Bob Goodlatte

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I share the gentleman from Florida's interest and support for shield laws as well, but I don't believe this has been carefully vetted. There are implications here about exactly who has the right to make the determination about whether or not funds could or could not be used. The way the language reads suggests that maybe the reporter would have that right, rather than a court. To me, this is not the best way to go about doing this. We will continue to work on shield law legislation in the House Judiciary Committee, which has passed out forms of shield law in the past, and we will continue to work on it. I must oppose this amendment in these circumstances. I don't think this is the right place to legislate something as complicated as this issue.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gosar) for raising this important issue. The Electronic Communications Privacy Act was written long before the Internet was in common use. It is out of date. It needs to be modernized. It needs to have some of the requirements that not only the gentleman has noted, but also some of the courts of appeals have noted. However, the particular way this amendment works on the particular section of the Stored Communications Act, which is a part of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, has implications beyond what I think the gentleman intends would have a significant impact on not only Federal, but also State and local law enforcement ability to carry out their job. If the gentleman would agree to work with me, as have the two individuals that you referred to have introduced bills and many others in this Congress who know that this needs to be modified--I have had conversations with Senator Leahy, chairman of the Judiciary Committee in the Senate, and we have agreed that this is a priority for both of us to significantly reform this law and address some of the very concerns that the gentleman raises. If he would agree to withdraw the amendment, I would look forward to working with him and others to accomplish that goal in what I think would be a better setting. We have already held two hearings on this issue, and we will be continuing to work on this in an expeditious manner in the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, this is where I came in a little while ago. The gentlewoman was correct, that I was speaking earlier about this amendment and not hers. However, I oppose both these amendments. The principle is the same. With regard to this amendment, I would say to the gentleman that the gentleman's amendment in the farm bill is new law, and it is being implemented, but it does not exclude the role of the DEA. Your amendment here today would strip funds from the ability of the DEA to be involved, and the involvement is as described in your amendment with regard to the confiscation, seizure, and otherwise impeding the importation, transfer, and movement in interstate or interstate commerce of seeds intended for the purpose of growing or cultivating industrial hemp.

Mr. GOODLATTE. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, no one denies the constitutional power of the President to grant clemency. The question here is whether this power is being used by the President of the United States as a way around the enforcement of the law as passed by the Congress when you invite mass representations of defense attorneys that thousands of their clients are entitled to have clemency granted to them. That is not a proper use of this power, and the Congress should not fund that office for that purpose. I think the gentleman's amendment is well-advised, and I strongly support it, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the Holding amendment.

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

Mr. GOODLATTE. First of all, let me say that it would not achieve the purpose of having a competitive bid process for the operation of prisons. Because if you would accept that premise you would have the Federal Government offering contracts; then if they are not utilizing those contracts the taxpayers are going to suffer the loss as a result of that. As long as the Federal Government, which operates a very large prison system, has both publicly-run facilities and privately contracts you are not going to have the problem that the gentleman's amendment is concerned about addressing, and that is somehow people being incarcerated simply for the purpose of meeting the contractual obligations.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. GOODLATTE. Okay. What is your amendment then? I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. GOODLATTE. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, I agree with the gentleman. That is why, last year, we launched an overcriminalization of Federal law task force. We are looking at prison overpopulation and who is getting sentenced and what kind of alternative sentencing should be looked at and what kind of attention should be given to prisoners when they are in prison, so that we reduce the recidivism rate, which also can reduce the prison population. As to one of the things I think we should do, there are a number of States that are seeing declining populations in their prisons, and they are not getting high recidivism rates. We should be looking at those States and finding out what they are doing.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Such institutions of higher education or State departments of agriculture simply need to first become registered with the DEA as an importer or as a researcher and, second, obtain an import permit authorizing the shipment of seeds. The process is not burdensome. Within the last 10 days, the DEA registered two State departments of agriculture in Colorado and Kentucky to import industrial hemp seeds and issued an import permit to the Kentucky department of agriculture.

Mr. GOODLATTE. I do not yield, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. GOODLATTE. I do not. I don't have enough time, I don't believe, to finish my remarks.

Mr. GOODLATTE. This amendment would require the U.S. Customs and Border Protection to choose between ignoring existing law or barring all imports of seeds. Removing DEA from the registration and permit process without changing existing law would eliminate the only lawful means of importing Cannabis seeds for industrial hemp cultivation pursuant to section 7606. To protect our Nation from the importation of potentially dangerous materials, our customs laws have always required the importer to demonstrate before the materials enter this country that the materials may lawfully be imported. In carrying out this function, the CBP consults with the appropriate government agencies, including the Department of Justice and the DEA. By cutting the DOJ and DEA out of this process, the amendment creates uncertainty and could potentially be construed to require CBP to allow any shipment by anyone to enter the U.S. as long as the shipper claims the goods are industrial hemp seeds. Since there is no way to tell just from looking at a bag of seeds whether they will actually yield Cannabis plants that fall within the TAT limits of section 7606, CPB, DOJ, and DEA consultation is important. Requiring CBP to accept bare representations from anyone claiming to be a legitimate importer exposes the possibility of others importing any item under the guise of industrial hemp. The existing permit and registration process provides some protection against that risk. For that reason, I would join in opposing the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time. Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I have reservations about this that are very significant. I would oppose this amendment very strongly in its current form. All private prison contracts provide for a guaranteed population. Without this, the contractors would operate at a significant risk which could only be addressed by significantly raising their annual operating cost, and also such language would adversely impact competition. Would contractors be willing to propose a 1,000 bed facility without guaranteed minimums for private prison services? Lack of competition would likely result in higher costs. But here is the thing. The Federal Bureau of Prisons has both prisons operated by the government and prisons that they privately contract for. So there is never an instance where they are going to house somebody just for the purpose of meeting the obligations here. If the prison population declines and they have a contractual obligation to house them in the private prison, they will reduce the population in the government-operated facility. The Bureau of Prisons certainly wants to retain the ability to strategically prepare and issue solicitations which allow for guaranteed population minimums. Also, with regard to children, there are so few children in the Federal prison population because we don't want to put them in a Federal-operated prison with adults, we usually contract out for the incarceration of juveniles. To pass this amendment would make that increasingly more difficult.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Okay. Well, seeds or hemp, you have to still have the involvement of the DEA because seeds and hemp can be used to grow marijuana, as well as to grow hemp. So if you don't have the ability to determine, just by looking at it, whether or not it is something that is going to be used for research purposes for hemp or whether it is going to be used to grow illegal marijuana to be sold to whoever, you need to have the DEA involved in that process. If you take the DEA out of the process, which your amendment in the farm bill did not do and which I would strongly oppose having occur now, you are going to have a situation where this law will be honored in name only and will not be used for the purpose for which I presume you intended it, which is to do research with regard to the growing of hemp. That is not what you are going to have here because you cannot determine, for example, the THC limits of cannabis plants simply by looking at them. You have got to have this examined, you have got to have it licensed, and that is a proper thing to do since the law requires it to be done. The DEA needs to fulfill the role that the law requires them to do for that very purpose. As a result, I must strongly oppose this amendment.

Mr. GOODLATTE. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I join him in opposition to this amendment. Mr. Chair, the purpose of this amendment ostensibly is to make it easier to import seeds for the purpose of research with regard to growing or cultivating industrial hemp, and for that reason the amendment is unnecessary and inappropriate. Current law imposes no impediment to legitimate research on industrial hemp being carried out in accordance with section 7606 of the Agricultural Act of 2014. Under current law, institutions of higher education and State Departments of Agriculture may import the seeds needed to conduct research authorized by section 7606 of the Agricultural Act. Parliamentary Inquiries

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Chair, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Chair, I rise today to express my support for the fiscal year 2015 Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations bill and to thank Chairman Wolf for his steadfast service as chairman of the Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Subcommittee. On behalf of the members of House Judiciary, I would like to express my gratitude for the cooperative spirit in which Chairman Wolf and the CJS Subcommittee has worked with us to ensure that many of the Judiciary Committee's concerns were addressed. Funding for immigration courts, intellectual property rights, enforcement, and crime victims are just a few of the critical priorities addressed by the bill. I am pleased to say that the bill includes an increase in funding for the administrative review and appeals account. This increase will support much-needed additional immigration judge teams. I commend the committee for their efforts to allocate this funding, which is crucial to reducing the backlog of unadjudicated removal and asylum cases. I also want to express my appreciation for language included to ensure that the Executive Office for Immigration Review will not use taxpayer funds to pay for attorneys for aliens in removal proceedings, except to the extent required by Federal court order. This bill also increases funding available for crime victims by raising the cap on the crime victims fund, a mandatory account supported by criminal fines, forfeited bail bonds, and special assessments, as opposed to appropriated funding. Furthermore, I applaud Chairman Wolf and Ranking Member Fattah for the extraordinary efforts shown throughout title II of this bill to prioritize the elimination of human trafficking, using all of the law enforcement components and tools of the Department of Justice. This bill also maintains many important restrictions on the use of funds, such as a prohibition on the transfer or release of Guantanamo detainees into the U.S., the continuation of various provisions related to firearms, and limitations on the use of funds by the Legal Services Corporation. The bill also provides $3.46 billion for the Patent and Trademark Office, an amount equal to the fees that are expected to be collected by the PTO in the coming fiscal year. While I am disappointed that the bill includes no funds for the Juvenile Accountability Block Grant program, a program that was zeroed out as of fiscal year 2014, the House Judiciary Committee intends to examine this program further, including to potentially reauthorize this program. In conclusion, I appreciate the efforts of Chairman Wolf and Ranking Member Fattah to work with the Judiciary Committee on this very important bill. I urge its support. I also want to take a moment to personally thank Chairman Wolf for his service to this body and to the Commonwealth of Virginia. He has been a leading advocate for justice, human rights, and religious freedom, and his efforts have left an indelible mark on the Nation as well the world. I yield back the balance of my time. Amendment Offered by Ms. Sinema

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of language Representative Doug Lamborn offered when the Committee on Armed Services marked-up the National Defense Authorization Act. Like most Americans, I remain concerned about Iran's state sponsorship of terrorism, its horrendous human rights record, its efforts to destabilize its neighbors, its pursuit of intercontinental ballistic missiles, and its threats against our ally, Israel, as well as the fates of American citizens detained by Iran. I remain extremely alarmed by Iran's pursuit of uranium enrichment and plutonium separation efforts. In spite of Iran's statements to the contrary, I am concerned that these materials are in fact part of a nuclear weapons program. The pursuit of nuclear materials under the proclamation of peaceful energy initiatives raises some serious concerns when coming from a country with a terrible human rights record and ties to terrorist groups. It is both a necessity and a priority that the United States ensure that Iran does not have a nuclear weapon. On November 24, 2013, Iran accepted the terms of an international proposal to temporarily halt further expansion of its nuclear program, in return for relief from economic sanctions. While this proposal would in theory limit Iran's nuclear enrichment program, it does nothing to prevent Iran from pursuing a warhead or nuclear delivery system for a nuclear weapon or curtailing other issues that are threats to U.S. security and the security of our allies. That is why I am supportive of Representative Lamborn's amendment. This amendment makes it crystal clear, that it is the intent of the United States Congress that the U.S. should only agree to a comprehensive agreement on Iran's nuclear program if Iran ceases uranium enrichment, ceases all of their nuclear, chemical, biological, chemical weapon programs, ballistic missile program, and ballistic launch site technology and Iran has ceased providing support for international terrorist. The United States government must use every tool possible to deter threats from Iran. Economic sanctions remain an important and necessary tool to deterring aggressive actions. Should the United States provide any relief from these Congressional mandated sanctions, it is imperative that Iran halt all activities that are threatening to our national interests. Mr. Lamborn's amendment is an important and appropriate addition to the National Defense Authorization Act, and I look forward to seeing it included in law.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Eighty-six years ago, Justice Louis Brandeis wrote, in his dissent in Olmstead v. United States: ``The makers of our Constitution undertook to secure conditions favorable to the pursuit of happiness. They recognized the significance of man's spiritual nature, of his feelings, and of his intellect. They knew that only a part of the pain, pleasure, and satisfactions of life are to be found in material things. They sought to protect Americans in their beliefs, their thoughts, their emotions, and their sensations. They conferred, as against the government, the right to be let alone--the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized men.'' After the horrific attacks on September 11, 2001, the country was determined not to allow such an attack to occur again. The changes we made then to our intelligence laws helped keep us safe from implacable enemies. Today, we renew our commitment to our Nation's security and to the safety of the American people. We also make this pledge: that the United States of America will remain a nation whose government answers to the will of the people. This country must be what it always has been: a beacon of freedom to the world; a place where the principles of the Founders, including the commitment to individual liberties, will continue to live, protected and nourished for future generations. I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I have only one speaker remaining, and I am prepared to close our portion of the remarks if the gentleman is prepared to close.

Mr. GOODLATTE. I yield further to the gentleman.