[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 186 (Tuesday, December 6, 2011)]
[House]
[Pages H8161-H8165]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




              ONLINE CONSENT FOR SHARING VIDEO SERVICE USE

  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.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The text of the bill is as follows:

                               H.R. 2471

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. AMENDMENT.

       Section 2710(b)(2) of title 18, United States Code, is 
     amended by striking subparagraph (B) and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(B) to any person with the informed, written consent 
     (including through an electronic means using the Internet) in 
     a form distinct and separate from any form setting forth 
     other legal or financial obligations of the consumer given at 
     one or both of the following times--
       ``(i) the time the disclosure is sought; and
       ``(ii) in advance for a set period of time or until consent 
     is withdrawn by such consumer;''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) 
each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia.


                             General Leave

  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.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Virginia?
  There was no objection.
  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

[[Page H8162]]

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. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) for his excellent 
presentation. I agree with him that what probably triggered this bill 
in 1988 was Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork's video rental history in 
which his privacy was violated in a very major way. And so I join him 
and the members of the House Judiciary Committee in supporting the 
Video Privacy Protection Act, which provides continued consumer 
protection. H.R. 2471 is very important in this respect because, over 
the course of the 23 years since this measure has become law, there 
have been significant changes in the ways and the means by which people 
view technological content.
  Movies can now be downloaded to mobile phones; live events can be 
streamed in real-time to laptops using mobile Internet services. There 
were so many other things happening in the transformation that go on at 
all times that could not have been contemplated in 1988. So there was 
ambiguity about whether the statute applies only to physical goods, 
such as videocassettes and DVDs.
  Under this bill, a videotape service provider means anybody engaged 
in the business, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, of 
rental, sale, or delivery or prerecorded videocassette tapes or similar 
audiovisual materials. It's the phrase ``similar audiovisual 
materials'' that has created some ambiguity. So what we've done is 
specified the requirement of informed written consent for disclosure 
may include consent through electronic means using the Internet.
  As the bill moved through committee markup, I wanted to make sure 
that the bill provided the greatest protections for consumer privacy. 
Accordingly, like the subcommittee chair, I supported the Nadler 
amendments that required such consent requests be clearly and 
prominently presented to the consumer.

                              {time}  1500

  Fortunately, those amendments were accepted. And though I feel that 
the bill could have gone further--I believe, for example, that the 
consumer should be asked periodically if their consent should be 
renewed--it is a good bill. Accordingly, I join in supporting its 
passage.
  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. CONYERS. I am pleased to yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from North Carolina, my friend Mel Watt of the Judiciary 
Committee. He is the ranking subcommittee member of this part of the 
Judiciary Committee.
  Mr. WATT. I thank the gentleman from Michigan for yielding time. I 
regret that I have to be the skunk at the party today in opposition to 
this bill.
  While I support innovation on the Web, I do not support it at the 
expense of consumer privacy. I believe we've rushed this bill to the 
floor without sufficient development and, consequently, without giving 
any thought to its implications for consumer privacy.
  The bill would amend what is widely considered to be one of the 
strongest protections of consumer privacy records in the United States, 
the Video Privacy Protection Act, without receiving testimony from a 
single privacy expert. It also ignores the impact this bill may have on 
State laws providing similar or greater protections. At a time when we 
know that technology that's pervasive and invasive has become almost 
commonplace, our responsibility as policymakers is not to surrender to 
technology and to sacrifice the values that we have held dear since the 
founding of this Nation.
  Technology and privacy are not incompatible. We can and should 
promote technological innovation while simultaneously preventing the 
unwarranted, uninformed dissemination of personal information. This 
bill falls short of that objective. The supporters of this bill point 
to the widespread sharing already taking place over the Internet, but 
they neglect to publicize the privacy lawsuits, some of which are still 
pending, against those video and music sites that permit their users to 
share their playlist.
  The Video Privacy Protection Act was not only a reaction to the 
publication of Judge Robert Bork's rental records during his nomination 
proceeding to the United States Supreme Court. The committee report 
also noted where an attorney obtained video records in a custody 
dispute to demonstrate that the father was unfit to have custody of his 
children based largely on his video rental records. Many of the 
lawsuits today reflect consumer concerns with precisely this type of 
abuse and misuse of rental records and other equally private 
information.
  The stated purpose of the bill is to respond to the new commercial 
video distribution landscape by empowering consumers to do more with 
their video consumption preference, including sharing names of new or 
favorite TV shows or movies on social media in a simple way. But when 
you really peel away the layers, you have to ask yourself one question: 
Who does this bill benefit? It really doesn't benefit the consumer. The 
consumer already has the capacity to share his or her video preferences 
online however she pleases.
  The bill instead benefits companies by relieving them of the burden 
of protecting consumer records by getting a one-time universal consent 
to disclose users' viewing history in order to share them on social 
media sites. But because social media sites are often dynamic, with 
users' rosters of friends ever changing, a consumer's consent today to 
allow access to their viewing history is clearly not informed by who 
will be their friend tomorrow.
  Today, when online bullying of teens or young adults is increasing 
and leading to depression or suicide, we should have greater care to 
ensure that their interests are not cavalierly disregarded. Allowing 
video service providers to release information as private as a person's 
viewing history, which clearly shows to the world their loves, likes, 
and dislikes, should not be done without careful contemplation and 
consideration.
  In closing, I would just emphasize that I believe that technological 
advance and innovation are both extremely important. It is the future 
of America's economy. I don't question that. However, allowing the 
release of truly private consumer information in the name of innovation 
without careful consideration is reckless on our part, and I urge my 
colleagues to vote ``no'' on this legislation.
  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

[[Page H8163]]

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.

                              {time}  1510

  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. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield my colleague from North Carolina 
(Mr. Watt) as much time as he may consume.
  Mr. WATT. I thank the gentleman for yielding once again.
  And in response to my colleague from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), we 
have in fact been trying to work out our differences. The problem is 
that his definition of protecting privacy is not as extensive as my 
definition of protecting privacy. And I think my definition of 
protecting privacy is more consistent with consumers, because consumers 
keep filing these lawsuits to try to protect themselves from the 
disclosure of their personal information.
  The Electronic Privacy Information Center, which has been at the 
forefront of ensuring privacy protections for consumers in the 
information age, just last week secured a victory for Facebook users 
when its complaint to the Federal Trade Commission resulted in a 
settlement requiring Facebook to establish an extensive privacy 
program. Analytics Company and Web video Hulu.com have been hit with 
another privacy lawsuit over their alleged use of supercookies to track 
people.
  There is case after case after case of consumers' information being 
used, abused, and misused, and here we are making it easier for that to 
occur by saying you can give one time--they already have the authority 
to release the information when they download a movie now, but this 
will give one-time, universal coverage to release everything that I 
view on video. And that's inconsistent with what I think is necessary 
to protect the privacy of people in this electronic age.
  Now, I understand that there are people who have an interest in this; 
I mean, there are people who profit from mining this kind of 
information. But our interest should be in protecting the rights of 
consumers, protecting them from having this kind of private 
information--I would think since the original Video Protection Act was 
about protecting the privacy of Judge Robert Bork and people going into 
his records to review his video viewing privacy, that my colleagues on 
the opposite side of the aisle would be the most vigorous in trying to 
protect this. But here we are giving in to the interests that will make 
money out of this and exposing our children and our own viewing habits 
to this kind of intrusive action on our part, and we are doing it 
without the benefit of any testimony at a hearing to talk about this. 
We should simply not be doing this.
  I would like to submit for the Record a letter dated December 5, 
2012, from the Electronic Privacy Information Center in which they 
aggressively oppose this legislation. They say they are a nonpartisan 
public interest research organization.
  The Video Privacy Protection Act was passed in 1988, following 
disclosure of the private video rental records of a Supreme Court 
nominee by a video rental store to a news organization. There was 
broad-based support for passage, and the act was signed by President 
Ronald Reagan. This act is considered a model privacy act in many 
respects. It is technology neutral.
  And this bill undermines this Video Privacy Act that was the model 
act that was designed to protect a Republican nominee to the Supreme 
Court and was signed into law by a Republican President. And here we 
are in this Congress getting ready to send a bill over to the Senate--
which hopefully they won't act on; they will save us from our own 
ineptitude--which would undermine the key provision of the Video 
Protection Act, which is the right of users to give meaningful consent 
to the disclosure of their personal information.
  This blanket consent, according to the Electronic Privacy Information 
Center--and I agree with them wholeheartedly. The blanket consent 
provisions transfer control from the individual user to the company in 
possession of the data and diminish the control that Netflix customers 
would have in the use and disclosure of their personal information.
  ``While we recognize that other companies routinely report on the 
activities of their customers, we note that Facebook users have never 
been particularly happy about this. The history of Beacon is well 
known--and also that the routine disclosure of video viewing activities 
is not something that most Facebook users are clamoring for.''
  In fact, Facebook, as we just indicated, just entered into a 
settlement of a privacy lawsuit. And here we are on the floor of the 
House saying that we value the business interests more than we value 
the personal privacy interests of individual citizens.
  This is a bad idea. It shouldn't be here on the suspension calendar 
as if it's a noncontroversial clarification of

[[Page H8164]]

the law. This is a dramatic undermining of the Video Privacy Protection 
Act. We are doing a disservice to our constituents by giving this 
authority. They already have the authority to do it on a case-by-case-
by-case basis. It may be inconvenient to the companies to get the 
authority given to them that way, but that's the way it should be given 
to them, not in some blanket authority that just allows the companies 
to go in and use this information willy-nilly and without regard to the 
privacy.
  I thank the gentleman for yielding again. And I may ask him to yield 
again depending on what happens--oh, he says he's not going to yield to 
me anymore.
  I just think my colleagues should vote against this bill, defeat it 
on suspension, and let's at least debate it under regular order on the 
floor of the House or send it back to the committee so we can have some 
hearings about the privacy implications so we can get this done.

                                                Electronic Privacy


                                           Information Center,

                                 Washington, DC, December 5, 2011.
     Congressman Mel Watt,
     Rayburn HOB,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Congressman Watt: Thank you for your request for 
     comments from the Electronic Privacy Information Center 
     (``EPIC'') regarding H.R. 2471, which would amend the Video 
     Privacy Protection Act (``VPPA''). EPIC had hoped to provide 
     comments at a hearing on the bill, but as the sponsors of the 
     legislation chose to push through the legislation without the 
     opportunity for public discussion, we appreciate the 
     opportunity to share our views in response to your request.
       EPIC is nonpartisan, public interest research organization, 
     established in 1994 to focus public attention on emerging 
     privacy and civil liberties issues, We maintain two of the 
     most popular privacy sites on the Internet--EPIC.ORG and 
     PRIVACY.ORG--and testify frequently in Congress. We have also 
     represented the interests of Facebook users over the years in 
     a wide range of privacy matters.
       The Video Privacy Protection Act was passed in 1988 
     following the disclosure of the private video rental records 
     of a Supreme Court nominee by a video rental store to a news 
     organization. There was broad-based support for passage and 
     the Act was signed into law by President Reagan. The VPPA is 
     considered a model privacy law in many respects--it is 
     technology neutral, focusing on the obligations of businesses 
     and the rights of customers in the collection and use of 
     personal information. It makes clear the circumstances when 
     personal information may be disclosed and it provides a 
     private right of action when violations occur.
       The VPPA makes no specific references to particular 
     technologies. First Amendment concerns are addressed in the 
     Act by recognizing that when the press seeks to publish 
     information, Congress may not limit the rights of the press. 
     However, businesses that collect information from their 
     customers have an obligation to safeguard that information 
     and to ensure it is used only for appropriate purposes. As 
     with most privacy laws, the VPPA contains a consent provision 
     that allows individuals to disclose their personal 
     information to others if they wish. There is nothing in the 
     Act that prevents individuals from so doing.
       H.R. 2471 would undermine the key provision in the VPPA, 
     which is the right of users to give meaningful consent to the 
     disclosure of their personal information. Such blanket 
     consent provisions transfer control from the individual user 
     to the company in possession of the data and diminish the 
     control that Netflix customers would have in the use and 
     disclosure of their personal information. While we recognize 
     that other companies routinely report on the activities of 
     their customers, we note that Facebook users have never been 
     particularly happy about this--the history of Beacon is well 
     known--and also that the routine disclosure of video viewing 
     activities is not something that most Facebook users are 
     clamoring for. If anything, most Netflix users seem to be 
     unhappy about the company's disregard for its customers.
       The proposal is particularly surprising in light of the 
     recent decision by the Federal Trade Commission concerning 
     Facebook and privacy, which found that when companies seek to 
     change the privacy defaults of their users, they are 
     essentially engaging in an unfair and deceptive trade 
     practice. That would be the practical impact of this 
     amendment--to take away control of the user's information 
     after the user had subscribed to the service. There is 
     nothing in the proposal that would ``modernize'' the Act; it 
     simply allows Netflix to post more information about the 
     activity of its customers, whether or not the customers would 
     choose to post such information themselves.
       EPIC would therefore recommend that members of Congress 
     vote NO on H.R. 2471. Users remain free to disclose their 
     video viewing habits if they wish; there is no reason to 
     change the default. EPIC would also recommend a hearing on 
     the legislation so that all views, both for and against, can 
     be presented, and Members are provided an opportunity to 
     fully assess the proposal.
       Privacy is the number one concern of Internet users today. 
     It would be foolish to adopt an amendment that weakens 
     privacy legislation already in place.
       Please feel free to contact me if you have any further 
     questions.
           Sincerely,

                                               Marc Rotenberg,

                                     President, Electronic Privacy
                                        Information Center (EPIC).

  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.

                              {time}  1520

  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. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield the remainder of my 
time to a distinguished magistrate from Georgia (Mr. Johnson), now a 
member of the Judiciary Committee.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is recognized for 2 minutes.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Thank you, mister ranking member.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to passage of H.R. 2471. This 
bill will make it easy for video producers to be able to sell to others 
information that consumers may feel is private.
  Now, I, myself, don't want folks to know that I have ordered up 
``Debbie Does Dallas.'' I may not mind if they know that I ordered up 
``J. Edgar,'' but I don't want them to know that I ordered ``Good Girls 
Gone Bad.'' And on behalf of Judge Robert Bork, I certainly wouldn't 
want anyone to be able to uncover the fact that he's been ordering up 
relentlessly the film ``Bad Boys of Summer.''
  We have a right to privacy, and that right should not just be given 
away without adequate knowledge on behalf of the consumer what they're 
giving away.
  This bill has proceeded to the suspension calendar without any kind 
of hearing before the Judiciary Committee on whether or not the bill 
should be marked up or not. We have not heard from experts. We don't 
know what kind of waiver by Internet, we don't know the mechanics of 
that waiver. We don't know how easy it will be to waive your right. It 
could be as easy as waiving your right to a jury trial in a cell phone 
contract. For those reasons, I ask that this bill be denied.
  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. CONNOLLY of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 
2471. This bill would update the Video Privacy Protection Act by giving 
consumers the ability to use social media to discuss movies they have 
been watching. When it was passed in 1988, internet social media did 
not exist, and the law needs an update for the digital age.
  This legislation explicitly prevents businesses from using an ``opt 
out'' mechanism

[[Page H8165]]

which businesses might abuse to consumers' detriment. Instead, it 
requires that consumers proactively choose to share their movie 
preferences with their friends. For this reason, the Future of Privacy 
Forum, a consumer advocacy group, supports this legislation.
  This update ensures that consumers can use existing social media 
outlets to discuss movies they have watched. It may also contribute to 
the health of the movie industry by integrating it more fully into new 
modes of internet communications used by consumers.
  I applaud my colleague from Virginia, Mr. Goodlatte, for his work on 
this legislation and urge my colleagues to support it.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) that the House suspend the 
rules and pass the bill, H.R. 2471, as amended.
  The question was taken.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds 
being in the affirmative, the ayes have it.
  Mr. WATT. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

                          ____________________