costs and therefore cannot subsidize other services). And, they are beyond the unilateral power of the Bell companies to raise. State regulators have clearly demonstrated over the years that they are unwilling to let basic residential charge rise. It is important to note that this bill preserves the State's ability to prevent the Bell companies from raising local exchange rates. The bill also prevents interconnection rates from being the source of subsidy as it requires those rates to be just and reasonable before the Bell companies get intraLATA relief. It eliminates the Bell companies' ability to use their local exchange networks in a discriminatory fashion to impede their competitors. This legislation achieves the conditions that DOJ set forth eight years ago, and in my view goes even further by requiring regulatory verifications before the Bell companies are actually relieved of the intraLATA restriction. First, upon enactment, it lifts all state and local laws that have previously barred cable and long distance companies from competing in the local exchange services market. In other words, it will ensure that there are no legal barriers to facilities-based competition. Second, it not only requires the Bell companies to resell their local services, but it also identifies the elements, features, functions and capabilities that the Bell companies and other local exchange carriers will have to unbundle for their competitors. Although AT&T was required to resell its long distance services to its competitors in order to spur long distance competition, it was not required to make new services for its competitors through unbundling. Moreover, the bill's requirements on unbundling and resale are far more detailed and precise and therefore more enforceable by the commission, courts and competitors than the Department's general resale condition. In the final analysis, Mr. Chairman, I support this bill because it strikes a balance that will bring competition in cable and telephony to the American people. It may not come as soon as some want or, indeed, as soon as I want, but it won't be delayed as long as others desire. I am comforted as well that I do not have to take all of this on blind faith. I believe that the FCC and the State commissions will make sure the competition rolls out quickly and fairly and that local rate payers will not foot the bill. I am also sure that the Department of Justice is fully capable under this legislation of not only monitoring these developments but of playing an active role in the continued enforcement of the antitrust laws to shape the most robustly competitive telecommunications market in the world. The American people deserve nothing less. We should not disappoint them. We should delay no further.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, Congress has a responsibility to help encourage the private sector to protect our children from being exposed to obscene and indecent material on the Internet. Most parents aren't around all day to monitor what their kids are pulling up on the net, and in fact, parents have a hard time keeping up with their kids' abilities to surf cyberspace. Parents need some help and the Cox-Wyden amendment provides it. The Cox-Wyden amendment is a thoughtful approach to keep smut off the net without government censorship. We have been told it is technologically impossible for interactive service providers to guarantee that no subscriber posts indecent material on their bulletin board services. But that doesn't mean that providers should not be given incentives to police the use of their systems. And software and other measures are available to help screen out this material. Currently, however, there is a tremendous disincentive for online service providers to create family friendly services by detecting and removing objectionable content. These providers face the risk of increased liability where they take reasonable steps to police their systems. A New York judge recently sent the online services the message to stop policing by ruling that Prodigy was subject to a $200 million libel suit simply because it did exercise some control over profanity and indecent material. The Cox-Wyden amendment removes the liability of providers such as Prodigy who currently make a good faith effort to edit the smut [[Page H 8472]] from their systems. It also encourages the online services industry to develop new technology, such as blocking software, to empower parents to monitor and control the information their kids can access. And, it is important to note that under this amendment existing laws prohibiting the transmission of child pornography and obscenity will continue to be enforced. The Cox-Wyden amendment empowers parents without Federal regulation. It allows parents to make the important decisions with regard to what their children can access, not the government. It doesn't violate free speech or the right of adults to communicate with each other. That's the right approach and I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. The Chairman. All time on this amendment has expired. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California [Mr. Cox].

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. Wyden] for yielding this time to me, and I rise in strong support of the Cox-Wyden amendment. This will help to solve a very serious problem as we enter into the Internet age. We have the opportunity for every household in America, every family in America, soon to be able to have access to places like the Library of Congress, to have access to other major libraries of the world, universities, major publishers of information, news sources. There is no way that any of those entities, like Prodigy, can take the responsibility to edit out information that is going to be coming in to them from all manner of sources onto their bulletin board. We are talking about something that is far larger than our daily newspaper. We are talking about something that is going to be thousands of pages of information every day, and to have that imposition imposed on them is wrong. This will cure that problem, and I urge the Members to support the amendment.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, this Congress has taken unprecedented action in reducing the size of the Federal Government. No Government agency has escaped our careful scrutiny as we have searched for places to trim Government waste. Today, I am introducing a bill that will trim a bit further. I believe it is time to turn our attention to the grand jury process. Currently grand juries consist of at least 16 and no more than 23 members and an indictment may be found only upon the concurrence of 12 or more jurors. Reducing grand jury size has had considerable support and in fact the Judicial Conference recommended a cut in grand jury size as long ago as 1974. A panel of 23 is administratively unwieldy, costly, and unnecessary. According to the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, in fiscal year 1992 the average number of grand jurors which sat on a grand jury in session was 19.8. In fact, some grand juries sit with only 16 jurors, the number necessary for a quorum under present law. In fiscal year 1992 total grand jury payments totalled $16,526,275 or $67 per day per juror. We would see significant cost savings if the number of grand jurors was received. This would be a practical, as well as a cost-savings, reform, In a 1977 hearing on grand jury reform the counsel of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts testified that ``our experience is that it is easier to summon a smaller panel than a larger one from throughout the larger districts.'' My bill amends 18 U.S.C. 3321 to reduce the number of grand jurors necessary for a grand jury to be impaneled. Under my bill every grand jury impaneled before any district court shall consist of not less than 9 nor more than 13 jurors. An indictment may be found only if at least 9 jurors are present and 7 of those present concur. Judges across my congressional district have endorsed this reduction. The Judicial Conference is scheduled to meet again in September. I am hopeful that the Conference will endorse my proposal at this meeting. As a member of the Courts and Intellectual Property Subcommittee, I see this as an initial step toward larger judicial reform which the subcommittee will undertake later this Congress. I urge my colleagues to support this important proposal.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, 20 cents to empower the parents of this country to do what every one of them does with their children today when they ask if they can go to a movie theater, give them a limited number of choices to help them make decisions that they cannot be in that movie theater when their child asks them to go with another friend to see a movie: G, PG, PG-13, R, and C-17, X, and not rated. The V-chip will give them a similar opportunity to do something with television that they cannot possibly do just by reading the newspaper ads. Mr. Chairman, we have 50 channels on the cable system in Roanoke today. It is going to grow to 100 to 200 in cities across this country. Today the only way parents can exercise that same rating opportunity is to have a technological way to do it built into the television set. The V-chip will give them the opportunity to do that. It is not Government censorship. There is nothing in this bill that empowers the Federal Government in any way to impose these ratings on any of the networks. But do my colleagues know what is going to happen? Public pressure is going to bring that about because, as soon as one or two of the cable channels, Nickelodeon, or the Disney Channel, or the Family Channel, decides that they are going to put this signal out on their cable channel, and a parent who wants to leave their children alone during the day while they are working will be able to say, ``Only allow those channels to come through on my kid's set that have a rating. Screen out all the ones that are not rated.'' Once we do that, that forces the other networks that are resisting their responsibility. It is their responsibility, not the Government's, and all we are doing is aiding them in the process. Support the Burton-Markey V-chip amendment. Empower the parents of this country to do what is right, and let us bring about real reform in the television communications industry of this country.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Thank you and I look forward to working with the chairman.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I have heard from a number of my local constituents, and I know the chairman is very strongly supportive of the rights of localities and strongly supportive of decentralized government. We have had some conversations about the process here, and I wonder if I may get a clarification. Is my understanding correct that the gentleman is committed in the conference process to offer new language that will make it crystal clear that localities will have the authority to determine where these poles are placed in their community so long as they do not exclude the placement of poles altogether, do not unnecessarily delay the process for that purpose, do not favor one competitor over another and do not attempt to regulate on the basis of radio frequency emissions which is clearly a Federal issue? Is that an accurate statement of your intention?

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

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde] for yielding this time to me, and I rise in strong support of this legislation which will help to move the telecommunications policies of this country into the second half of the 20th century just in time to see this exploding technology move into the 21st century. Make no mistake about it. It was Government policy that has restrained what is clearly the greatest opportunity for the creation of jobs and new technology that exists in this country, and it is about time that we enact this new policy to afford the opportunity to create the competition in all sectors of telecommunication that is going to bring about an explosion of opportunity for all Americans to have greater access to information, to have greater access to employment, and to have greater opportunities for new investment in all kinds of creative ideas. So I strongly support this legislation. I do have concerns about some aspects of it. I will support the Burton-Markey v-chip amendment, and I would urge others to do so as well. This is not Government censorship, this is not getting Government involved in reviewing and screening these programs, the thousands of programs that are going to come across hundreds of cable channels. This is the empowerment of the parents of this country to be able to exercise the same responsibility in their own living rooms that they are now able to do with every movie that is offered in every movie theater in this country. It is simply an advanced technology for allowing parents to do the same thing with thousands of programs that are offered every week in their home that they do with the dozens of movies that are offered to their children in movie theaters. They will do it with technology, with the v-chip. That is the only feasible way that I know of, and anyone else that I have talked to knows of to accomplish this goal when we are talking about this massive amount of information. I am also disappointed that the amendment which I offered, the Goodlatte-Moran amendment, was not made in order by the committee to guarantee protection for local governments that they will continue to be able to provide the kind of decisions on the placement of telecommunications equipment in their local communities, but we have received assurance from my good friend, the chairman of the Committee on Commerce and fellow Virginian, that this matter will be fully addressed in conference, and I have every confidence that that will take place, that we will make it clear that on local zoning decisions local governments will make those decisions, and we will also make it clear that in advancing this telecommunication policy we will not have restraints on the ability to make sure this is a national policy by insuring that every community will allow this telecommunications into the community, however we will not have a problem with the fact that local governments need to have that opportunity. I urge support for this bill.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the lifting of the arms embargo to allow defenseless people in Bosnia to defend themselves. They do not have to fight tanks with rifles. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Indiana calls this a bloody peace that we see in Bosnia--200,000 lives slaughtered is a bloody peace? Mr. Chairman, a bloody peace is no peace. Patrick Henry, 220 years ago in Virginia said, gentlemen may cry peace, peace when there is no peace in the famous speech that he cited calling for this country to rise up against Great Britain. The people of Bosnia seek a situation in which they should have the right to defend themselves against far worse atrocities, killings, torturing, rapes, imprisonment in internment camps, expulsion from their lands, creation of refugees, of thousands and thousands of people. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Taylor] says that the United States cannot be the world's policeman, and he is right. So why are we participating in policing Bosnia by enforcing an arms embargo that prohibits people from having the opportunity to defend their own lives, their own families? That is what this is about. This does not involve putting U.S. troops into the situation. It simply involves allowing people to defend themselves. Mr. Chairman, I urge support for this bill.

Mr. GOODLATTE

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

Mr. GOODLATTE. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, the Federal Government does not need to get involved in promoting and supporting the laws of the State of Virginia. The people of Virginia are perfectly capable of doing that on their own. When it is correct to historically preserve property, they should do so, and when it is not, they should not.

Mr. GOODLATTE. The people of the State of Virginia, through their elected representatives, have the right to decide this issue. We in the Federal Government should not be funding a rogue organization that is going to go in and offer a contrary view to the rights of the people of Virginia, or any other State that faces this type of effort on the part of the Federal Government to fund land use planning contrary to the interests of people at the local or the State level. That is my position.

Mr. GOODLATTE. I would say to the gentleman, it is not an unfunded mandate. It is because they have changed the scope and mission of the organization when they have in recent years expanded beyond their original purpose, which was to acquire and protect individual properties, which I think is a fine idea, and have instead gone into the effort of trying to control development. In this case, their efforts in Virginia were to say that we should not allow a development like Disney in the entire northern Virginia Piedmont, 8,000 square miles. There may be reasons not to support that, but those reasons should be left to the people of Virginia, and not to an organization funded with taxpayer dollars.

Mr. GOODLATTE. I think the National Trust for Historic Preservation should make a choice. They should either make the decision that they are going to simply be involved in preserving individual historic properties, in which case there may be an argument to be made for Federal funds, or they should do what they are doing now, but do it only with private support, and not with the support of direct taxpayer subsidies.