Bob Goodlatte

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall Nos. 92, 93, 94, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall Nos. 81 and 80, due to being unavoidably detained, had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, private ownership of property is vital to our freedom and our prosperity, and it is one of the most fundamental principles embedded in our Constitution. The Founders realized the importance of property rights when they codified the takings clause of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution, which requires that private property shall not be taken ``for public use without just compensation.'' This clause created two conditions to the government taking private property: that the subsequent use of the property is for the public, and that the government give the property owners just compensation. However, the Supreme Court's 5 4 decision in Kelo v. City of New London was a step in the opposite direction. This controversial ruling expanded the ability of State and local governments to exercise eminent domain powers to seize property under the guise of ``economic development'' when the public use is as incidental as generating tax revenues or creating jobs, even in situations where the government takes property from one private individual and gives it to another private entity. By defining ``public use'' so expansively, the court essentially erased any protection for private property as understood by the Founders of our Nation. In the wake of this decision, State and local governments can use eminent domain powers to take the property of any individual for nearly any reason. Cities may now bulldoze private citizens' homes, farms, and small businesses to make way for shopping malls or other developments. For these reasons, I joined with Chairman Sensenbrenner to introduce H.R. 1433, the Private Property Rights Protection Act. I am pleased that H.R. 1433 incorporates many provisions from legislation I coauthored in the 109th Congress, the STOPP Act. Specifically H.R. 1433 would prohibit all Federal economic development funds for a period of 2 years for any State or local government that uses economic development as a justification for taking property from one person and giving it to another private entity. In addition, this legislation would allow State and local governments to cure violations by giving the property back to the original owner. Furthermore, this bill specifically grants adversely affected landowners the right to use appropriate legal remedies to enforce the provisions of the bill. H.R. 1433 also includes a carefully crafted definition of economic development that protects traditional uses of eminent domain, such as taking land for public uses like roads, while prohibiting abuses of eminent domain powers. No one should have to live in fear of the government snatching up their home, farm or business, and the Private Property Rights Protection Act will help create the incentives to ensure that these abuses do not occur in the future. I urge my colleagues to support this important piece of legislation. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to say that I urge my colleagues to adopt this bipartisan legislation to restore meaning to the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. As Justice Sandra Day O'Connor noted in her dissent in that opinion, the Kelo decision effectively renders meaningless the protections under this law because, as the interpretation exists, as the Court ruling exists, State and local governments can seize property for almost any reason under the context of calling it for purposes of economic development, and we need to change that. We need to make sure that private property is what people think it is, and that is something that they have the right to own and not be interfered with by the government except for real purposes of eminent domain, taking land for pure public uses like roads and utilities and schools and other clearly public uses. I urge my colleagues to support the legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Chair, today I rise in strong support of the Fiscal Responsibility and Retirement Security Act. This important legislation repeals the failed government-run long-term care insurance program, known as the CLASS Act, which was included in the President's Health Care Law, PPACA. Nearly two years ago, with total disregard for the will of the American people, Congress passed and President Obama signed the health care reform overhaul into law. This law, which I voted against, is defined by federal regulations, mandates, a myriad of new big government programs, and a significant increase in federal spending and debt at a cost to our country too high to bear. The CLASS program is a prime example of the inherent problems with this new law. In fact, the Obama Administration announced in October that they would halt implementation of the CLASS program, recognizing that the program was unsustainable despite claims that it would save as much as $80 billion over 10 years. Today the House has an opportunity to pass the Fiscal Responsibility and Retirement Security Act, which is an important piece to dismantling the President's Health Care Law and allows Congress to consider new long-term care reform proposals that work for the American people without busting the federal budget. Madam Chair, I intend to continue working to repeal and defund the new health care law that kills jobs, raises taxes, threatens seniors' access to care, will cause millions of people to lose the coverage they have and like, and increases the cost of health care coverage. While we can all agree that our current health care system needs to be reformed, the new health care law was not the right way to do it. Instead we must focus on a positive, patient-centered strategy that puts patients, families and doctors, not Washington bureaucrats, in control of personal health care decisions.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today along with Representatives Wolf and Ruppersberger to honor the memory of a constituent, an educator, a community leader and most importantly a friend, the late Doctor John Boyd Noftsinger, Jr. On November 10, 2011, James Madison University (JMU) lost one of their most innovative leaders and passionate advocates with the passing of John Noftsinger. John was the face of JMU on Capitol Hill and dedicated his career to public service through education. Dr. Noftsinger was born in Roanoke, Virginia. After graduating from William Fleming High School in 1981, he officially started his career at James Madison University when he arrived on campus as a freshman that fall. We're sure when he stepped onto campus for the first time he never could have imagined the profound effect he would have on the University over the course of his life. John went on to graduate cum laude with a double major in political science and public administration and a minor in business administration. Upon graduation, he entered the Ohio State University where he would later earn his master of arts degree in higher education administration. In 1989, John once again found himself on the campus of JMU. He would begin a long and distinguished professional career where he would most recently serve as vice provost for research and public service. Additionally, he would serve as executive Director of the Institute for Infrastructure and Information Assurance, professor of integrated science and technology and strategic leadership, and as the president and chair of James Madison Innovations. In a profile of Dr. Noftsinger on the JMU website he is quoted as saying ``my connections with the community were forged early in my career here and are now embedded in my philosophy of education and my work.'' These words exemplify John Noftsinger. Dr. Noftsinger's dedication and hard work was not limited to the university he so loved. He was truly committed to his community as a whole and the city of Harrisonburg is better because of his hard work. Dr. Noftsinger was a founder and served as the first president of the Shenandoah Valley Technology Council. He served as a board member for the Shenandoah Valley Partnership and Shenandoah National Park Trust. He was the past vice president and board member of the Harrisonburg- Rockingham Chamber of Commerce and the former chairman of the board of directors of the Blue Ridge area food bank. He also served as a former board member and president of Big Brothers/Big Sisters of Harrisonburg/ Rockingham County. Dr. Noftsinger's legacy is one that will not be soon forgotten. We will greatly miss our friend. We pray for his family--his wife Lucinda Bosley Shaheen and his three sons, Joshua, Zachary and Jacob. We join the entire JMU community in mourning this great leader.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume just to say to the gentleman from Georgia that I have good news for him. There is absolutely no way that anyone can, under this legislation, find out any of his video-viewing habits unless he consents, with informed consent, with a separate consent to allowing that information to be made known to anybody. Again, this legislation makes good sense. It's what consumers want in the 21st century. It's how they share their information online. And those who don't want to share their information this way do not have to give this consent. Therefore, this legislation, I think, strikes the right balance. I urge my colleagues to support the legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to respond to my good friend from North Carolina. He and I have attempted to work together to resolve his differences. In fact, I believe that the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) does resolve some of the concerns the gentleman had. But obviously, as he has just expressed, not all of them. So I would like to respond to what he has indicated. Content providers, the Internet community, and consumer advocacy groups support the bipartisan effort to enact a commonsense modernization of the Video Privacy Protection Act. Hulu, Google, Facebook, IAC, Apple, the Center for Democracy and Technology, and the Future of Privacy Forum are among those who see H.R. 2471 for the simple modernizing amendment that it is. The VPPA contains a strict standard of privacy: Opt-in consent. The proposed amendment to the VPPA, H.R. 2471, keeps the opt-in standard fully intact. H.R. 2471 enhances the protection provided by the VPPA by ensuring that the opt-in consent required must be separate and distinct from any other end-user agreement. This measure further empowers consumers to make decisions about their information in a manner that is fully informed. None of the examples provided by Mr. Watt illustrated disagreement between the commenters he highlighted with the consumer empowerment measures that H.R. 2471 provides. H.R. 2471 simply gives consumers the freedom to share what they've watched with their friends if they would like to. It grants consumers the same right to share movies and television shows that they've enjoyed, as is already possible for music, news, and books. He correctly notes that someone can right now go on Facebook or some other social media and say, I watched this movie or that television show, and I like it or don't like it. The difference, however, is that consumers do not understand why they can have an arrangement for the music they listen to to immediately go up online so that their friends can listen to the same music simultaneously, but with regard to movies they have to take additional steps that can, under circumstances, be inconvenient to them. That's why they like this convenience, and that's why consumers should have it. And that's why this bill empowers consumers in ways that they are not empowered today, and why it is a real consumer bill. H.R. 2471 ensures that the VPPA's high standard of privacy protection remains untouched. Consumers must affirmatively opt in to share with friends the movies and television shows they've watched. A consumer can withdraw his or her consent at any time. And H.R. 2471 is narrowly tailored to update the VPPA, a 1980s law, to make it compatible with consumers' desires, with consumers' communication, with consumers' socializing on the Internet in the 21st century. The committee has indicated in its report language that there is no intention for this clarification to negate in any way existing laws, regulations, and practices designed to protect and provide the privacy of children on the Internet. As always, however, the first line of defense to protecting a child's privacy while online is the parents. Social networking Web sites allow users to share personal information about themselves with their friends; but used inappropriately, personal information can be shared beyond a user's friends. Just as parents are responsible for teaching their children not to talk to strangers, the committee expects parents to play an active role in ensuring their children's proper use of social networking or any other Web sites on the Internet. This legislation in no way changes the privacy protection for children on the Internet. And that law, as the VPPA itself, with regard to its privacy protections and its opt-in requirements, is not changed. This is simply a modern way for people to be able to communicate with their friends in ways that are convenient to them and that they already use and do not understand why, if they can use it with music, with news, with books, with other forms of communication and speech, that they can't do it with regard to their movie and television shows. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Michigan, the distinguished ranking member of the committee, for his support for the legislation. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2471) to amend section 2710 of title 18, United States Code, to clarify that a videotape service provider may obtain a consumer's informed, written consent on an ongoing basis and that consent may be obtained through the Internet, as amended.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. In no way does this legislation in any way undercut the principal purpose of the Video Privacy Protection Act because the power rests with the consumer. Basically, what this legislation does is it empowers consumers to do things in the 21st century with regard to their movie and television viewing, communications with their friends that they already have with music, they already have with news, they already have with books or magazine articles that they read; and we should have that kind of consistency in the law. The Video Protection Privacy Act remains strong, and its principal purposes remain there intact; and it has an opt-in requirement, an opt- in requirement that anyone who wants to avail themselves of this convenience has to give informed concept to do so. I urge my colleagues to support this very bipartisan legislation. It has strong support on both sides of the aisle. I have no further requests for time, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Today I am pleased that we are considering a bipartisan bill to update the Video Privacy Protection Act of 1988. This bill will ensure that a law related to the handling of videotape rental information is updated to reflect the realities of the 21st century. The VPPA was passed by Congress in the wake of Judge Robert Bork's 1987 Supreme Court nomination battle, during which a local Washington, D.C., newspaper obtained a list of videotapes the Bork family rented from its neighborhood videotape rental store. This disclosure caused bipartisan outrage, which resulted in the enactment of the VPPA. The commercial video distribution landscape has changed dramatically since 1988. Back then, the primary consumer consumption of commercial video content occurred through the sale or rental of prerecorded videocassette tapes. This required users to travel to their local video rental store to pick a movie. Afterward, consumers had to travel back to the store to return the rented movie. Movies that consumers rented and enjoyed were recommended to friends primarily through face-to-face conversations. With today's technology, consumers can quickly and efficiently access video programming through a variety of platforms, including through Internet protocol-based video services, all without leaving their homes. This bill updates the VPPA to allow videotape service providers to facilitate the sharing on social media networks of the movies watched or recommended by users. Specifically, it is narrowly crafted to preserve the VPPA's protections for consumers' privacy while modernizing the law to empower consumers to do more with their video consumption preferences, including sharing names of new or favorite TV shows or movies on social media in a simple way. However, it protects the consumer's control over the information by requiring consumer consent before any of this occurs, and it makes clear that a consumer can opt-in to the ongoing sharing of his or her favorite movies or TV shows without having to provide consent each and every time a movie is rented. It also makes clear that written, affirmative consent can be provided through the Internet and can be withdrawn at any time. Finally, thanks to an amendment from the gentleman from New York, the ranking member of the Constitution Subcommittee, Mr. Nadler, the amended bill we are considering today requires that the consent be distinct and separate from any other form setting forth other legal and financial obligations. This bill is truly pro-consumer and places the decision of whether or not to share video rentals with one's friends squarely in the hands of the consumer. In fact, the cochairs of the Future of Privacy Forum correctly pointed out, in an opinion piece in Roll Call on November 29, that ``the antiquated law on the books is a hindrance to consumers.'' This legislation does not change the scope of who is covered by the VPPA or the definition of ``personally identifiable information.'' In addition, it preserves the requirement that the user provide affirmative, written consent. It is time that Congress updates the VPPA to keep up with today's technology and the consumer marketplace. This bill does just that. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this important piece of bipartisan legislation. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on H.R. 2471, as amended.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 862 I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.'' personal explanation

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Gardner), a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr. GOODLATTE. I yield myself an additional 30 seconds to say that Social Security and Medicare are endangered. And do you know why they're endangered? Because we have a $15 trillion debt. And in all of those years that we didn't balance the budget, what did the Congress do? They went into the Social Security trust fund and took every penny of it and spent it on something else. And how ironic will it be that all that debt that we're transferring to the next generation, all of that debt will be on our children and grandchildren; and when they need Social Security and Medicare, it won't be there for them, not because of anything in a balanced budget amendment but because of the debt that we have accumulated. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GOODLATTE. If you don't balance the budget and you continue to pile up enormous debt, women, children, minorities, all will suffer in the future because our economy will shrink, just like Greece's economy is shrinking right now because they can't meet their obligations. And to answer the gentleman's question, I think it's best to turn to those people themselves.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute to address the Chair but in response to comments made by the gentleman from Massachusetts. We do need to look at that way-back machine. I hear the gentleman's complaints about decisions made by Republicans. In the last 50 years, and the gentleman has been here for many of those years, in the last 50 years, this Congress has balanced its budget a mere six times. Thirteen of those years Republicans were in control of the House, and four of those years we had balanced budgets, including the year the gentleman mentioned. And in that year, the gentleman voted ``no'' on the balanced budget that was passed by this Congress that year. And the year before that, we had a balanced budget; the gentleman voted ``no.'' And the year before that, we had a balanced budget. And then in 1998, we had a balanced budget. And the gentleman voted ``no'' every single time a balanced budget was offered in this Congress. In fact, for the 37 years that Democrats controlled the Congress in the last 50 years, only twice did they do it. Now, I have to agree with the gentleman about something, and that is that Social Security and Medicare are endangered.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, at this time I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce), a member of the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to respond to the gentlewoman to say that 49 out of 50 States have a balanced budget requirement. And while she sites California as perhaps the worst example--and it may be the worst example--still, the fiscal situation of California is much better than the fiscal situation here in Washington. The $25 billion deficit that they have to deal with this year--and they have to deal with it--for a State that has one-eighth of the population of the country of America which, taken nationwide, would mean a $200 billion deficit nationwide. We have a $1.3 trillion deficit, more than six times as much. And this is good discipline. It's worked in the States. It will work here as well. It is now my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake), a member of the Appropriations Committee.

Mr. GOODLATTE. I am happy to yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from Georgia.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute to respond to the distinguished minority whip and to point out this chart. The gentleman is quite right when he talks about profligacy when there have been Republican Congresses. Although, I would point out to the gentleman that, when we were in the majority and when we had President Bill Clinton and when we had those four balanced budgets, he voted for one but not the three others. We did not cut taxes then. Taxes were cut after the attack on this country, on September 11, 2001, to stimulate the economy, and we got roundly criticized for the deficits that ran up during that time.

Mr. GOODLATTE. I will yield to the gentleman from Maryland in just a minute. This chart show that, in 2004, we had a $400 billion deficit. It was the highest deficit in American history, and it was part of the reason we lost our majority later on. Then in 2007, as the deficit stepped down each of the interceding years, the gentleman from Maryland became the majority leader, and the gentlewoman from California became the Speaker of the House--and look at what has happened to our deficits ever since. The Congress writes budgets; the Congress doesn't balance budgets. Both parties are to blame. There have been six balanced budgets in the last 50 years. In 37 of those years, Democrats only balanced it twice. This is a bipartisan balanced budget amendment that the gentleman voted for once before. He should join us today and set the future on a different track.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey), a member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Thompson), the chairman of the Conservation, Energy, and Forestry Subcommittee, my subcommittee on the House Agriculture Committee.