Bob Goodlatte

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. I now yield to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wittman).

Mr. GOODLATTE. I now yield to the gentlewoman from New York, (Ms. Buerkle).

Mr. GOODLATTE. I now yield to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Schwartz).

Mr. GOODLATTE. I now yield to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise).

Mr. GOODLATTE. I now yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gene Green).

Mr. GOODLATTE. I now yield to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Hurt).

Mr. GOODLATTE. I now yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano).

Mr. GOODLATTE. I now yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Platts).

Mr. GOODLATTE. I now yield to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Harris).

Mr. GOODLATTE. I now yield to the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Carney).

Mr. GOODLATTE. I now yield to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Turner).

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to re-introduce legislation that will amend the United States Constitution to force Congress to rein in spending by balancing the federal budget. We have a spending addiction in Washington, D.C., and it has proven to be an addiction that Congress cannot control on its own and which is bringing dire consequences. We have gone in a few short years from a deficit of billions of dollars to a deficit of trillions of dollars. We are printing money at an unprecedented pace, which presents serious risks of massive inflation. Our national debt recently surpassed an astonishing $14 trillion and continues to rapidly increase, along with the waste associated with paying the interest on that debt. Our first Secretary of State, Thomas Jefferson, warned of the consequences of out-of- control debt when he wrote: ``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.'' Unfortunately, it increasingly appears that Congress has chosen the latter path. Our current Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, issued a similar warning when she recently declared: ``I think that our rising debt levels [sic] poses a national security threat, and it poses a national security threat in two ways. It undermines our capacity to act in our own interest, and it does constrain us where constraint may be undesirable. And it also sends a message of weakness internationally.'' Despite these warnings, Congress has refused to address this crisis. Congress' spending addiction is not a partisan one. It reaches across the aisle and afflicts both parties, which is why neither party has been able to master it. We need outside help. We need pressure from outside Congress to force us to rein in this out-of-control behavior. We need a balanced budget amendment to our Constitution. That is why I am introducing this legislation, which is a common sense, 3-part balanced budget Constitutional amendment. This bill would (1) amend the Constitution to require that total spending for any fiscal year not exceed total receipts; (2) require that bills to raise revenues pass each House of Congress by a 3/5 majority; and (3) establish an annual spending cap such that total federal spending could not exceed 1/5 of the economic output of the United States. The bill would also require a 3/5 majority vote for any increases in the debt limit. The legislation provides an exception in times of war and during military conflicts that pose imminent and serious military threats to national security. Our federal government must be lean, efficient and responsible with the dollars that our nation's citizens worked so hard to earn. We must work to both eliminate every cent of waste and squeeze every cent of value out of each dollar our citizens entrust to us. Families all across our nation understand what it means to make tough decisions each day about what they can and cannot afford and government officials should be required to exercise similar restraint when spending the hard-earned dollars of our nation's citizens. By amending the Constitution to require a balanced budget, establish measurable spending limits, and make it harder to raise taxes, we can force the Congress to control spending, paving the way for a return to surpluses and ultimately paying down the national debt, rather than allow big spenders to lead us further down the road of chronic deficits and in doing so leave our children and grandchildren saddled with debt that is not their own. 49 out of 50 states have a balanced budget requirement, and it is time that the federal government had one too. Our nation faces many difficult decisions in the coming years, and Congress will face great pressure to spend beyond its means rather than to make the difficult decisions about spending priorities. Unless Congress is forced to make the decisions necessary to create a balanced budget, it will always have the all-too-tempting option of shirking this responsibility. A Constitutional balanced budget requirement, combined with the spending and tax limitations in this legislation, will set our nation's fiscal policies on the right path. This is a common sense approach to ensure that Congress is bound by the same fiscal principles that guide America's families each day. I urge support of this important legislation.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to re-introduce legislation that will amend the United States Constitution to force Congress to rein in spending by balancing the federal budget. We have a spending addiction in Washington, D.C., and it has proven to be an addiction that Congress cannot control on its own and which is bringing dire consequences. We have gone in a few short years from a deficit of billions of dollars to a deficit of trillions of dollars. We are printing money at an unprecedented pace, which presents serious risks of massive inflation. Our national debt recently surpassed an astonishing $14 trillion and continues to rapidly increase, along with the waste associated with paying the interest on that debt. Our first Secretary of State, Thomas Jefferson, warned of the consequences of out-of- control debt when he wrote: ``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.'' Unfortunately, it increasingly appears that Congress has chosen the latter path. Our current Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, issued a similar warning when she recently declared: ``I think that our rising debt levels [sic] poses a national security threat, and it poses a national security threat in two ways. It undermines our capacity to act in our own interest, and it does constrain us where constraint may be undesirable. And it also sends a message of weakness internationally.'' Despite these warnings, Congress has refused to address this crisis. Congress' spending addiction is not a partisan one. It reaches across the aisle and afflicts both parties, which is why neither party has been able to master it. We need outside help. We need pressure from outside Congress to force us to rein in this out-of-control behavior. We need a balanced budget amendment to our Constitution. That is why I am introducing this legislation, which garnered 179 bipartisan cosponsors in the 111th Congress. This bill would amend the Constitution to require that total spending for any fiscal year not exceed total receipts and require the President to propose budgets to Congress that are balanced each year. It would also provide an exception in times of war and during military conflicts that pose imminent and serious military threats to national security. Furthermore, the legislation would make it harder to increase taxes by requiring that legislation to increase revenue be passed by a true majority of each chamber and not just a majority of those present and voting. Finally, the bill requires a 3/5 majority vote for any increases in the debt limit. Our federal government must be lean, efficient and responsible with the dollars that our nation's citizens worked so hard to earn. We must work to both eliminate every cent of waste and squeeze every cent of value out of each dollar our citizens entrust to us. Families all across our nation understand what it means to make tough decisions each day about what they can and cannot afford and government officials should be required to exercise similar restraint when spending the hard-earned dollars of our nation's citizens. By amending the Constitution to require a balanced budget, we can force the Congress to control spending, paving the way for a return to surpluses and ultimately paying down the national debt, rather than allow big spenders to lead us further down the road of chronic deficits and in doing so leave our children and grandchildren saddled with debt that is not their own. This concept is not new--49 out of 50 states have a balanced budget requirement. Our nation faces many difficult decisions in the coming years, and Congress will face great pressure to spend beyond its means rather than to make the difficult decisions about spending priorities. Unless Congress is forced to make the decisions necessary to create a balanced budget, it will always have the all-too-tempting option of shirking this responsibility. The Balanced Budget Constitutional amendment is a common sense approach to ensure that Congress is bound by the same fiscal principles that guide America's families each day. I urge support of this important legislation.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I thank the gentleman from California for bringing this legislation forward, and I want to take the opportunity to commend the gentleman from Indiana for his leadership on the Veterans' Affairs Committee for a number of years now and for his service in the Congress. He came here at the same time I did, and I very much appreciate the great contributions he has made in those years. I rise in support of this legislation which requires a detailed report to Congress on the gravesite discrepancies at Arlington National Cemetery, including information concerning burial operations and errors in burials. It is sad that we are even having to consider such legislation today, but unfortunately, it has become very apparent that it is absolutely necessary. Recent news reports have revealed multiple instances of misplaced human remains at Arlington National Cemetery. These sickening stories are a national disgrace. Our Nation's veterans, in life and in death, deserve our utmost respect. They have engaged in one of the noblest forms of public service, defending this Nation. It is their tireless work that has made our country great, strong, and most importantly, free. These men and women have helped to liberate victims of oppression, spread democracy across the world, and preserve the freedoms our Nation was built upon. Our fallen heroes deserve our honor, our respect, and our appreciation. This critical legislation will go a long way in ensuring that it is always the case. It is a final ``thank you'' on behalf of a grateful Nation. Mr. Speaker, it is very important that we get to the bottom of this matter, we correct this problem as quickly as possible and restore the respect that people need to have in such an important facility which carries such historic significance and the sacred remains of great men and women who have served our country.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I rise in strong opposition to this legislation. I say to my good friend, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, this bill has been around for a long time for good reason. It is a bad bill, having been around for a long time, for this entire Congress, for 2 years, no hearing in the Judiciary Committee, no hearing in the chairman's committee for the entire 2 years, and now here we are within a week of adjourning the Congress, still no hearing. No opportunity for people to come in and testify before the Congress about how this would work, how we will screen out the people who will commit fraud under this, how unfair it is to people who wait for years, who are legally going through the process of becoming immigrants. No opportunity in the committee to improve the bill. No opportunity to offer amendments. Why? Because no markup was held for 2 years. Now, the indignity of it all is that here in the closing days of the Congress, when this bill has been brought forward in this urgent manner, we are not even given the opportunity, as the minority is always given, to offer a motion to recommit, no opportunity to amend this bill in any way, shape or form, as though this was perfectly drawn and perfectly brought here, and that anybody who was not in the small room where the final version of this, totally without the inspection of the American people, totally without the opportunity for anybody to participate, brought here in some perfect manner; and now, of course, we are going to pass it without even the opportunity for the minority to offer changes to the bill. The American people have recently demonstrated their strong opposition to amnesty for millions of illegal immigrants, yet the DREAM Act offers amnesty to illegal immigrants who entered the U.S. before they were 16 years old. It grants them permanent residence and then citizenship once they have completed 2 years of college or have served in the armed services, unless the Department of Homeland Security waives these requirements because of hardship, something not defined in the bill, a very, very big loophole. According to the Migration Policy Institute, the DREAM Act could mean mass amnesty for 2.1 million illegal immigrants. Fraud will likely drive the number much higher as illegal immigrants discovery how easy it is to claim that they arrived in the U.S. before the age of 16. The same thing occurred after the 1986 amnesty bill, the Immigration Reform and Control Act, was enacted. Everyone said that was going to end illegal immigration. It opened the doors to more. This is going to do exactly the same thing. The DREAM Act makes it easy for almost any illegal immigrant, even those who do not qualify for this amnesty, to evade the law. Once an alien, no matter who they are, files an application, no matter how spurious, the Federal Government is prohibited from deporting that illegal immigrant. This is ripe for fraud and is unfair and should be opposed. And once the DREAM Act beneficiaries apply for amnesty, they will be given work authorization. So these individuals who have broken the law will be legitimately competing for jobs with the 9.8 percent of Americans who are currently unemployed. The DREAM Act subsidizes the college education of illegal immigrants at taxpayer (expense. DREAM Act beneficiaries are eligible for certain higher education assistance programs including subsidized and unsubsidized Federal Stafford student loans. Taxpayers pay the interest on unsubsidized Stafford loans as long as the borrower is in school. And DREAM Act beneficiaries are eligible for Perkins loans, work study and certain other college access and college persistence programs--all of which are funded at least in part by the U.S. taxpayer. In addition, both Stafford and Perkins loans are eligible for loan forgiveness after certain requirements are met. So some illegal immigrants will not even be required to pay back the money they borrowed from U.S. taxpayers. U.S. citizens should be first in line to receive taxpayer subsidies-- not those who are violating Federal law. Once a DREAM Act beneficiary obtains lawful permanent residence he is automatically exempt from the 5-year wait period specified in section 403 of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1613), to receive means-tested public welfare benefits. The costs of this to American taxpayers could be enormous. DREAM Act beneficiaries are required to undergo background checks to the ``satisfaction'' of the Secretary of Homeland Security. But there is no way to verify that the person is who they say they are. The DREAM Act will encourage more illegal immigration since illegal immigrant parents will bring their children with them in the expectation that they will benefit from another DREAM Act. The DREAM Act is a dream for those who have broken the law, but a nightmare for law-abiding and taxpaying Americans.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the 10 courageous men and women whose lives were brutally cut short in Nuristan Province, Afghanistan, on August 5th, 2010. These individuals devoted their lives to helping others, and unfortunately, paid the ultimate price. In particular, I would like to recognize and honor Brian Carderelli, a constituent of mine from Harrisonburg, Virginia. Mr. Carderelli was a recent graduate from James Madison University and was working to chronicle the work of the aid workers by recording them in photographs and video. Unlike many new college graduates, Mr. Carderelli chose to pursue a career in a challenging foreign environment, where his dedication to improving the lives of others took priority. His work with the International Assistance Mission and the International School of Kabul are a testament to that dedication. Though the work of Mr. Carderelli and the International Assistance Mission team was certainly valued by those they helped, unfortunately not everyone appreciated their efforts. For several years, the Taliban ruled Afghanistan with brutality and terror. Intolerance for other religions and ignorance of human rights was standard. While the situation for the citizens of Afghanistan has improved since the rule of the Taliban, their presence has not been eliminated, and their brutal tactics persist. The work of Brian Carderelli and his nine fellow workers is the work that will ultimately erode support for the Taliban and end that chapter in the country's history for good. Their efforts were selfless and humble, and are an inspiration to us all. These dedicated individuals will be missed, but the untold impact that each one of them had on the lives that they touched will certainly not be forgotten.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 5932, the Organized Retail Theft Investigation and Prosecution Act of 2010. This legislation is an important step in combating a growing threat to retailers and consumers. I am pleased to join my Judiciary Committee colleagues Chairman Conyers, Ranking Member Smith and Chairman Scott as an original sponsor of this legislation, and I thank the gentleman for true bipartisanship in allowing me to catch my breath in order to be able to give these remarks. Organized retail theft is a huge and growing problem in the United States. According to FBI estimates, organized retail theft rings cost businesses more than $30 billion in losses annually. Organized retail theft groups target anything from everyday household commodities to health products to baby formula that can be easily sold through flea markets, swap meets, shady storefront operations, and through online marketplaces. Thieves often travel from retail store to retail store, stealing relatively small amounts of goods from each store but cumulatively stealing significant amounts of goods. Once stolen, these products are sold back to fencing operations, which can dilute, alter, repackage the goods, and then resell them, sometimes back to the same stores from which the products were originally stolen. These goods are also sold at flea markets, pawn shops and increasingly on the Internet. When a product does not travel through the authorized channels of distribution, there is an increased potential that the product has been altered, diluted, reproduced, and/or repackaged. These so-called ``diverted products'' pose significant health risks to the public, especially the diverted medications and food products. Diverted products also cause considerable financial losses for legitimate manufacturers and retailers. Ultimately, the consumers bear the brunt of these losses as retail establishments are forced to raise prices to cover the additional costs of security and theft prevention measures. Even more troubling is where the money is going. We have seen evidence that organized retail theft is increasingly being used to fund international organized crime and other nefarious activities. At the State level, organized retail theft crimes are normally prosecuted under State shoplifting statutes as mere misdemeanors. As a result, the thieves who participate in organized retail crime rings typically receive the same punishment as common shoplifters. The thieves who are convicted usually see very limited jail time or are placed on probation. I believe that the punishment does not fit the crime in these situations. Mere slaps on the wrists of these criminals have practically no deterrent effect. In addition, the low-level criminals who are actually stealing these goods from the shelves are easily replaced by the criminal organization's higher level coordinators. During my 8 years of working on ways to combat organized retail theft, I found that the Federal law enforcement community believed it had adequate Federal laws to prosecute organized retail theft crimes, but that poor communication, lack of coordination among State and local law enforcement and lack of resources were major impediments to effective enforcement. In order to improve the communications and intelligence-sharing between industry and law enforcement, I offered an amendment to the Department of Justice's reauthorization bill back in 2005, which created a Federal definition of organized retail theft crimes and directed the FBI to contribute to the construction of a national database housed in the private sector where retail establishments, as well as Federal, State and local law enforcement, could compile evidence on specific organized retail theft crimes to aid investigations and prosecutions. This database, which has now become the current LERPnet, has helped to put the pieces together to show the organized and multi-state nature of these crimes as well as to provide important evidence for prosecutions. I am also pleased to report that the private sector is working together to address this problem. Earlier this year, the National Retail Federation partnered with eBay to develop greater information sharing between eBay and participating retailers. This partnership will hopefully increase the likelihood that more organized retail theft will be detected and prosecuted. H.R. 5932 will build upon the successes of these efforts to provide additional resources to the FBI to investigate organized retail theft. The bill funds and requires the Attorney General to establish an organized retail theft investigation and prosecution unit within the Department of Justice. This unit will include representatives from the FBI, ICE, U.S. Secret Service, and postal inspectors, as well as prosecutors. The unit will investigate and prosecute large-scale organized retail thefts and will provide assistance to State and local law enforcement agencies. The unit will also work in consultation with retailers and online marketplaces to gather information about and identify trends in organized retail thefts. In addition, H.R. 5932 instructs the Attorney General to prepare a report to Congress on how retailers and law enforcement agencies can best combat organized retail theft. This legislation is supported by the National Retail Federation, the Retail Industry Leaders Association, the Coalition Against Organized Retail Crime, the Food Marketing Institute, the National Association of Chain Drug Stores, eBay, and the Entertainment Merchants Association. Again, I wish to thank my colleagues Chairman Conyers, Ranking Member Smith and Chairman Scott for their dedication to this issue and for working with me to draft this bipartisan legislation. I urge my colleagues to support the bill.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I rise in opposition to this legislation. H.R. 1586, the State bailout bill, extends many of the same provisions included in the original stimulus bill by increasing taxes and using questionable offsets. It increases taxes on American businesses, America's job creators, by $9.8 billion over 10 years, and these tax increases will kill jobs, reduce American competitiveness, discourage investment, and prevent economic recovery. This is a permanent tax increase on job creators in exchange for a temporary fix for the States. A series of international tax changes in the bill could have far- reaching consequences on the competitiveness of worldwide American businesses. The National Association of Manufacturers states that an estimated 22 million people in the United States, more than 19 percent of the private-sector workforce, and 53 percent of all manufacturing employees are employed by companies with operations overseas. Manufacturers feel strongly that imposing $9.6 billion tax increases on these companies as proposed in the Senate Amendment to H.R. 1586 will jeopardize the jobs of American manufacturing employees and stifle our fragile economy. The new spending in the bill is meant to give states money to deal with their current fiscal problems, rewarding states for years of excessive spending in their budgets. It is not the responsibility of the federal government to bail out the states when they have difficulty balancing their budgets--the federal government should balance its own budget instead. The bill is not really ``fully'' paid for because it spends the entire $26.1 billion in just two years while the ``offsets'' take place over ten years, relying on future Congresses to abide by the offsets-- spending money today that we won't ``pay for'' until years from now. Once again, this Congress kicks the can down the road. This is a very detrimental tax increase. I urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, everyone here is concerned about helping people who are suffering, including New York firefighters and policemen and emergency rescue workers and others affected by this, but I want to point out what Ken Feinberg, the special master of the September 11th Victim Compensation Fund said in an op-ed piece in The Washington Post entitled, ``9/11 fund. Once was enough.'' He said, ``Despite its success, the fund has not set a precedent. Congress has not authorized similar compensation for the thousands of victims of Hurricane Katrina, for those injured by other natural disasters, or for the families of those killed in such tragedies. Nor has Congress exhibited such generosity toward U.S. soldiers wounded or the families of those killed in Iraq and Afghanistan. ``The same is true of victims of terrorist attacks that took place before September 11, 2001. The Navy personnel who died in the suicide attack on the USS Cole and the victims of the Oklahoma City bombing received no such public compensation. Even the victims of the first terrorist attack on the World Trade Center in 1993 were denied.'' Feinberg said, ``Bad things happen to good people every day; Congress does not come to their financial rescue with generous, tax-free checks. In our free society, based on notions of limited government and equal protection of the laws, we simply do not expect the government to step in whenever misfortune strikes.'' When firefighters all across this country enter burning buildings, when rescue workers clean up toxic spills, people are injured, people are killed all the time. We do not have compensation funds for them. We have normal procedures, normal processes through which people receive assistance. Even the most recent compensation funds for the gulf oil spill and for the victims of the shooting at Virginia Tech were privately funded compensation funds. This is not the correct way to proceed. And this fund, in particular, is bloated. It includes funding for more than 20 years, until 2031. It includes far more money than Ken Feinberg said was necessary. I urge my colleagues to not support this approach to solving this problem.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 5566, the Prevention of Interstate Commerce in Animal Crush Videos Act. Crush videos are videotapes depicting small animals, including cats, dogs, and even monkeys, being slowly crushed to death. Many of these videos feature women inflicting the torture with their bare feet or while wearing high heeled shoes. These videos capture the cries and squeals of the animals, obviously in great pain. In 1999, Congress enacted H.R. 1887 to criminalize the commercial creation, sale, or possession of these heinous videos. However, in April of this year, the Supreme Court struck down as unconstitutional this Federal statute. The court held that the language of the statute was overly broad and would have extended to legitimate activities. In response, Congressman Gallegly introduced and I cosponsored The Prevention of Interstate Commerce in Animal Crush Videos Act. This legislation amends the Federal criminal code to cure the defects in the Federal statute. The bill prohibits a person from knowingly selling or distributing an animal crush video in interstate or foreign commerce for the purpose of commercial advantage of private financial gain. This legislation also excludes from its scope the sale or distribution of any visual depiction of hunting, trapping, fishing, or customary and normal veterinary or agricultural husbandry practices. In addition, the bill narrows the definition of ``Animal Crush Video'' to make clear that it is not targeting legitimate products and to tie the activity to the violation of a state or Federal law. I believe it is important to stop these heinous activities, and I support this legislation that more effectively targets these crimes without affecting other, legitimate activities like hunting and fishing videos.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Cell Phone Contraband Act. The illegal use of wireless phones in prisons is a serious problem. Smuggled cell phones are used by prisoners to maintain connections with their criminal enterprises beyond prison walls and even to commit crimes from within prison. A recent Washington Post article reported the following incidents: A drug dealer behind bars in Maryland used a phone to arrange to have a witness assassinated outside his home last summer. In Kansas, a convicted killer sneaked out of prison after planning the 2006 escape using a cell phone smuggled by an accomplice. The following year, two inmates escaped another Kansas prison with the help of a former guard and a smuggled cell phone. California prison officials confiscated about 2,800 cell phones statewide in 2008, double the number discovered the year before. The Cell Phone Contraband Act makes it a crime for Federal prisoners to possess cell phones while incarcerated. The bill also directs the GAO to study the cost and use of landlines and smuggled cell phones in Federal and selected State prisons and jails. The study will additionally examine selected State and Federal efforts to prevent the smuggling of cell phones and other wireless devices into prisons, including efforts made to minimize trafficking of cell phones by prison guards and other officials. This is a commonsense bill to ensure that when criminals are locked up, their ability to harm citizens is completely cut off. This legislation will send a strong signal to those that either smuggle or receive contraband cell phones that they will be held accountable.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose the rule on this legislation that's coming forward. But before we get to the vote on the rule, we're going to have a vote on ordering the previous question, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on ordering the previous question because that is the way to show your support for today's spending cut reduction under the YouCut program that millions of Americans have participated in. This week's spending cut, developed by Congressman Phil Gingrey of Georgia, addresses one of the perpetual roadblocks to American private- sector job creation and economic recovery--Federal employee unions. The proposal would prohibit taxpayer funding for union activities, saving taxpayers $120 million a year, or $1.2 billion over the next 10 years. Federal employees' unions collect millions in revenue each year and spend significant amounts on political activities and lobbying. I do not believe that they should also be subsidized by the taxpayers for their official functions. Instead of subsidizing union activities, the Federal Government must work to both eliminate every cent of waste and squeeze every cent of value out of each dollar our citizens entrust to it. When we're facing gigantic deficits each year, the President's budget that he submitted earlier this year projects a 70 percent expenditure over top of what we're going to take in in revenues--$3.8 trillion in spending and $2.2 trillion in tax revenues coming in. That is completely unsustainable, and yet as far as the eye can see for the next 10 years, as far out as the Congressional Budget Office projects, we face deficits that are two and three times as large as they had ever been previously in our history, including the last time the Republicans were in the majority in this Congress. We spent too much money in 2004 when we had a $400 billion deficit. That looks like peanuts today compared to what we're facing. Support the effort to cut our government spending. Oppose the ordering of the previous question. Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 376 on H. Con. Res. 288, rollcall No. 377 on H. Res. 546, and rollcall No. 378 on H. Res. 1407, I am not recorded because I was attending the funeral service of a fallen soldier in my district, Army SPC Brian M. Anderson, who was killed in action while serving his country in Afghanistan. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on all three resolutions.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Speaker, it was two decades ago that the largest privately-held, family-owned bakery in the United States decided to make its newest home in Virginia's Shenandoah Valley, just miles from the Blue Ridge Mountains. I am delighted today to help mark the 20th anniversary of the arrival of McKee Foods in Stuarts Draft, Virginia. Based in Collegedale, Tennessee the company best known in all 50 states and in Canada and Mexico for its ``Little Debbie'' brand snacks has settled into its location in the Commonwealth over the last 20 years and become an integral part of the business community in Augusta County. The bakery is considered one of the industry's most cutting- edge facilities, and more than 1,000 folks are employed in the production of what I believe are among the country's best snack goods-- they are standards in the cupboards of my home and countless others. There's nothing like their Snack Cakes, Fudge Rounds, Swiss Cake Rolls, Oatmeal Creme Pies--and more than 70 other Little Debbie products made from the highest quality ingredients. The enjoyment that accompanies eating these goodies is endless. In addition to marking the company's 20 years in Stuarts Draft, we're also noting a half-century of the Little Debbie brand. It was 50 years ago that the company's founders--O.D. and Ruth McKee--decided to use a likeness of their young granddaughter Debbie to mark the brand. All these years later, ``Little Debbie'' is the unmistakable trademark of a company that has been profitable every year since. That's quite a tribute for a company whose commitment to ``total quality'' is a daily endeavor. Having met hundreds of McKee employees over the years, I can attest that they constantly strive for integrity and to be innovative in their business. McKee Foods is now one of the foundations of a region of my Congressional district that's long been known for its strong work ethic. The McKee family clearly recognized that attribute when it chose Stuarts Draft for its newest operation 20 years ago. I commend President and CEO Mike McKee and Vice President of Stuarts Draft Operations Randy Smith for making the Stuarts Draft facility a great place to continue the company's guiding values. It's been a true recipe for success since 1990 in Virginia. The Sixth District looks forward to much continued success for McKee Foods and ``Little Debbie'' for many decades to come.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Speaker, I rise today to join my colleague Rep. Holden in introducing the Chesapeake Bay Program Reauthorization and Improvement Act. The Chesapeake Bay, the largest estuary in the U.S., is an incredibly complex ecosystem that includes important habitats and is a cherished part of our American heritage. The Bay Watershed includes all types of land uses, from intensely urban areas, spread out suburban development and diverse agricultural practices. But unquestionably the Bay is in need and worthy of our attention and concern and I believe everyone has a role to play in restoring it. I have long worked with my colleagues here in Congress to find ways to protect and restore the Bay. In fact, Mr. Holden and I worked very hard with the other members of the Agriculture Committee to establish a mechanism and a funding source in the 2008 farm bill for addressing issues related to protecting the Chesapeake Bay Watershed. The farm bill provided unprecedented incentive-based funding to help farmers and ranchers improve management practices, which would directly result in improving water quality in the Bay. We must now continue in our efforts to restore and protect the Chesapeake Bay by reauthorizing the Chesapeake Bay Program. There are other proposals to reauthorize the Bay Program. The goal of all involved is the same, the continued health and vitality of the Bay, but the map to that health and vitality is being strongly debated. Unfortunately, proposals like the Presidential Executive Order, and legislation that would codify this order, would force more mandates and overzealous regulations on all of those who live, work, and farm in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed. This strategy will limit economic growth and unfairly overregulate our local economies. My colleagues and I recognized that we must form a proposal that does not pit the health of the bay against the strength and vitality of our local communities and that is why we rise today to introduce the Chesapeake Bay Program Reauthorization and Improvement Act. Instead of overregulation and intrusion into the lives and livelihoods of those who choose to make the Bay Watershed their home, our legislation allows States and communities more flexibility in meeting water quality goals so that we can help restore and protect our natural resources. Our bill sets up new programs to give farmers, homebuilders, and localities new ways to meet their water quality goals. This includes preserving current intrastate nutrient trading programs that many Bay states already have in place, while also creating a voluntary interstate nutrient trading program. Additionally, this bill creates a voluntary assurance program for farmers. The program will deem farmers to be fully in compliance with their water quality requirements as long as they have undertaken appropriate conservation activities to comply with State and federal water quality standards. Also, our bill makes sure that the agencies are using common sense when regulating water quality goals for localities. Our legislation requires the regulators to take into account the availability, cost, effectiveness, and appropriateness of practices, techniques, or methods in meeting water quality goals. This will ensure that localities are not being mandated to achieve a reduction in nutrient levels by a prescribed date, when no technology exists to achieve that reduction within that timeline. While our bill does a lot to improve water quality, we also call for more oversight over the Chesapeake Bay Program. For over 3 decades Congress has been working to preserve and protect the Chesapeake Bay. Despite the efforts of the federal, State, and local governments, the health of the Bay is still in peril. The participants in restoring the Bay include 10 federal agencies, six states and the District of Columbia, over one thousand localities and multiple nongovernmental organizations. This legislation would fully implement two cutting-edge management techniques, crosscut budgeting and adaptive management, to enhance coordination, flexibility and efficiency of restoration efforts. Neither technique is currently required or fully utilized in the Bay restoration efforts, where results have lagged far behind the billions of dollars spent. Further, this bill calls for a review of the EPA's Bay model. We often hear complaints from those who make good faith efforts to restore the Bay that their efforts are not being recognized by EPA's Bay model. EPA's model does not account for any voluntary measures being undertaken on farms to control nitrogen and phosphorous nor does it even account for some of the nitrogen and phosphorous reductions that are being achieved through government programs like USDA's Environmental Quality Incentives Program. Effectively, EPA is ignoring nutrient reductions that have already been achieved. Our legislation requires that an independent evaluator assess and make recommendations to alter EPA's Bay model, so that we can develop a model that will capture all of the nutrient reductions that are happening in the Bay. Madam Speaker, the people who call the Bay Watershed home are the ones who are the most concerned about protecting and restoring the Chesapeake Bay. Unfortunately, too often these hardworking individuals are cast as villains and placed in a position where restoring the Bay is pitted against the economic livelihoods of their communities. We can restore the Bay while also maintaining the economic livelihood of these communities. The Chesapeake Bay Program Reauthorization and Improvement Act is the way we can do both. I look forward to working with my colleagues in the Congress, so that we can pass this important legislation and work to restore the Chesapeake Bay.