Bob Goodlatte

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Berg).

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Altmire), a member of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. I thank the chairman for yielding and for his leadership on this issue. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 822, the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011. This bipartisan bill has 245 cosponsors, and it enhances Americans' right to self-defense by enabling millions of permit holders to exercise their right to self-defense while traveling outside their home States. The Second Amendment is in the United States Constitution, and we are all taking an oath in this body to uphold the United States Constitution, including rights under the Second Amendment. The 10th Amendment is certainly an important right as well, but it does not trump the right or the responsibility of this body to protect rights under the Second Amendment. Forty-nine States have laws that permit their citizens to carry a concealed firearm in some fashion or another. Unlike driver's licenses, however, concealed-carry permit holders in one State are not always authorized to carry their firearms when traveling outside their home States. H.R. 822 remedies this problem by granting concealed-carry permit holders reciprocity between States. The firearm owner must abide by all applicable State laws when carrying in a foreign jurisdiction. This bill affirms that the Second Amendment protects the fundamental individual right to keep and bear arms and that the States cannot unreasonably infringe upon that right. In McDonald v. Chicago, the Supreme Court concluded that the due process clause of the 14th Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment right recognized by the Supreme Court in the District of Columbia v. Heller. This bill does not create any kind of Federal bureaucracy that may concern some people. It simply extends to them their Second Amendment rights when they travel in other States. H.R. 822 recognizes that right, and I urge my colleagues to support this measure.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my deep concern over the draft guidelines by the Interagency Working Group (IWG) on Food Marketed to Children. These guidelines would state that food must meet certain nutritional standards to be marketed to children. Quite frankly, these guidelines are so draconian that the advertising of nearly all foods to children and adolescents would be banned. This ban would include thousands of healthy products that could no longer be marketed to children, including most soups, cereals, yogurt, bread, and cheese--all foods determined beneficial for participants in the Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC). It is shocking that the Federal Government would be working to limit the advertising of foods like low fat and fat free dairy products which play a vital role in the diets of children and adolescents. While I have strong concerns about nutritional products that would be affected by the IWG's marketing guidelines, it is important to note how far reaching these guidelines are. The IWG defined marketing to include packaging, point of sale displays, text messages, sponsorships, philanthropic activity, and even the shape of food. These guidelines would limit the ability of companies to sponsor a sporting event or to partner in a charitable activity because it could be seen as marketing to children. Does the Federal Government really want to be telling a company that they can't be involved in their communities in these ways? This will be harmful to the communities while doing little to benefit children's nutritional health. The IWG guidelines are just another example of excessive government red tape. I urge the IWG to withdraw this proposal.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. I thank the gentleman from Indiana for his remarks. We are joined now by a very important member of our conference, a leader, the chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee and a strong supporter of fiscal responsibility and a balanced budget amendment, the gentleman from Texas, Congressman Pete Sessions. I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, that's an excellent note on which to close. I want to thank the gentleman from Indiana and everyone else who has participated and the other gentleman from Indiana. With that, I yield back the balance of my time. Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. GOODLATTE. I thank the gentleman from New Jersey, and I like the sound of that 28th Amendment to the Constitution. Let me just say that, as I mentioned at the outset, because of the vote by the Congress--the House and the Senate--signed into law by the President, we will have a vote in both the House and Senate on a balanced budget amendment before the end of this year, before December 31. And if either body passes a specific balanced budget amendment, the other body has to vote on the same one so that we have the greatest possibility that if we can reach that kind of consensus, we can actually send a balanced budget amendment for the first time to the States for ratification. It would require 38 States to ratify it. But as the gentleman from New Jersey just noted, 49 out of 50 States have a requirement in their constitution that they must balance their budgets. I believe that with the public supporting this by numbers northward of 80 percent--and it's very bipartisan support. I saw a recent poll that showed that 74 percent of Democrats support this, as do a great many Democrats here in the House. In fact, to pass a constitutional amendment with 290 votes, it has to be bipartisan. So we are working across the aisle to make sure that we build the kind of support that we need to pass the strongest possible amendment to our Constitution requiring that the government lives within its means. I yield to another great supporter of that concept, another new Member who came here to reform the way things are done here in Washington, DC, and who has joined us in this effort, the gentleman from Illinois, Congressman Randy Hultgren.

Mr. GOODLATTE. I thank the gentleman for his very passionate support of the cause of fiscal responsibility. As I mentioned earlier, this Special Order is being sponsored by the Congressional Constitution Caucus. And it's now my pleasure to yield to another great champion of limited government and lower taxes and less government regulation and balancing the budget, Congressman Scott Garrett of New Jersey.

Mr. GOODLATTE. I thank the gentleman. I very much appreciate his comments and would note the fact that we have, speaking here tonight, Members from many corners of the country: Indiana, Alabama, Texas, Illinois, Mississippi, Wisconsin, New Jersey, and Virginia. In fact, Members of Congress from about 46 or 47 States have indicated their support for at least one version of the constitutional amendment. If we can bring all of them together, and they can bring just a few more Members together, we can get to that 290 votes, because this is not a regional issue, this is not a partisan issue. This is an issue that transcends the country. It's reflected in the fact that this is an issue we can communicate directly with our constituents about, and they understand exactly what we're talking about because they live with the concept that they can't spend more than they take in year after year after year. The businesses that they work for, they can't spend more than they take in year after year after year. Local governments, State governments are all bound by this principle that you cannot live beyond your means. That principle should be enshrined in the United States Constitution. I yield to another Member who joins us in this effort, another new Member--and it's the new Members who have helped to bring this issue back to the fore, who really want to see a vote on this for the first time in 15 years--Congressman Reid Ribble from Wisconsin. Welcome.

Mr. GOODLATTE. I thank the gentleman for his comments. As I indicated earlier, this is an issue that has to have a bipartisan solution. It simply is not possible to pass constitutional amendments that require two-thirds of the House, or 290 Members, and two-thirds of the Senate, 67 Members, without Members reaching across the aisle and working together to come up with language that is agreeable and can be supported on both sides of the aisle. And quite frankly, the nature of the problem that we are confronted with is one that past Congresses controlled by both parties, Presidents of both parties have contributed to, and the solution is going to have to require also that same kind of bipartisan working it out on a year- to-year basis balancing the budget. It won't be easy. There will be tremendous differences of opinion about whether we should do this by cutting spending or raising revenues, or doing other things that can grow our economy and cause more revenues to come in. But it cannot get to the first stage of having future Congresses live by this without it being bipartisan. That's why I'm so pleased that so many members of the Democratic Party have signed on to support this effort. They've been led by an outstanding Member who has championed a balanced budget amendment for a long time, and that's Congressman Peter DeFazio from Oregon. I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, this afternoon we are going to talk about a very important development here in the House of Representatives--in fact, in the entire Congress. Because of the vote this summer on the Budget Control Act, we are going to have in both the House and the Senate for the first time in about 15 years a vote on a balanced budget amendment to the United States Constitution. The last time we did this was on March 2, 1995--actually, the House had already passed it with 300 bipartisan votes, and it was brought to the Senate floor on that day. The U.S. Senate failed by one vote to send a balanced budget amendment to the States for ratification. The amendment had passed the House by the required two-thirds majority previously, and the Senate vote was the last legislative hurdle before ratification by the States. As we know, balanced budget amendments--in fact, any constitutional amendment is voted on by the House and the Senate, requiring a two- thirds vote in each body, and then it does not go to the President of the United States, as legislation does. Instead, it goes directly to our States, and then three-quarters of the State legislatures would be required to ratify it. If that amendment had passed, then we would not be dealing with the fiscal crisis we now face. If that amendment had passed, then balancing the budget would have been the norm rather than the exception over the past 15 years, and we would have nothing like the annual deficits and skyrocketing debt that we must address today. The good news is that, like 1995, this Congress is again standing at a crossroads at this very moment. The decisions we make today will steer the direction of the country for the next 15 years. We have an opportunity now to take action to ensure that 15 years from today our children will face a much brighter fiscal picture. We must not allow ourselves to miss this opportunity. Experience has proven time and again that Congress cannot, for any significant length of time, rein in excessive spending. The annual deficits and the resulting debt continue to grow due to political pressures and a dependency on government programs. In order for Congress to be able to consistently make the very tough decisions necessary to sustain fiscal responsibility over the long term, Congress must have an external pressure to force it to do so. The most realistic change we have today to enact this type of institutional reform is through a balanced budget amendment to our Constitution. Many Members of Congress have introduced balanced budget amendments in this Congress. I introduced two versions on the first day of the 112th Congress. H.J. Res. 2 is the exact text that passed the House in 1995 and failed in the Senate by one vote. This amendment requires total annual outlays not to exceed total annual receipts. It also requires a three- fifths majority to raise the debt limit. This legislation also has limited exceptions for times of war. H.J. Res. 1, which I also introduced, goes much further. In addition to the provisions of H.J. Res. 2, it requires a two-thirds majority to raise taxes and imposes an annual spending cap that prohibits spending from exceeding 18 percent of GDP. In the U.S. Senate, 47 Republican Senators--all the Republican Senators--have cosponsored a balanced budget amendment, which is a strong sign that the Senate is ready to engage in debate on this subject as well. Our extraordinary fiscal crisis demands an extraordinary solution, so we simply cannot afford to succumb to political posturing on this issue at a point in time so crucial to our Nation's future. We must rise above that and move forward with a strategy that includes legislation that will get to 290 votes on the House floor. So as we consider a balanced budget amendment, I encourage the Members of the body to devote our efforts to passing the strongest balanced budget amendment that can garner two-thirds of the House of Representatives. We're at a crossroads in the country. We can make the tough choices and control spending, paving the way for our return to surpluses and ultimately paying down the national debt, or we can allow big spenders to lead us further down the road of chronic deficits and leave our children and grandchildren saddled with debt that is not their own. I have been joined by a number of outstanding Members of the House, and I am going to call upon them to offer some comments about the importance of a balanced budget amendment to them and to their constituents as well. Since he got here first, I'm going to yield first to one of our new Members, from the State of Indiana, a great fiscal conservative, someone who believes strongly in limiting our government and balancing our budget, Congressman Todd Rokita.

Mr. GOODLATTE. I thank the gentleman. I have to say that we've seen support from all across the country, from east coast States like New Jersey and Virginia all the way to the west coast to Oregon. We've heard from Members of both parties, we've heard from Members from States along the Canadian border, and Members from States on the gulf coast. This amendment has broad, broad support in the Congress, but it has a high hill to climb in needing 290 Members to vote for it. We're continuing to work to find that support. It's not a new idea. It's been around for almost as long as our Constitution. Thomas Jefferson has been cited, and I'll read that again here. He said, ``I wish it were possible to obtain a single amendment to our Constitution. I would be willing to depend on that alone for the reduction of the administration of our government. I mean an additional article taking from the Federal Government the power of borrowing.'' He said that in 1798. That's the only thing he said. Later in his life he said, ``There does not exist an engine so corruptive of the government and so demoralizing of the Nation as a public debt. It will bring on us more ruin at home than all the enemies from abroad against whom this Army and Navy are to protect us.'' Thomas Jefferson said that in 1821. And about our future generations, which several Members have commented on here tonight, Thomas Jefferson said in 1789, the year that our Constitution went into effect, ``Then I say, the Earth belongs to each of these generations during its course fully, and in its own right. The second generation receives it clear of the debts and encumbrances of the first, the third of the second, and so on. For if the first could charge it with a debt, then the Earth would belong to the dead and not to the living generation.'' Thomas Jefferson wrote that to James Madison in 1789, and how prescient was that as our new Nation was starting work under a new Constitution that he would observe that we are where we are today where we are passing on to future generations debt that is unsustainable. How ironic it is that we borrow money today to pay for programs today and put that burden on the backs of our children and grandchildren and those not yet even born with the likelihood that if we do not change from this course, we will find that those very children and grandchildren will not have these programs when they need to depend upon it. They will only have the debt. This is what Thomas Jefferson meant when he said the Earth would belong to the dead and not to the living. Finally, let me give you one more quote: ``To preserve the independence of the people, we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. We must make our election between economy and liberty or profusion and servitude.''

Mr. GOODLATTE. Thank you for your good work. Thank you for your efforts on behalf of this cause. I want to make reference to the fact that this Special Order that we're all participating in is sponsored by the House Constitution Caucus, which is chaired by Congressman Scott Garrett of New Jersey. We'll hear from him in a few minutes. But now I want to yield to another new Member of Congress who has been very, very instrumental in working on a balanced budget amendment and has made a number of good, constructive observations and recommendations about this issue, and that's Congressman Mo Brooks from Alabama.

Mr. GOODLATTE. I thank the gentleman. In the next few weeks, as we anticipate a vote coming up quite soon, we have a lot of work to do to make sure that we are giving every Member of this body an opportunity to speak out for fiscal responsibility and not just speak but put their vote on the line and say, yes, we think we should send to the States an amendment to the Constitution to require a balanced budget. We are also joined by another new Member who has been a very strong advocate for cutting government spending and having government operate more efficiently and believes strongly in requiring that our government do what everyone else in our society has to do, and that is live within its means, balance its budget, and that's Congressman Marlin Stutzman from Indiana. I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 9 a.m. tomorrow.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Chair, on rollcall No. 748, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.'' Amendment No. 17 Offered by Mrs. Capps

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, it is past time for us to have a serious conversation about the federal government's role in supporting ethanol. One of the big drivers of ethanol is an artificial market, created by the federal government. The Renewable Fuel Standard, RFS, mandates that 36 billion gallons of renewable fuels be in our nation's fuel supply. This mandate is being fulfilled by grain ethanol that comes from corn. The federal government's creation of an artificial market for the ethanol industry has quite frankly created a chain reaction that is hurting consumers. It is expected that this year about 40 percent of the U.S. corn crop will be used for ethanol production. With increasing food and feed stocks being diverted into fuel, we are seeing diminished supplies for livestock and food producers. This year livestock and poultry producers will use 1.1 billion fewer bushels of corn than they used in the 2004/2005 crop year, the last crop year before the RFS. This will be the first year ever that ethanol production has used more of our corn supplies than feeding livestock and poultry in the U.S. The RFS mandate has created a domino effect. Tightening supplies are driving up the price of corn. The higher cost for corn is passed on to livestock and food producers. In turn, consumers see that price reflected in the price of food on the grocery store shelves. In the debate over ethanol, the government is picking winners and losers and livestock and food producers, and the consumers of livestock and food products are the losers. As we confront the reality of the tightening corn supplies, there are real concerns about having enough corn supplies to satisfy the RFS and the needs of our food producers. We should not be in a position where we are choosing between fuel and food. That is why I am introducing two bills that would alter this artificially created government market. The first bill, the Renewable Fuel Standard Elimination Act is simple; it would eliminate the RFS and make ethanol compete in a free market. The government should not be creating a market to sustain an entire industry. While I believe that we should completely eliminate the RFS, I recognize that there may not yet be the political will in Congress to completely eliminate this mandate. And while there may not yet be the political will to eliminate this mandate we have to address the reality that we are being confronted with, tightening corn supplies, and our livestock producers, our food manufacturers, and our consumers need relief now. That is why I have joined with several colleagues in introducing legislation to reform the RFS. This reform will provide relief to our livestock and food producers and consumers of these products. This legislation, the Renewable Fuel Standard Flexibility Act will link the amount of ethanol required for the RFS to the amount of the U.S. corn supplies. This legislation would provide a mechanism that when the USDA reports that U.S. corn supplies are tight, based upon the ratio of corn stocks to expected use, there would be a corresponding reduction of corn ethanol made to the RFS. For example, if this policy was in place now, the legislation would trigger a 25 percent reduction in the RFS. This is a common sense solution to make sure that we have enough corn supplies to meet all of our demands. I am a strong supporter of renewable fuels, when they compete fairly in the marketplace but the current policy is unfair and is causing unintended and negative consequences for American consumers, livestock farmers, and food manufacturers. Congress created this artificial market that is distorting the food and feed market, and we must provide relief of its unintended consequences. I urge the Congress to pass this legislation.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. I thank Chairman Kline for yielding me this time and for his leadership in moving this legislation to the floor. I thank Congressman Scott of South Carolina for his leadership in introducing this legislation, and I thank all those who join with me in supporting what I think is an important job-creating bill for this country. It's important not just in right-to-work States, like South Carolina or Virginia; but it's important in States that don't have protection of workers under right-to-work laws, like Washington State, because businesses both in this country and overseas that are looking to invest are not going to look in places where they can be subsequently restrained from being able to expand their business--and that's what is happening here. They're expanding their business to another State if they locate in a place where that can happen to them. They are also not going to locate in right-to-work States. No. When they need to expand, they're not going to have any statement about what their intentions are or why they're doing it, as is the case with most companies. They're simply going to locate in China or Taiwan or Thailand or India or in 100 other countries around the world that are very friendly and welcoming to employers who want to grow and expand businesses. Unless the United States changes this law and restrains the National Labor Relations Board from making these kinds of decisions, we're going to suffer greatly in job loss. So this is a great job-creating bill. I encourage my colleagues to support the Protecting Jobs from Government Interference Act that amends the NLRA to prohibit the NLRB in future and pending cases from ordering an employer to close, relocate, or transfer employment under any circumstances. This is an important measure. This will not just save 1,000 jobs in South Carolina. This will save hundreds of thousands of jobs across this country. It will ensure that employers have greater freedom to make one of the most basic management decisions: where to locate a business.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, March 2, 1995, was a pivotal day in the history of our country. On that day, the United States Senate failed by one vote to send a balanced budget amendment to the States for ratification. The amendment had passed the House by the required two- thirds majority previously, and the Senate vote was the last legislative hurdle before ratification by the States. If that amendment had passed, then we would not be dealing with the fiscal crisis we now face. If that amendment had passed, then balancing the budget would have been the norm rather than the exception over the past decade and we would have nothing like the annual deficits and skyrocketing debt that we must address today. The good news is that, like 1995, this Congress is again standing at a crossroads at this very moment. The decisions we make this week could steer the direction of the country for many years to come. We have an opportunity now to take action to ensure that our children will face a much brighter fiscal picture. We must not allow ourselves to miss this opportunity. And while, yes, we definitely need to deal with the debt limit squarely in front of us and take the opportunity to make significant cuts in government spending, we also must have a long-term solution to this problem. And that long-term solution is a balanced budget amendment to the United States Constitution. We will, I hope, have the opportunity to vote on such an amendment this week. Experience has proven time and again that Congress cannot, for any significant length of time, rein in excessive spending. The annual deficits and the resulting debt continue to grow due to political pressures and dependency on government programs. In order for Congress to be able to consistently make the very tough decisions necessary to sustain fiscal responsibility over the long term, Congress must have an external pressure to force it to do so. The most realistic chance we have today to enact this type of institutional reform is through a balanced budget amendment to our Constitution. Many Members of Congress have introduced balanced budget amendments in this Congress. I introduced two versions on the first day of the 112th Congress. H.J. Res. 2 is the exact text that passed the House in 1995 and failed in the Senate by one vote. This amendment requires that total annual outlays not exceed total annual receipts. It also requires a three-fifths majority to raise the debt limit, and, in addition, this legislation has limited exceptions for times of war. H.J. Res. 1, which I also introduced, goes much further. In addition to the provisions of H.J. Res. 2, it requires a two-thirds majority to raise taxes and imposes an annual spending cap that prohibits spending from exceeding 18 percent of GDP. In the United States Senate, 47 Republican Senators have cosponsored a balanced budget amendment, which is a strong sign that the Senate is ready to engage in debate on this subject. Our extraordinary fiscal crisis demands an extraordinary solution. So we simply cannot afford to succumb to political posturing on this issue at a point in time so critical to our Nation's future. We must rise above that and move forward with a strategy that includes legislation that will get at least 290 bipartisan votes on the House floor. So as we consider a balanced budget amendment, I encourage the Members of this body on both sides of the aisle to devote our effort to passing this strongest balanced budget amendment that can garner two- thirds of the House of Representatives. We are at a crossroads in America. We can make the tough choices and control spending paving the way for a return to surpluses and ultimately paying down the national debt, or we can allow big spenders to lead us further down the road of chronic deficits and leave our children and grandchildren saddled with debt that is not our own. The choice is ours. The stakes are high. Failure is not an option.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. GOODLATTE. Will the gentleman yield for a question?

Mr. GOODLATTE. I rise in strong support of the Cut, Cap, and Balance legislation. I commend the gentleman from Utah and all the others who have brought this forward, and here's why, right here: We had a vote here on the floor of this House a few weeks ago about the President of the United States' request: just give me a clean debt limit increase. Every single Republican and nearly a majority of the Democrats voted to do the opposite, to not give him a debt limit increase. This shows us why we are here today with Cut, Cap, and Balance legislation. This is the track that the Democrats have us on right now. This is the track we would be on if the President had gotten his wish for a debt limit increase without any spending cuts, without any caps on future spending, and without what 80 percent of the American people want, which is a balanced budget amendment to the United States Constitution. This green line is what we're voting on today. This is what the House budget, already adopted by this institution and that we're operating under right now with our appropriations bills, this is what would put us on a target to not only balance the budget but also to pay off the $14 trillion national debt that we are faced with right now, that our children and grandchildren are faced with, that the future of our economy is faced with right now. This is the choice that we have here today. Take care of the debt limit. Don't default on our obligations. No one here wants to do that. But also cut spending, cap spending, and pass a balanced budget amendment to the United States Constitution. In 1995, we came within one vote in the United States Senate, after the House of Representatives cast 300 bipartisan votes for a balanced budget amendment to the United States Constitution, and now we have the opportunity to lay the groundwork to do it again, but this time to succeed; and we have much, much greater reason to do that because of the fact that we are faced with this mountain of red ink that we can turn into a bright future for America. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce bipartisan legislation to strengthen the federal criminal laws punishing identity theft. Identity theft is a serious and growing threat. The Federal Trade Commission estimates that as many as 9 million Americans have their identities stolen each year. Identity thieves use identifying information such as a consumer's Social Security number, credit card numbers, or other financial account information in order to conduct such fraud as opening up new credit cards and gaining access to bank accounts. The ramifications can be financially disastrous for citizens and can be extremely difficult to resolve. We must crack down hard on these criminals. The fear of identity theft is also consistently cited as a reason many Americans are cautious about engaging in more transactions online. This is unfortunate because of the multitude of ways the Internet can help consumers shop, do business and communicate efficiently and at low cost. The United States has many federal statutes targeting identity theft. However, some of these laws were weakened by a recent Supreme Court case. 18 U.S.C. 1028 and 1028A contain criminal punishments for certain identity theft violations when those violations are in connection with other federal crimes and state felonies. In 2009, the Supreme Court ruled that the language of those federal statutes require not only that the criminal use the identification documents of another person, but also that the criminal knew the documents were those of another actual person. The context of that case was that an illegal alien had given an employer counterfeit social security and alien registration cards containing his name but the identification numbers of other individuals. He was charged with two immigration offenses as well as aggravated identity theft. The Supreme Court overturned the conviction on the aggravated identity theft count explaining that the language of the relevant statutes required prosecutors to prove not only that the defendant used identity documents that were not his own, but also that the defendant knew the identity documents were those of another actual person. Identity theft occurs when someone intentionally and unlawfully uses identity documents that are not his own. Our federal statutes should reflect this reality. Today, I am introducing legislation to amend these federal statutes to make clear that when an identity thief intentionally and unlawfully uses identity documents that are not his own, prosecutors do not need to show that the criminal also knew that the identity documents were those of another actual person. This clarification will help prosecutors put identity thieves behind bars and will help safeguard American citizens from identity-related crimes. I urge the Members of the House to support this bipartisan legislation.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, Article I, section 8, of the Constitution lays the framework for our nation's copyright laws. It grants Congress the power to award inventors and creators for limited amounts of time exclusive rights to their inventions and works. The Founding Fathers realized that such an incentive was crucial to ensure that America would become the world's leader in innovation and creativity. This incentive is still necessary to maintain America's position as the world leader in innovation. Most industrialized nations provide legal protection for fashion designs. However, in the United States, the world's leader in innovation and creativity, fashion designs are not protected by traditional intellectual property regimes. Copyrights are not granted to apparel because articles of clothing, which are both creative and functional, are considered useful articles, as opposed to works of art. Design patents are intended to protect ornamental designs, but clothing rarely meets the criteria of patentability. Trademarks only protect brand names and logos, not the clothing itself. And the Supreme Court has refused to extend trade dress protection to apparel designs. Thus, a thief violates Federal law when he steals a creator's design, reproduces and sells that article of clothing, and attaches a fake label to the garment for marketing purposes. But it is perfectly legal for that same thief to steal the design, reproduce the article of clothing, and sell it, provided he does not attach a fake label to the finished product. This loophole allows pirates to cash in on the sweat equity of others and prevents designers in our country from reaping a fair return on their creative investments. The production lifecycle for fashion designs is very short. Once a design achieves popularity through a fashion show or other event, a designer usually has a limited number of months to produce and market that original design. Further complicating this short-term cycle is the reality that once a design is made public, pirates can immediately offer identical knockoffs on the Internet for distribution. Again, under current law, this theft is legal unless the thief reproduces a label or trademark. And because these knockoffs are usually of such poor quality, they damage the designer's reputation as well. Common sense dictates that we should inhibit this activity by protecting original fashion works. Our undertaking is similar to action taken by Congress in 1998 when we wrote Chapter 13 of the Copyright Act, which offers protection for vessel hull designs. The ``Innovative Design Protection and Piracy Prevention Act'' amends this statutory template to include protections for fashion designs. Because the production lifecycle for fashion designs is very short, this legislation similarly provides a shorter period of protection of 3 years that suits the industry. The bill enjoys support among those in the fashion and apparel industries. While concerns have been expressed about the scope of previous versions of this legislation, my office has engaged in discussions through the years with interested parties to ensure that the bill does not prohibit designs that are simply inspired by other designs; rather, the legislation only targets those designs that are ``substantially identical'' to a protected design. Other provisions, including a ``home-sewing'' exception and a requirement that a designer alleging infringement plead with particularity, ensure that the bill does not encourage harassing or litigious behavior. I urge the Members of the House to support this legislation, which will grant to American creators similar protections that those in most other industrialized countries enjoy.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, today I am joined by my colleagues, Representatives Coble, Sensenbrenner and Sanchez in introducing a bipartisan bill to update the Video Privacy Protection Act of 1988, VPPA. This bill will ensure that a law related to the handling of video tape 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, DC, newspaper obtained a list of video tapes the Bork family rented from its neighborhood video tape 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 video cassette 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. Our proposed amendment updates the VPPA to allow video tape 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 his information by requiring consumer consent before any of this can occur. 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. This amendment does not change the privacy standard adopted by Congress when the VPPA was first enacted. Specifically, it preserves the requirement that the users 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 legislation.