However, I must strongly oppose the motion to accept the Senate language here, because to do so would be irresponsible. The fact of the matter is that while there are certainly people here who are in need of assistance, it is definitely not the case that everybody that the Senate language would cover would fit into that category, and it is also not the case that the people that would be covered are as described by the gentleman. For example, he refers to tax-paying legal residents. Well, it is not a requirement under the Senate language that the individual have ever paid a penny in taxes in order to receive these benefits. It only requires that they have been in this country as a lawful, permanent resident for 5 years.
On the recordApril 18, 2002
Source
govinfo.govEditor's note · Context
Opposing the Senate language regarding benefits for legal residents during a House Committee debate.
Share
More from Bob Goodlatte
Jul 18, 2022
the more opportunities that the consumer has to decide for themselves whether or not they want to make certain information available to Google or other companies and control how Google might utilize that information, the better.
Jul 18, 2022
The original intent being that which is held to be yours and reasonably expected to be for privacy must be returned to privacy.
Jul 18, 2022
I think a great first step would be to pass the Fourth Amendment's Not For Sale Act that's been introduced by Chair Nadler.
Jul 18, 2022
I think the PATRIOT Act went off track in not defining some of the areas that set parameters around government gathering data.





