Bob Goodlatte

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam 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 USC 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, we have been asking all afternoon, where's the budget? We have even sent out bloodhounds trying to find this budget. Mr. Speaker, in 2006, Congressman Steny Hoyer, who is now the House Majority Leader, was quoted as saying enacting a budget was ``the most basic responsibility of governing.'' And Congressman John Spratt, who is now the chairman of the House Budget Committee said, ``If you can't budget, you can't govern.'' Now, we are a month past the deadline and Speaker Pelosi and the Democratic leadership are showing no signs of complying with the law and coming forward with a budget for fiscal year 2011. Without a budget, there is no procedural enforcement mechanism to constrain spending. With the administration increasing nondefense discretionary spending by 84 percent since taking office, I fear that without a budget our national debt will continue to spiral out of control. Mr. Speaker, this will be first time since the Budget Act was enacted that the House will not have passed a budget. We want to know, Mr. Speaker, where is the budget?

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Speaker, since we just commemorated National Nurses Week 2010, I rise today to call attention to the important and essential role that nurses play in providing quality health care across our Nation. Nurses are the largest group of health professionals involved on the front lines of caring for Americans. Our Nation's health care system is complex and every day people with many different health needs are served by legions of caring, qualified, and professional nurses, who are integral to our Nation's health care delivery system. I believe every person can remember an experience when someone they loved needed health care and a nurse was the first person by their side providing care and comfort. We all know someone who works in the field of nursing and the commitment they make to their profession, despite extraordinary challenges every day. The Nurse in Washington Internship program recently brought representatives of this noble field to our Nation's capital to give a voice to their needs and experience. I was pleased to meet with my constituent Jennifer Vaugh (RN, BSN) from Forest, Virginia. An adequate supply of nurses is essential to ensuring that all people receive quality care and that our Nation's public health infrastructure is strong. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, there is currently a nursing shortage of 2.5 million registered nurses in the United States. This figure is expected to grow to 41 percent by 2020. Additional Congressional leadership is necessary to ensure that the Nation has an adequate supply of nurses to care for the patients of today and tomorrow.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Speaker, where is the budget? Congress is expected to agree on a budget for the upcoming fiscal year by April 15. The budget process at the beginning of each year sets the goals regarding total Federal spending for the year. It is the budget that sets the stage for how fiscally responsible government spending will be. Since the passage of the Budget Act of 1974, the House of Representatives has never failed to pass an initial budget to set the spending priorities for the following fiscal year. Not this year. We are now a month past the deadline, and Speaker Pelosi and the Democratic leadership are showing no signs of complying with the law and coming forward with a budget for fiscal year 2011. In 2006, Congressman Steny Hoyer, who is now the House majority leader, was quoted as saying, Enacting a budget was ``the most basic responsibility of governing,'' and Congressman John Spratt, who is now the chairman of the House Budget Committee said, ``If you can't budget, you can't govern.'' While I understand that the Congress has the power to name public buildings and post offices, I believe that setting a budget, allowing the government to live within its means, is more important than passing ceremonial resolutions. With total public debt rising to nearly $13 trillion, according to the Bureau of Public Debt, Congress' priority should remain focused on getting our fiscal house in order. Families and small businesses all across our Nation understand what it means to make tough decisions each day about what they can and cannot afford. They understand the importance of creating and living by a budget. Unfortunately, instead of making the tough choices necessary to reduce spending, the majority in Congress has decided to forgo a budget altogether. Just 4 years ago, the same leaders who are now shirking their responsibility and choosing to move forward without a budget were very clear on how important the budget process is to the operation of the Federal Government. Madam Speaker, where's the budget? Without the passage of a Federal budget, the reckless spending that has run rampant in Congress will only continue. We have already seen the passage--without my support--of the so-called economic stimulus legislation which was supposed to put Americans back to work. Not only did the stimulus legislation fail to create jobs, but it is now estimated to be costing American taxpayers over $1 trillion including interest. Not only should Congress produce a budget, but I am a strong supporter of several measures that promote the establishment of a balanced budget and the elimination of wasteful government programs, including a constitutional amendment that I introduced which requires the Federal Government to balance its budget. Congress must steadfastly hold the line on government spending, which is why I have consistently voted for the tightest budgets offered each year. But maybe not this year. No budget is offered. As elected officials and stewards of the taxpayers' money, we have a responsibility to put together a sustainable budget and stick to it. The Congress must continue to work to rein in spending and put to practice a spending approach that many Americans already live by: If you don't have it, don't spend it. Madam Speaker, where's the budget?

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 3333, the Satellite Television Extension and Localism Act. This legislation contains important provisions to enhance television services in rural areas. Consumers in rural and mountainous areas, like my congressional district, are often beyond the reach of cable lines and do not have access to the types of programming that those who live in urban areas enjoy. I believe it is crucial for consumers in rural areas to have access to local news and emergency information, as well as robust television options. I have worked hard for years to enhance the programming options for those in rural areas, including making sure satellite companies provide local channels. In fact, I was a member of the conference committee in the 106th Congress that negotiated the final version of the law that originally permitted satellite television companies to provide local television stations, which has made satellite companies more effective competitors to cable operators. Cable had been able to provide local broadcast network stations to their subscribers for years. While that law eliminated the legal barriers to satellite companies providing local stations, it did not assure delivery of local television via satellite to all television markets. Since then, I have continued to work to encourage satellite companies to expand the areas where they provide local television stations, and we have had many successes. However, there are still problems that we need to fix. For example, while everyone in my district has access to local programming from at least one satellite company, many folks still cannot receive all four network stations via satellite. I am pleased to report that I helped insert a provision into this legislation that would change the definition of ``unserved household'' to eliminate a major impediment to satellite companies wishing to offer all four television networks to consumers in so-called short markets (those that do not have a full complement of all 4 networks locally). This provision will help ensure that all consumers in short markets have access to all four network television stations. In addition, this legislation contains a provision that will allow DISH Network to again be permitted to offer network programming from other areas when there are no stations of the same network in the local market. DISH Network had previously been prohibited from offering these ``distant'' network television stations. Under S. 3333, DISH Network would be able to offer these distant channels only after it rolls out local television channels via satellite in all 210 television markets. This provision will inject competition into the satellite television market, especially in rural areas where often there is either one or no satellite providers. The transition to digital television presented new issues for this reauthorization. As such, S. 3333 contains technical updates to reflect the reality that television broadcasts are now digital rather than analog. This legislation is a big step forward in updating the laws governing satellite television in rural areas, and I urge the Members of this body to support this important legislation.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H. Res. 1208, which expresses support for World IP Day. April 26, 2010 was the 10th annual World IP Day. This day was designated by the member nations of the World Intellectual Property Organization in order to raise awareness of how patents, copyright, and trademarks impact daily life, to raise understanding of how protecting IP rights helps promote creativity and innovation, to celebrate the contributions of creators and innovators to societies around the world, and to encourage respect for the IP rights of others. When the Founders of our great Nation crafted the U.S. Constitution, they saw fit to include provisions to provide for the protection of intellectual property. They believed that if authors and inventors had the exclusive ability to use and reap a return on their creations for a limited time, then those artists and inventors would have the financial incentive to create new and exciting products that would benefit society and our economy. And it worked! Today, America is the world leader in innovation and creativity precisely because of our Founders' foresight and our Nation's exceptionally strong intellectual property laws. Furthermore, the IP industries in America are a major driving force and job-creating engine of our economy. Recently I had the opportunity to talk with a famous American author who told a story that hammered home how much the creative ideas of one man, if properly protected by intellectual property laws, can multiply into real jobs for real people. He wrote a best-selling novel. That novel then needed to be edited, reviewed, printed, marketed and distributed. The novel then became a movie, which needed to be produced, reviewed, distributed and shown in movie theatres, then in movie rental shops all across the country. The protected idea of one man helped to create all these jobs down the line. It is stories like this that need to be told on World IP Day. In today's digital world, the Internet's fast connections can be used to download, upload and otherwise share illegal copies of songs, movies, games, and software at unprecedented levels. As we continue our journey into the digital age, it is even more important that we continue to jealously guard creators' intellectual property rights in order to foster new content, innovative products, and American jobs.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Speaker, I rise to introduce a Resolution that expresses the will of Congress to save taxpayer money and reduce the deficit. Madam Speaker, Thomas Jefferson once 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.'' As my colleagues may know, according to the Congressional Budget Office, the federal deficit is $655 billion through the first five months of FY 2010. This is $65 billion or 11.0% above the deficit through the first five months of FY 2009--which ended up with the highest deficit in U.S. history ($1.4 trillion). In these challenging economic times it is even more important for government to control spending. Congress must 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. Unfortunately, the federal budget deficit is projected to exceed $1 trillion for the next two fiscal years and hover around $800 billion annually for the foreseeable future. These current levels of spending are simply unsustainable. That is why I am proud that the Republican Conference recently adopted a party rule that instills a year-long moratorium on Members obtaining ``earmarks'' in the FY2011 appropriations process. The earmark process is broken and is in desperate need of reform. While I am pleased that the Republican Conference has adopted a one- year earmark moratorium, the simple fact is that our policy will not save the taxpayers a dime unless Democrats reduce spending by the amount saved by the Republican moratorium. Otherwise, they will be able to just spend the money saved by the Republican earmark ban on their own Democratic earmarks. Madam Speaker, the American people want earmark reform because they want to rein in out-of-control spending. In order to actually help achieve this goal, I am introducing this resolution today with virtually all of my Republican colleagues. Specifically, our resolution: ``Expresses the sense of Congress that House Democrats should join House Republicans in a total ban on earmarks for one year, that total discretionary spending should be reduced by the amount saved by earmark moratoriums and that a bipartisan, bicameral committee should be created to review and overhaul the budgetary, spending and earmark processes.'' I hope that all Members of the House will join House Republicans in supporting this resolution and thus commit ourselves to the will of the American people to eliminate every cent of waste and squeeze every cent of value out of each hard-earned taxpayer dollar.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Speaker, today, tax day, is the most stressful day of the year for taxpayers. April 15th is a day filled with aggravation and frustration as hard working Americans are confronted with piles of forms, confusing instructions, and the prospect of turning their hard-earned money over to the government. In 1935, the 1040 tax form contained two pages of instructions, today it is 155 pages, forcing Americans to devote a tremendous amount of resources to try to comply with this monstrosity. In fact, Americans will devote an estimated 7.7 billion hours complying with the tax code, and will spend an estimated $29.33 billion on tax software, preparers, and other expenses related to filing their taxes. Over the past year, we have seen citizens from around the nation express their frustration about this nefarious tax code. Taxpayers have pleaded with Congress to be better stewards of their money and reform our broken tax code. The tax code Americans are forced to comply with discourages savings and investment, and is impossibly complex. It has become all too clear that the current code is broken beyond repair and cannot be fixed so we must start over. I understand the frustrations of taxpayers and I have introduced H.R. 982, the Tax Code Termination Act, which will force Congress to finally address fundamental tax reform. This legislation, with 115 bipartisan cosponsors, will abolish the tax code by December 2012, and call on Congress to approve a new federal tax system by July of the same year. While almost every Member of Congress would recognize that our tax code is no longer working in a fair manner for Americans, nothing has been done to create a more equitable tax code. Congress won't act on fundamental tax reform unless it is forced to do so. My bill will force Congress to finally debate and address fundamental tax reform. Once this bill becomes law, today's oppressive tax code would survive for only three more years, at which time it would expire and be replaced with a new tax code that will be determined by Congress, the President, and the American people. This legislation will allow us, as a nation, to collectively decide what the new tax system should look like. Having a date-certain to end the current tax code will force the issue to the top of the national agenda. Although many questions remain about the best way to reform our tax system, I am certain that if Congress is forced to address the issue we can create a tax code that is simpler, fairer, and better for our economy than the one we are forced to comply with today. Whichever tax system is adopted, the key ingredients should be: a low rate for all Americans; tax relief for working people; protection of the rights of taxpayers and reduction in tax collection abuses; promotion of savings and investment; and encouragement of economic growth and job creation. Taxes may be unavoidable but they don't have to be unfair and overcomplicated. I urge my colleagues to join me as a cosponsor of H.R. 982, the Tax Code Termination Act and end the broken tax system that exists today.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Speaker, for many years the Commonwealth of Virginia has seriously been considering the potential positive impact that Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) development off Virginia's coast would have on the Commonwealth. In 2008, it seemed that the Commonwealth would be able to make OCS development a reality when we in Congress, and then President George Bush, removed hurdles that had previously blocked access to energy resources located on the OCS. However, since that point, Virginia has been confronted with a series of regulatory road blocks. Although a lease sale has been proposed in Virginia's OCS, the first scheduled lease sale for energy development in the Atlantic, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar has continued to postpone this Virginia lease sale. This delay is happening despite the strong support for the lease sale by the Virginia Congressional Delegation, the Governor of Virginia, the Virginia General Assembly, and the citizens of Virginia. Madam Speaker, the voices of Virginians must be heard. To allow the Virginia lease sale to proceed we must remove the regulatory road blocks that are impeding development of Virginia's OCS, so I rise today with a bipartisan group of members of the Virginia Congressional Delegation to introduce the ``Virginia Access (VA) to Energy Act.'' This legislation would require that the Department of the Interior, at the request of Virginia's governor, proceed with the Virginia lease sale no later than one year after passage of this legislation. This will remove the regulatory hurdles that have impeded development and create a path for Virginia to become ``the Energy Capital of the East Coast.'' Passage of this legislation and development of VA's OCS will significantly boost the economy of the Commonwealth of Virginia. In fact, some estimates have shown that development of Virginia's OCS will create 2,578 full-time equivalent positions on an annual basis, induce capital investment of $7.84 billion, yield $644 million in direct and indirect payroll, and result in $271 million in State and local taxes. While exploration activities alone will infuse the Virginia economy with a significant amount of new capital, this legislation will also authorize any qualified revenues generated by the lease sales to be shared between the federal government and the Commonwealth of Virginia. Virginians understand that a major component in lessening energy costs is to produce more energy. I believe that Virginia should have every tool available to access its energy supplies, while at the same time creating thousands of jobs for Virginians and infusing the Commonwealth with new capital growth. I urge Congress to pass this legislation to allow Virginia to move towards a path of energy independence.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this flawed health care bill.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, nearly two months ago President Obama stood here before the Members of the House of Representatives, the Senate, the Supreme Court Justices, his own Cabinet Members and millions of Americans who were watching on television to deliver his first State of the Union address. In that speech he declared that as economic uncertainty continues to plague our Nation the government must focus on policies that promote economic growth and job creation. My how things have changed in just two short months. Congress should be working to reduce the tax and regulatory burdens that hinder small businesses and ultimately overall economic growth and job creation. Instead, over the loud objections of a majority of Americans, the Majority continues to advance their health care reform proposal which sets the tone for a Washington takeover of the health care system. This legislation which contains a multitude of new federal regulations, mandates, new big government programs, and a significant increase in federal spending and debt, will be extremely detrimental to American businesses and particularly our small businesses, which will make job losses even worse. The legislation includes over $569 billion in tax increases and over $523 billion in Medicare cuts. This includes $52 billion in new taxes on employers, including small businesses, that cannot afford to provide health coverage or that don't offer coverage. The effect of this type of tax, similar to a payroll tax increase, would ultimately fall squarely on workers in the form of lower wages or reduced employment. Additionally, the legislation includes $17 billion in new taxes on Americans who do not comply with the individual insurance mandate which is sure to further stifle economic growth. In fact, 130 economists from all across the country sent President Obama a letter explaining how this legislation is a job-killer. In their letter, the economists stated that the insurance mandate and the tax increases, among other things, will ``constrict economic growth and reduce employment'' while ``increasing spending on health care and increasing the cost of health coverage''. That is why I strongly support an alternative proposal which allows for the purchase of health insurance across state lines, allows individuals and small businesses to join large pools to get more competitive rates, provides tort reform to cut down the high cost of defensive medicine, allows full tax deductibility of health insurance premiums, portability of health insurance and protection against pre- existing condition exclusions. In addition, I support health insurance tax credits for individuals and families who don't have access to employer-based health insurance, increasing the number of community health centers, and encouraging the use of health information technology to achieve greater efficiencies. Congress should not be pushing this government takeover of health care that will inflict even more harm on our Nation's economy, making job losses even worse. Instead Congress must focus on strategies that help Americans obtain the best quality health care at the least cost, and ensure that the government fosters increased access to quality care based on individual choice, not by taking away choices from people on the grounds that government knows best.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Colorado and the gentlewoman from Guam for bringing forward this bipartisan resolution honoring Cold War veterans. I too also commend the importance of understanding the history of the Cold War and of what President Kennedy did with the airlift into Berlin to protect the people of that city; what happened during the 1980s when President Reagan called the Soviet Union exactly what it was, the Evil Empire, and later went to the Berlin Wall and called upon Mr. Gorbachev to ``tear down that wall.'' It was the brave men and women who served in our Armed Forces who made that possible in our history to see the ability of our President to stand up to the Soviet Union, and, indeed, to see that wall torn down not that many years ago. I will tell you also, however, Madam Speaker, that we have before us in this Congress today and tomorrow health care legislation, a massive bill. When you take all of the pages of all the bills that are being considered here, the House bill, the Senate bill, the reconciliation bill, you are talking about thousands and thousands of pages. And tomorrow--tomorrow, we will have a couple of hours for 435 Members to talk about what is in those bills. So I have no doubt that the millions of American veterans who served their country, and many of whom are baby boomers and will be facing $520 billion in cuts in the Medicare program to pay for a new government program at a time when our Nation is broke, that they are going to be as concerned as all of us are here today about this health care legislation, this monstrosity that is going to include $569 billion in tax increases that will cost millions of American jobs. They will be concerned to hear from the 130 economists from across the country who sent President Obama a letter explaining how this legislation is a job-killer. They will be concerned about their children and grandchildren who will inherit the enormous debt that is a product of this legislation. Because, unlike the specious claim that this will indeed result in deficit reductions, they know that when you have a side deal of over $200 billion to take care of physicians under the Medicare bill, when you have a bill that provides 6 years of coverage with 10 years of tax increases and Medicare cuts, that does not balance out. In fact, this legislation is hundreds and hundreds of billions, some say more than $1 trillion, greater in costs than will be taken in in revenue and Medicare cuts. The result of this is going to be devastating for our country, and I urge my colleagues to reject this monstrosity.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to not only the Democrats' health care proposal but to the outrageous process by which the majority intends to ram this bill through the House while denying Members of Congress an up-or-down vote on the bill. This morning's Cincinnati Enquirer declared what Americans all over this country are saying: ``This disgusting process, which Democrats brazenly wish to bring to conclusion this week, is being done with little regard for the opinions of a clear majority of Americans who, while they may believe health care reform is necessary, think this particular approach will take our Nation down the wrong economic path.'' American families want health care reform that will expand access and choices and decrease costs. The Democrats' health care bill includes tax increases, Medicare cuts, job-killing mandates, and higher premiums. This bill is nothing more than the same government-run insurance mandates and taxes the American people have overwhelmingly rejected. This bill must be killed. We must start over.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. I want to thank our ranking member, the gentleman from Texas, for yielding me time and for his active engagement in support of moving this process forward. Mr. Speaker, Article III of the Constitution provides that Federal judges are appointed for life and that they ``shall hold their offices during good behavior.'' Indeed, the Framers new that an independent judiciary free of political motivations was necessary to the fair resolution of disputes and the fair administration of our laws. However, the Framers were also pragmatists and had the foresight to include checks against the abuse of the independence and power that comes with a judicial appointment. Article 1, Section 2, Clause 5 of the Constitution grants the House of Representatives the sole power of impeachment. This is a very serious power that should not be undertaken lightly. Indeed, it is a rare and solemn occasion when the House of Representative must vote on Articles of Impeachment against a Federal judge. Today's vote will mark only the second time in over 20 years that this has occurred. However, when the evidence emerges that an individual is abusing his judicial office for his own advantage, the integrity of the judicial system becomes compromised, and the House of Representatives has the duty to investigate the matter and take the appropriate actions to end the abuse and restore confidence in the judicial system. On June 17, 2008, the Judicial Conference of the United States certified to the House of Representatives that ``consideration of impeachment of U.S. District Judge G. Thomas Porteous may be warranted.'' This certification was the culmination of an investigation and formal complaint by the Department of Justice, an investigation and final report by a special investigatory committee appointed by the Fifth Judicial Circuit, and consideration and vote by the Judicial Council of the Judicial Conference of the United States. In September 2008, the House passed a resolution instructing the Judiciary Committee to further investigate whether Judge Porteous should be impeached. The Task Force on Judicial Impeachment was then created by the House Judiciary Committee to further investigate the matter. The task force conducted an exhaustive investigation, working with law enforcement and judicial officials, conducting numerous interviews, taking depositions from key witnesses, gathering evidence and transcripts from previous investigations, and conducting congressional hearings. Those efforts have uncovered a large amount of information, including much new evidence that was not uncovered in previous investigations. The evidence shows that, among other instances of misconduct, while on the Federal bench, Judge Porteous refused to recuse himself from a Federal case when he had previously engaged in a corrupt kickback scheme with the attorneys representing the defense; that he later took thousands of dollars in cash from those same attorneys while the case was still pending; that he took gifts from a bail bondsman in exchange for granting favorable bond rates for him and then improperly expunged the records of two of the bail bondsman's employees, one after Porteous was confirmed by the Senate to be a Federal judge; that he used his influence as a Federal judge to help the Marcottes establish beneficial relationships with State court judges; that he lied to a bankruptcy court when he filed for bankruptcy and then violated a bankruptcy court order mandating that he not incur further debt; and that he made materially false statements to the U.S. Senate and the FBI during his confirmation process. Based on the evidence gathered on January 21, 2010, I joined with Chairman Conyers, Ranking Member Smith, and Task Force Chairman Schiff to introduce House Resolution 1031, which contains four separate Articles of Impeachment against Judge Porteous. The details of these Articles have been discussed already today. It is important to note that every member of the Task Force on Judicial Impeachment joined as an original cosponsor of these articles. Furthermore, these Articles of Impeachment were reported from the Judiciary Committee with a unanimous vote of 24-0, a very rare occurrence. It is my strong recommendation that the Members of the House now support these Articles of Impeachment against Judge Porteous. It is also important to note that during the task force investigation Judge Porteous was invited to come testify, but declined this invitation. His attorney was also invited to attend the hearings, was given the privilege of asking questions of the witnesses at the hearings, and was offered the opportunity to bring forth witnesses on behalf of Judge Porteous. I would like to take this opportunity to thank Adam Schiff, the chairman of the Task Force on Judicial Impeachment, for his leadership in this effort, along with all of the Members of the Task Force on both sides of the aisle. As ranking member of the Impeachment Task Force, I appreciate the fact that this effort was undertaken in a nonpartisan fashion. I would like to thank the task force staff on both sides of the aisle and Branden Ritchie, legislative counsel in my office, for their dedicated and invaluable work on this matter. I would like to also thank Chairman Conyers and Ranking Member Smith for their comprehensive, yet expeditious, consideration of these Articles of Impeachment in the full Judiciary Committee. I'd also like to extend additional thanks to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), who's the only Member who participated in the last series of impeachment of Federal judges back in the 1980s. His experience and knowledge has been invaluable as well. I urge my colleagues in the House, not in a bipartisan manner, but in a nonpartisan manner, to join in supporting all four of these Articles of Impeachment and send this measure to the United States Senate for trial.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. I thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I believe in enforcing our Nation's antitrust laws. And this bill has been improved since Judiciary Committee consideration. However, this legislation is still flawed, and in my opinion is meant to distract attention away from the fact that the majority is not working on the real issues the American people want us to address. Americans want policies that will reduce premiums and increase the quality of health care services in the U.S. Unfortunately, it is questionable whether this bill will accomplish these goals. I am also very disappointed in the rule for this bill, which was closed from the beginning, and blocks well-intentioned amendments offered by Republicans to make the bill better. Specifically, an amendment was offered by Representative Dan Lungren, a fellow member of the Judiciary Committee, to allow small health insurance companies to continue to be able to share historic loss data so that they can compete with big insurance companies. Under the text of the current bill, this type of sharing would be illegal, which would hinder new and smaller companies from entering the market, competing with the big guys, and offering lower premiums. The shocking thing is that this amendment was actually adopted in the Judiciary Committee on a bipartisan basis. The provision was then stripped by the majority in this new bill. So stifling this amendment today represents the second time the majority has blocked Representative Lungren's amendment, which had bipartisan support, and which would have likely reduced health care premiums for citizens. Instead of bringing flawed legislation to the floor, we should be working together to pass real reforms, like legislation to allow citizens to take their health insurance across State lines if they move, legislation to help those with preexisting conditions find affordable coverage, and legislation to curb frivolous lawsuits against doctors, which drive up health insurance premiums and provide increased costs due to defensive medicine. The American medical liability system is broken. According to one study, 40 percent of claims are meritless: either no injury or no error occurred. Attorneys' fees and administrative costs amount to 54 percent of the compensation paid to plaintiffs. The study found that completely meritless claims, which are nonetheless successful approximately one in four times, account for nearly a quarter of total administrative costs. Defensive medicine is widely practiced and costly. Skyrocketing medical liability insurance rates have distorted the practice of medicine. Costly but unnecessary tests have become routine, as doctors try to protect themselves from lawsuits. According to a 2008 survey conducted by the Massachusetts Medical Society, 83 percent of physicians reported that they practiced defensive medicine. Another study in Pennsylvania put the figure at 93 percent. While estimates vary, the Pacific Research Institute has put the cost of defensive medicine at $124 billion. Others have arrived at even higher figures. I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule. We should be working to eliminate these hundreds of billions of dollars of waste from our medical system in order to drive down premiums to make health care more affordable. We should be working to help those with preexisting conditions get affordable coverage. Unfortunately, we are doing neither today. We can do better. Mr. Speaker, while I may vote for this bill it could have been made better by an open rule and the allowance of the Lungren amendment. But this bill is hardly a cure all and there is so much more we could do if the majority would open up the health insurance process to good proposals that the American people support.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Chair, I rise in support of H.R. 4061. Recent attacks on Government networks have served to increase awareness that cybersecurity is not just about protecting computers, but also has implications for U.S. national security and economic well- being. Without confidence in our Nation's internet infrastructure and data security, I am concerned that our country will not be able to climb out of the current economic climate. As such, I was pleased when President Obama declared in a speech in May 2009 that U.S. critical information infrastructures are a ``Strategic National Asset''. Unfortunately, since that speech, the Administration's actions have not been indicative of those necessary to protect such a ``Strategic National Asset.'' While I appreciate that the President recently appointed Howard Schmidt as Cyber Coordinator, this appointment was long overdue. Madam Chair, A recent GAO report stated that, ``Pervasive and sustained cyber attacks continue to pose a potentially devastating threat to the systems and operations of the Federal Government.'' The report went on to further state that, ``The ever-increasing dependence of Federal agencies on computerized systems to carry out essential, everyday operations can make them vulnerable to an array of cyber-based risks. Thus it is increasingly important for the Federal Government to have effective information security controls in place to safeguard its systems and the information they contain.'' In response to this GAO report and extensive hearings by the House Science and Technology Committee, I am pleased to support the Committee's bi-partisan legislation and applaud its authors. Specifically, H.R. 4061 authorizes activities in three areas in support of increased Federal focus on cybersecurity. This legislation: Continues support of basic research at the National Science Foundation (NSF); Expands NSF scholarships to increase the size and skills of the cybersecurity workforce; and Increases R&D, standards development and coordination, and public outreach at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) related to cybersecurity. I also appreciate that this bill is not too overly burdensome and shies away from an overly regulatory approach. H.R. 4061 is a good first step as the 111th Congress addresses cybersecurity and I look forward to continuing this dialogue. I ask my colleagues to join me in support of H.R. 4061.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. I thank the gentleman. I hope he remains. There may be other things we may want to discuss about this. But before we get back to him, I'd like to recognize the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Conaway) who is a very outspoken Member of Congress on this issue of fiscally responsible budgets and that we balance the budget of our country. And I will yield to the gentleman from Texas, and shortly we will get to the gentleman from Florida who I know wants to say a few words and then needs to leave, but I hope the gentleman from Texas can also remain and we will continue this dialogue.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Well, I thank the gentleman for his comments. You know, Washington, D.C., has a spending addiction, and it has proven to be an addiction that the Congress cannot control without a balanced budget amendment requiring that it make the difficult decisions to balance it each and every year. We have gone in a few short years from a deficit of billions of dollars to a deficit of trillions of dollars and we're printing money at an unprecedented pace, which presents risks of inflation, the likes of which we have never seen. Our debt is mounting rapidly and so is the waste associated with paying the interest on that debt, yet Congress has so far refused to address these unsettling problems. This is not a partisan addiction. 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 the United States Constitution. Families across our country understand what it means to make tough decisions each day about what they can and cannot afford. According to a recent Zogby Interactive survey, approximately 70 percent of Americans said they have reduced spending on entertainment in the past year; 40 percent have limited or canceled vacation plans due to the economic environment; 40 percent have decreased spending on food or groceries; almost 10 percent have either changed their education plans or have chosen not to pursue education plans at all. Most troubling, 16 percent have foregone medical treatment or prescription drugs. These numbers show how sobering our economic recession is, but they also show something more. They demonstrate a basic principle that honest, hardworking American citizens understand: When your income drops, your spending must drop, one way or the other. Yet, far too frequently this fundamental principle has been lost on a Congress that is too busy spending to pay attention to the bottom line. If Americans must exercise restraint with their own funds, then government officials must be required to exercise an even higher standard when spending other people's hard-earned income. I urge my colleagues to support the balanced budget amendment to the United States Constitution, House Joint Resolution 1, and I yield back my time.

Mr. GOODLATTE. I thank the gentleman. And the gentleman raised a very interesting point about how we grow this economy and what this does to it, because he correctly points out that we are going to grow this economy in the private sector, people who will go out and take the risk of creating a new business or expanding the business they have and creating new jobs as a result of that by offering a product or a service that people want and are willing to pay for and can afford to pay for it. But if the government is out there borrowing $1.3 trillion, $1.5 trillion, $900 billion, and then $800 billion-plus every year thereafter as far as the eye can see, what is that going to do to the amount of capital that is available in the private sector? Especially if interest rates go up, and the government is absorbing so much of the credit that may be available around the country and other countries, and their growing economies are also competing for those same limited resources, we are going to find it very, very hard for free enterprise to survive if our government keeps spending more than it takes in and keeps growing in the enormous size. It is projected that if you continue this rate of spending, we are going to have government spending 28 percent of our gross domestic product. The Federal Government, not even counting State and local governments, historically, it has ranged between 18 and 20, 21 percent, which is pretty high, in my mind, and many others as well. But it is nothing compared to having that shoot up to 28 percent. That is a huge additional amount of spending, more than $1 trillion each and every year. And as you can see from this chart, almost all of it borrowed, borrowed against the future not only of our children and grandchildren but of the jobs that people hold today and the jobs that 15 million Americans who are out there looking for work hope to get if some employers will take the chance and can get the credit to allow them to start or expand their business. We have been joined by another Member. I want to point out the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert) are members of the House Judiciary Committee, as am I. This is the committee that has jurisdiction over all constitutional amendments, and it is the place where we are pushing the hardest to try to get the Democratic chairman of the committee to examine this legislation, just as it was not that many years ago and passed the House of Representatives on more than one occasion, and on one occasion came within one vote of passing the United States Senate. Think of what a different country we would have today if we had been living under balanced budgets for the last decade instead of what we have seen. I would now like to yield to my good friend, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert).

Mr. GOODLATTE. And I would add to that that it would be wonderful if this President of the United States, or any leader of our country, would step forward and say what we really need is the kind of discipline that requiring each and every year that we balance the budget would impose upon this Congress. Because we make tough decisions; but, most of the time, when the going gets really tough, they spend money on both. We talked about PAYGO. The gentleman from Florida mentioned that as well and pointed out that it is really meaningless. If you look at it, they imposed these new rules after the adoption of this new health care bill and the enormous cost of that and claimed that it is being paid for, but do so with smoke and mirrors by taxing for 10 years but only providing benefits for 6 years, and claiming they are going to cut $500 billion out of Medicare at a time when the number of people eligible for Medicare is going to skyrocket. Starting this year, 2010, those who turn 65 were born after World War II; and for the next 15 years, the number of people who are eligible for the Medicare program is going to increase dramatically. During that time, I think we are going to see a need to have significant reform of the Medicare program. But the money saved is going to have to be made available to have more people covered under the program, not to divert it to set up a whole new government spending scheme. We have been joined by the gentleman from Iowa, and I would like to yield to Mr. King for his comments about the balanced budget amendment.

Mr. GOODLATTE. If the gentleman would yield, I am curious what the gentleman thinks about the speculation the President tomorrow night will call for a spending freeze on discretionary spending. Obviously, we are pleased that he would want to stop the dramatic trajectory upward in spending that we have seen from this Congress in each of the last 3 years since they have been in the majority. But is that enough? Is that going to solve this problem if we lock in at these higher spending rates that we are experiencing right now?

Mr. GOODLATTE. I agree with the gentleman entirely. We are at great risk. And let's start with the stimulus. The group speaking just before us were touting the great benefits of this economic stimulus package. We've already seen that during the time that we have been in the process of spending this nearly $1 trillion, all of which, by the way, is borrowed against our children and grandchildren's future, every penny of it is added to the national debt, but before we mention that we've lost 2.74 million jobs since the stimulus program began, the stimulus is founded on an economic theory, and that is called Keynesian economic theory. This says that if there is an economic downturn, the government will borrow money and use that money to spend on various projects and programs to employ people, and they will then generate economic activity. They will spend the money they earn with other people. That will cause people to manufacture goods in response to that demand, and the economy will start growing. And this is the last part. This is the part that is always left out when they talk about the economic stimulus package in Keynesian economic theory. The last part of Keynes' theory was that when that economic activity took place, and the result was a growing economy, and there would be increased revenues coming into the Federal Government, that they would use those revenues to pay back the money they borrowed to get the process going. And every time there is one of these so-called economic stimulus programs, do they pay the money back at the end? No. And it's very clear that there's no such intention here when you have $800 billion- plus deficits as far as the eye can see, to say nothing of the unfunded liability, the promises that the gentleman from Texas referred to, that is even far, far greater than what we are seeing here on this chart. And so, that is what really puts the lie to the idea that this stimulus is going to have any long-term good effect. The first concern I have is that at some point in time the amount of money we've borrowed, when the economy does start to grow, not just in this country but elsewhere in the world, and in some economies, they are already growing, and, in fact, they are growing at a pretty healthy pace in countries like China and Brazil. They're going to have increased demand to borrow money. And our government is going to have increased demand to borrow money. And that means that at some point, not right now because people are saving money at a higher rate than they ever had, and interest rates are very low, and banks are afraid to lend that money to a lot of people, therefore there is a lot of money in the bank that is not being lent. And therefore interest rates are low. But in the not too distant future, whether it's 1 or 2 years, we are going to see demand for that money rise. And then the point made by the gentleman from Florida, that you will have $14 trillion, $18 trillion $20 trillion accumulated debt and interest rates go up to 5, 6, 7, 8 percent. I can remember back during the Carter administration in the late 1970s when the prime interest rate got over 20 percent. If we face those kind of interest rates with this amount of debt, the burden on our government is going to be staggering, and therefore the burden on our economy and our people. And it's going to result in very near-term staggering problems in terms of high interest rates, perhaps hyperinflation related to the very weak dollar compared to other currencies around the world. And then we are going to have what it seems like we are already getting into right now, and that is some evidence of some growth in our economy, but continuing to lose jobs. And then, behind that, you have inflation set in. You're going to have the stagflation that people remember from the 1970s and early 1980s. This is not a prescription for the future of our children and grandchildren. This is a prescription for an economy that will go downhill and have a very, very different future for this country and the people of this country. And it's not too distant when that kind of impact could take place. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. GOODLATTE. I thank the gentleman. And I yield to the gentleman from Colorado.

Mr. GOODLATTE. I thank the gentleman for his comments. I'd like to talk a little bit about what those economic consequences are, not just for our children and grandchildren, which should be our greatest concern, but not too far down. And in a moment I will turn to the gentlemen from Texas and Colorado and ask them, to get the benefit of their thoughts about what the consequences are of these deficits running as far as the eye can see if we don't pass a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution and start living within our means like every family, every business, large and small, every local government, and yes, even every State government, some of which are not managed very well. But they have to come to terms with the consequences of their actions a lot more quickly than the Federal Government ever has because of the fact they don't have this requirement to balance the budget, and every year they kick the can down the road. They say, We can have it all, and we'll just borrow more money to pay for it. Well, I've asked high school students when they have come to see me or when I've had an opportunity to speak to them in their classes, I said, Who do you think is going to bear the burden of this debt that we're piling up? And they know the answer to that. They know that it's falling on their shoulders, but they don't have an appreciation of how serious it is, how large a debt it is and how dramatically it can affect the future of our country in the long term and also in the not- too-distant future as well. So I said, let me give you a starting point to think about that. I said, how much is $1 trillion? The economic stimulus package, $1 trillion, cha ching. The budget deficit, the $3.6 trillion spending at the beginning of the year--they projected $2.4 trillion in revenue, $1.2 trillion deficit. We now know that we are several months into that year, and lo and behold, it's even greater than $1.2 trillion. Over $1 trillion, the health care bill, the monstrosity that brought people out to the polls in Massachusetts last week, $1.1 trillion, according to the Speaker's budget projections; in the Senate, $800 billion. But we all know that when you have a bill that has 10 years worth of taxes to pay for it and only 6 years worth of benefits that you are using smoke and mirrors and it costs way more than $800 billion over a full 10 years of benefits. Most economists say it will be over $2 trillion over 10 years to pay for either the House or the Senate health care reform bill. So how much is $1 trillion? I said, let me give you a starting point. If you had a stack of $1,000 bills, nice, freshly printed, tightly packed $1,000 bills, just 4 inches high, you would have $1 million. These students were pretty impressed with that. Most of them had never seen a $1,000 bill, and to think that just 4 inches would be $1 million. I said, how high would that stack of $1,000 bills, not $1 bills, $1,000 bills, have to be to reach $1 trillion? Well, one young lady said, would it be about 12 inches? And a fellow in the back of the room raised his hand. He laughed. He said, oh, no. It would be a lot more than that. It would be about 20 feet. I said, well, think about it this way. One billion is 1,000 times 1 million. And 1 trillion is 1,000 times 1 billion, or 1 million times 1 million. And so that stack of $1,000 bills that is 4 inches high, to be $1 million, would have to be 4 million inches high to be $1 trillion. Four million inches is 63 miles high. It reaches up into outer space. And that's just $1 trillion. That's just for the stimulus, or just for the deficit for the coming year, or double that for the new health care bill that they want to add in terms of overall spending that will cost either the taxpayers of this country or borrowed against the future of our country. When you're talking about trillions of dollars, you're talking about a staggering amount of money. Back in the 1960s, there was a very famous Senator who was widely quoted as having said, $1 billion here, $1 billion there, pretty soon you're talking about real money. But do you know what? That is not what he said. Everett Dirksen, the Senator who said that, actually said, $1 million here, $1 million there, pretty soon you're talking about real money. And that was just 45 years ago that he said that. And we've moved from millions to billions to trillions because this Congress doesn't have the fiscal responsibility that would be required by a balanced budget. There are consequences, serious consequences for every American family and every job holder in this country. And that's why I want to turn to the gentleman from Texas and the gentleman from Colorado to get their perspective on just what happens if we don't get this problem under control.

Mr. GOODLATTE. I thank the gentleman for his comments about House Joint Resolution Number 1. It is, by the way, the same balanced budget amendment that passed the House as a part of the Contract with America, missed by one vote in the Senate. Same language entirely. And it has over 170 cosponsors in the House right now, including many Democrats. It's bipartisan, and it needs to be bipartisan to get that two-thirds majority of the House to vote for it and pass it and be able to send it on to the Senate. I would now like to recognize the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Buchanan) who has also been a leader on this issue and has, in fact, introduced a balanced budget amendment on his own. And we are proud to work together in promoting fiscal responsibility here in the Congress.