Bob Goodlatte

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. If the gentleman will yield, that is very similar to the fact over the weekend three different representatives of the administration got on television and claimed that the stimulus--which we've seen has not resulted in job creation but, rather, 2\3/4\ million jobs lost--claimed, well, there would have been more jobs lost had we not had the stimulus, but they can come nowhere near agreeing with each other on what those jobs saved are. I think the only really accurate figure is what is reported by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, which points out that we've lost 2.7 million jobs.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. 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. Unfortunately, it increasingly appears this Congress has chosen the latter path of profuse spending and the servitude to Big Government that results therefrom. For the next 60 minutes, I and my colleagues are going to talk about the problem our country faces from a very different perspective than you have heard during the last 60 minutes. I want to start by pointing out the nature of this problem in terms of government spending. This chart shows the deficit each year, starting in 2000. In 2000 and 2001 under a Republican Congress and first a Democratic President and a Republican President we had a balanced budget and therefore we generated surpluses and, in fact, the two previous years before that we generated a total of $500 billion in surpluses that were paid down against the national debt. Then came the recession and September 11, 2001, and spending increases. Many have, I think fairly, criticized the previous President and Congress for spending too much money during this period of time when deficits rose as high as $400 billion. In fact, this deficit in 2004 was the highest deficit in American history until we got to the very end of the Republican majority, when it went to $450 billion. Staggering sums of money; too much money spent. But look what happened when the Democrats took the majority in the Congress in 2007. It skyrocketed to deficits that last year and this year are over $1 trillion: last year, $1.4 trillion; this year projected to be close to $1.5 trillion. To give you an idea how much money we're talking about, this year's budget is projected to spend about $3.6 trillion with revenues coming in of $2.2 trillion. So we're going to spend 50 percent more than we take in in revenues. And what are we going to do? We're going to borrow every penny of that money against our children and grandchildren's future. Now, if this were going to resolve the problem, and some have argued on the other side of the aisle that the so-called stimulus, which contributed almost all of this deficit in this Congress, if they were going to argue that that was going to solve the problem and we would get back to balanced budgets and we wouldn't be borrowing against our children and grandchildren's future for as far as the eye could see, I would listen to their argument. I still wouldn't agree with them. But their own budget belies what they claim about what they're doing with this so-called economic stimulus package because this is the projected budget for each year until 2019. For the next 9 years, it never goes below $700 billion and is around $800 billion, ending at close to 900, over $900 billion in 2019. Never does it go down, never does it even approach these numbers, which I and my colleagues who will speak with you tonight, all agree were excessive. But they're nothing compared to what is being done right now, since the Democratic Party became the majority party in this Congress, and Speaker Pelosi has pushed these budget deficits that are absolutely staggering. What does it mean? It means that in 1990, the total national debt, the accumulation of those deficits was $2.86 trillion. And in 2007, when the Democratic majority took over, it was $8.45 trillion. In just two more years, it's now $12.18 trillion, rising by the end of the term of our current President, 6 years into the Democrats' control of the Congress, to $16.36 trillion, nearly doubling, and then continuing at that upward arc even more dramatically after that. This is the public debt outlook. This is the projection that says what the outlook was first in January of 2009 and then, after the stimulus had taken effect, after they had begun spending nearly $1 trillion that was allegedly going to stimulate the economy and create jobs for the American people, they came back and revisited it in August. And while they were projecting this gradual but still very serious increase, it skyrocketed instead. Why? Because they have done nothing to control spending. They have done exactly the opposite. So now the President is going to come to the Congress tomorrow night and, as the President of the United States, we are all anxious to hear what he has to say about what we should be doing to address the problems of our country. And we are told by those who are in the know that the President will call for a spending freeze for 3 years. But what is he doing with the spending freeze but locking in those higher spending increases that have been passed through all the appropriations bills this year, some with 12, 14, 16 percent increases over the previous year, locking in those higher levels of spending when we all know that what really has to take place is to cut government spending. What has been the effect of the President's efforts? Well, this is a chart showing job losses since the stimulus took effect in March of last year: 2.74 million more jobs have been lost in this country over the ensuing 10 months, notwithstanding the claim that this would create jobs and would halt the unemployment rate at 8 percent. Instead, it is now over 10 percent, and we've lost 2.74 million more jobs. Well, what is the solution to this? A big part of it is something that 49 out of our 50 State governments have got to do, and the Congress should be required to do as well, and that is to balance the budget each year except in times of war or national emergency. In the last 40 years, those 4 years, in the late 1990s and into the early 2000s were the only 4 years in which the Federal Government balanced its budget. The other 36 years they ran a deficit. And you can see how that deficit is adding and mounting each year now, adding to that national debt. It should be the reverse. In the last 40 years there have been economic crises like the one that we are in now, and there have been times of war when we might not balance that budget. But instead of four times out of 40 balancing it, it should be four times out of 40 not balancing the budget. And that is why we need a balanced budget amendment in the United States Constitution; 49 out of 50 States have it. This Congress came very close to passing it as a part of the Contract with America in 1995. It passed the House of Representatives with a strong bipartisan majority, and was sent over to the United States Senate, and it failed in the Senate by one vote to get the two-thirds majority. It requires a two-thirds majority in the House, a two-thirds majority in the Senate, and then three-quarters of our State legislatures to ratify it. Well, we got all but one vote that we needed in the Senate. Had that vote been provided to give us two-thirds, it would have been sent to the States. The President does not have any say in an amendment to the Constitution. So it would have been sent directly to the States. And I believe by now three-quarters of those States long ago would have ratified that balanced budget amendment, and we would be in a much different situation in this country today if we had done that. Well, the American people have never abandoned this idea, even though the Democratic Congress long ago abandoned this idea, and that's unfortunate. But the American people, poll after poll shows that 75, 80 percent or more of the American people believe that the Federal Government should be required to balance its budget each and every year, except in times of war or economic emergency. And this would require a supermajority vote of the Congress to declare that they would not balance the budget in any particular year. How popular is this? Well, here's what our current majority leader had to say about a balanced budget when we had that debate in 1995: the issue of balancing the budget is not a conservative or a liberal one, nor is it an easy one, but it is an essential one for us in this House, for the American people, and, most assuredly, for future generations. Representative Steny Hoyer, a member of the minority in 1995, voted for a balanced budget amendment; but we have not heard about a balanced budget amendment from this majority in this Congress at all. And we're here tonight to urge the Congress to bring up the balanced budget amendment that I introduced on the first day of this Congress, House Joint Resolution 1, a balanced budget amendment to the United States Constitution. And we will keep pushing for this until we have leadership in this Congress that will bring this bill to the floor for a vote so we can send it to the Senate again and challenge them again to provide those two-thirds votes needed and then send it to the States for ratification. It is never too late for the Congress to do the responsible thing. But we have dug a much, much deeper hole as a result of the irresponsible budgets that have been passed by this Democratic majority in each of the last three Congresses and projected, as I pointed out, projected for the next decade, huge deficits as far as the eye can see, far greater than anything we have seen previously in the history of our country. I'm joined by several of our colleagues, and I want to recognize the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Coffman), who has been a real leader on this issue and has been working to organize support in the Congress for the balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. I'm pleased to yield to the gentleman.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Speaker, I am delighted today to recognize two organizations in Virginia's Sixth District and a major international organization for a cooperative effort that is protecting our most innocent citizens--our children. Founded in Bedford County, Virginia Operation Blue Ridge Thunder has been led from its inception by Sheriff Mike Brown. It is recognized around the United States and internationally as an Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force. In 1998, Sheriff Brown started the Safe Surfin' Foundation to focus on Internet safety training for boys and girls through schools, law enforcement agencies, and civic groups. From day one, I have watched and supported their efforts closely. Today, I wish to extend thanks to Moose International for stepping forward through the Moose Lodge in Bedford to offer assistance in the ongoing battle to protect young people as they use the Internet. Moose International went to its 1.3 million members and explained the need to support the special work of Sheriff Brown and his dedicated assistants. As a result, Moose International has generously donated $150,000 to enable the Safe Surfin' Foundation to continue its outreach. In addition, Moose International has joined in a Safe Surfin' ``train the trainers'' program. This assistance is permitting even more children and their parents to learn the benefits of Internet safety. I highly commend Moose International for recognizing the benefits of the Safe Surfin' Foundation. Their generosity will permit the battle to continue nationwide against those who would prey on our children through the use of technology.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by offering the congratulations of myself and many others to Senator-elect Scott Brown of Massachusetts who had a very exciting victory yesterday. And I know that he will be a good Senator for the people of that State, but his victory means so much more to so many more people, not only the people of Massachusetts who are very excited today, but also people all across the country because they viewed the election of Senator Brown as an opportunity to send a message to this government, to this Congress, and to say to the Speaker of the House and the majority leader in the Senate and others that we need to take a different approach to health care reform and to the general direction of our Federal Government with regard to the out-of-control spending that we are experiencing here in Washington: last year's Federal deficit of $1.4 trillion and another $1.2 trillion projected for this year; in fact, for each year as far as the eye can see, deficits exceeding $600 billion a year as far out as we project them, 10 years from now. At no time does this Congress offer a budget to the American people that would give them hope that we are going to get this problem under control. Instead, they have offered health care legislation that costs another, oh, some would say $800 billion. But the reality is that over 10 years the real cost of this legislation is more like $2 trillion- plus when you add in the fact that the taxes begin on this legislation sooner than the benefits begin. And cuts in Medicare are unreal at a time when we are going to see a dramatic increase in the number of people in this country who are eligible for Medicare, as the baby boomers start retiring this year, 2010, those born after World War II start retiring this year, and the number of people who are on Medicare and eligible for Medicare is going to skyrocket. With all of this going on, the message to this Congress, to the Democratic leadership in this Congress is you need to change course, change direction, and make sure that you are reflecting the will of the American people. But instead, the leadership doesn't get that message. Even today, as Senator-elect Brown prepares to come down here to be sworn into the United States Senate sometime in the next few days, the White House and Democratic Congressional leaders have once again retreated behind closed doors to make deals and finalize a single version of their government takeover of health care. That is not what the American people want. Speaker Pelosi said today, in response to the election results, ``Clearly the election results last night spell out that we have not been as clear about our deficit reduction measures. And that will change.'' But the American people want to know what deficit reduction measures is she talking about when she continues, along with the other Democratic leaders here in the House and in the Senate and at the White House, to plot the expenditure of $2 trillion or more in additional expenditures over the next 10 years for a health care bill that robs Medicare recipients, that increases taxes, and will cost American jobs, that will do a whole host of things to regulate Americans' lives and how they will receive their health insurance, including mandating that they have to purchase health insurance whether or not they feel they want to, and telling them pretty much what that insurance is that they are going to have to purchase because of the fact that this health insurance will be regulated by a Federal Government health insurance commissioner, one of the more than 140 new Federal Government agencies and programs included under consideration in the bill that they are planning to try to move forward. That is simply not what the American people are looking for. They want responsible leadership. They want a bipartisan effort to deal with this challenge of rising costs of health insurance and health care. And they want bipartisan, responsible leadership in looking to ways to make health insurance and health care available to more people. The legislation they are considering doesn't do that. Instead, it busts the budget of our country. Yesterday's election results in Massachusetts calls for a new direction in health care and in that debate. Many believe the election of Senator Scott Brown lessens the likelihood of passage of the current proposal that has been crafted by Democratic leadership. If this is indeed the case, Democrats and Republicans must work together toward health care reform that reduces costs and expands insurance coverage without reducing costs or adding to the national debt, rationing care, or putting the Federal Government between the patient and their doctor. One such bill to consider is H.R. 3970, the Medical Rights and Reform Act, of which I am a cosponsor. The Medical Rights and Reform Act includes fiscally responsible health care reforms like medical liability reform, small business insurance pooling, and letting families and businesses buy insurance across state lines. These are ideas at that have strong bipartisan support, but have been absent from the bicameral health care negotiations. Most important, the Medical Rights and Reform Act is fiscally responsible. This alternative does not raise taxes, cut Medicare, or add to the deficit. And it lowers health care costs. This Congress already gave us a $1.8 trillion debt. America cannot afford to spend another trillion dollars or $2 trillion as proposed by the majority, and our families cannot afford to put life and death decisions in the hands of bureaucrats. Mr. Speaker, resetting the health care debate and working together in an open and transparent way would help Washington regain the public's trust.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, in the news since Christmas Day has been great concern about the security of our country related to individuals entering this country and attempting to perpetrate harm on our citizens. It harkens back to September 11, 2001, and all the measures that we have taken since then to try to make our Nation a safer place. One of the areas where we could make it much safer and much fairer for all of our citizens and for those who seek to come to the United States would be to eliminate the visa lottery program. This is a program that awards legal permanent residence status, or ``green cards,'' to foreign nationals based on pure luck. Literally, the State Department conducts a random lottery. Millions of people submit their names on very short forms, about a half-page long, and then they randomly select out of those millions of people 50,000 winners each year who get to enter the United States through the visa lottery program. They don't have to have any family ties to the United States. They don't have to have any job skills that are in need in the United States. They simply, through pure luck, get to enter this country. Usually, immigrant visas are issued to foreign nationals that have existing connections with family members lawfully residing in the United States or with U.S. employers. However, under the visa lottery program, visas are awarded to immigrants at random without meeting such criteria. A perfect example of the system gone awry is the case of Hesham Mohamed Ali Hedayet, the Egyptian national who killed two and wounded three during a shooting spree at Los Angeles International Airport in July 2002. He was allowed to apply for a legal permanent residence status in 1997 because of his wife's status as a visa lottery winner. In fact, since this program was established in the early 1990s, nearly 1 million people have come into the United States regardless of the need for them to enter this country, regardless of the unemployment rate, which today stands above 10 percent. And with 15 million Americans looking for work, we give 50,000 visas to people to enter the country not based upon any family ties, not based upon any job skills, simply based upon pure luck. The State Department's Inspector General testified before Congress recently that it continues to believe that the program ``contains significant risks to national security from hostile intelligence officers, criminals, and terrorists attempting to use the program for entry into the United States as permanent residents.'' With the tool of ``legal permanent resident'' status in hand, terrorists and spies would have free rein to travel and meet and plan terrorist activities within the borders of the United States. Even if technical improvements were made to the visa lottery program, nothing would prevent terrorist organizations or foreign intelligence agencies from having members apply for the program who do not have criminal backgrounds, maybe have recently left one of the madrassas in the Middle East and have no record of having been affiliated with a terrorist organization, but that organization could assist them in submitting their names. And if they get a visa if their name is drawn, they don't just get a temporary visa like the 9/11 hijackers or the fellow who just attempted to blow up a Northwest airliner; rather, they get permanent residence status or a green card to live permanently in the United States. Thirteen of the 14 countries over which the TSA is exercising greater scrutiny in the wake of the attempted Christmas Day bombing plot are eligible to participate in the visa lottery, including Yemen, which has become the focus of much activity on the part of terrorist organizations. The visa lottery program is wrought with fraud. It is common for foreign nationals to apply for the lottery program multiple times using many different aliases. The State Department's Office of Inspector General declared in its September 2003 report that the visa lottery program is ``subject to widespread abuse'' and that ``identity fraud is endemic, and fraudulent documents are commonplace.'' A 2007 Government Accountability Office report found that the visa lottery program is vulnerable to fraudulent activity committed by and against applicants. The same 2007 report found that consular officers at six posts out of 11 reviewed reported that widespread use of fake documents, such as birth certificates, marriage certificates, and passports, presented challenges when verifying the identities of applicants and dependents. The visa lottery program is unfair to immigrants who comply with United States immigration laws. Most family-sponsored immigrants currently face a wait of years to obtains visas, yet the lottery program pushes 50,000 random immigrants with no particular family ties, job skills, or education ahead of these family- and employer-sponsored immigrants each year with no wait. Mr. Speaker, this legislation should be overturned. I have introduced legislation to do just that. This Congress should bring it up for a vote. There is a bipartisan effort to eliminate the visa lottery program. Forty-five bipartisan Members of Congress have already cosponsored this legislation, and it has twice passed the House: once under a Democrat majority in the 110th Congress as an amendment to the FY 2008 State/ Foreign Operations Appropriations bill on the House floor and once in the 109th Congress as an amendment to H.R. 4437. Democrat leadership this Congress blocked the same amendment from coming to the floor for a vote during the consideration of the FY 2010 State/Foreign Operations Appropriations bill. The Democrat-controlled House has not held a single hearing on the dangers posed by the visa lottery program during the 110th or 111th Congresses.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith), the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. GOODLATTE. I yield myself an additional 30 seconds. Madam Chair, there is no reason to allow mortgage cramdown, with its attendant high cost, considering it will produce only modest results at best. If we pass this amendment, what message does it send to the 90 percent of homeowners who are making their payments on time? How can we ask them to foot the bill for their neighbors' mortgages? What do homeowners think when they pay back the full amount of the principal they owe while others receive a government reduction in principal? We do need to do everything we can to help solve the foreclosure crisis, but we must avoid measures like cramdown, which punishes the successful, taxes the responsible, and holds no one accountable. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GOODLATTE. I rise to claim time in opposition.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Chair, I recognize myself for 2 minutes. First, I will say that the gentleman from Georgia may assert that this will benefit creditors, but I know a few creditors who extend home mortgage loans who favor this legislation. Our country has fallen into a serious economic recession, a recession that has been worsened by the foreclosure crisis. Until we address the rising number of foreclosures, it will be difficult for the economy to recover. Unfortunately, this bankruptcy amendment, which I don't think belongs in this legislation to begin with, not only fails to solve the foreclosure crisis, but it also will make the crisis deeper, longer, and wider. Allowing bankruptcy courts to modify home mortgages will have adverse consequences for all while providing little real relief to distressed borrowers. Bankruptcy cramdowns will invariably lead to higher interest rates and to less generous borrowing terms for future borrowers. The gentleman may claim that it won't affect future borrowers, but the fact of the matter is, if this can be done now for this purpose, the advocates of this legislation will likely, in the future, see this made a permanent provision in our bankruptcy laws. It will have the effect of causing interest rates to go up and of causing credit to be less available. Unemployment has been a driving factor behind most foreclosures, but because individuals without regular incomes may not file for bankruptcy under chapter 13, cramdown will do nothing for those most in need of relief--the unemployed. Additionally, many borrowers walk away from their homes, not because they can't afford their monthly payments, but because their homes are mortgaged for more than they are worth. These borrowers should live with the responsibility of their decisions and not receive bailouts from bankruptcy courts. Furthermore, we must not forget that cramdown will not only impact lenders but investors as well. These investors often include pension funds, which represent the retirement savings of millions. We should not pass the cost of irresponsible borrowing and lending off on current and future retirees.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Chair, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren), a member of the committee.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Speaker, private ownership of property is vital to our freedom and our prosperity, and is one of the most fundamental principles embedded in our Constitution. The Founders realized the importance of property rights when they codified the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution, which requires that private property shall not be taken ``for public use, without just compensation.'' This clause created two conditions to the government taking private property: That the subsequent use of the property is for the public and that the government gives the property owners just compensation. However, the Supreme Court's recent 5-4 decision in Kelo v. City of New London is a step in the opposite direction. This controversial ruling expands the ability of State and local governments to exercise eminent domain powers to seize property under the guise of ``economic development'' when the ``public use'' is as incidental as generating tax revenues or creating jobs, even in situations where the government takes property from one private individual and gives it to another private entity. By defining ``public use'' so expansively, the Court essentially erased any protection for private property as understood by the Founders of our Nation. In the wake of this decision, State and local governments can use eminent domain powers to take the property of any individual for nearly any reason. Cities may now bulldoze private citizens' homes, farms, and small businesses to make way for shopping malls or other developments. I completely agree with Justice O'Connor who, in her dissent in the Kelo case, wrote: ``Today the Court abandons this long-held, basic limitation on government power. Under the banner of economic development, all private property is now vulnerable to being taken and transferred to another private owner, so long as it might be upgraded. To reason, as the Court does, that the incidental public benefits resulting from the subsequent ordinary use of private property render economic development takings ``for public use'' is to wash out any distinction between private and public use of property--and thereby effectively to delete the words ``for public use'' from the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment.'' For these reasons, I have introduced legislation with Representative Stephanie Herseth Sandlin to ban all Federal economic development money for a period of two years for any State or local government that uses eminent domain for private economic development purposes. The STOPP act also prohibits funding to a State or local government that fails to provide relocation assistance to a person displaced from property by any use of eminent domain for an economic development purpose. Relocation assistance must meet the level and be of the same manner as that required under the Uniform Relocation and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970. The STOPP act also provides landowners with a right to enforce the prohibition of funds under this act. No one should have to live in fear of the government snatching up their home, farm, or business, and the Private Property Rights Protection Act will help to create the incentives to ensure that these abuses do not occur in the future.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 3961. Under current law, Medicare physician reimbursement rates are expected to be cut by 21 percent next year and by roughly 5 percent for each of the next several years thereafter, according to the 2009 Medicare Trustees Report. While we can all agree that our current physician reimbursement rate is flawed, Republicans and Democrats have many different ideas about how to fix it. Since 2003, Congress has offset the cost of averting physician payment cuts. Unfortunately, today's legislation's further exacerbates the Democratic majority's infatuation with deficit spending. According to CBO, the full cost of H.R. 3961 is $260 billion, $210 billion of which is deficit spending by the federal government. Furthermore $50 billion will be paid for by Medicare beneficiaries in the form of higher Part B premiums. The Democrats' health care takeover already costs over $1 trillion. In order to hide the additional costs of that bill, the Democrats separated this physician reimbursement rate legislation from the larger health care bill. It is clear that this procedural move is simply a budget gimmick by Democrats to avoid including the full cost of this Medicare physician fix in their health care reform bill. This trickery is insulting to Americans who are tired of politics as usual and who are demanding straight answers about our nation's deteriorating fiscal situation. This legislation also breaks President Obama's promise that health care reform would not cost more than $900 billion. Taking CBO's 10-year score of the health care overhaul, $1.055 trillion, and adding the cost of this physician reimbursement fix, the total cost of the Democrats' health care reform would be at least $1.3 trillion. Mr. Speaker, I cannot support the deficit spending in this legislation. As I stated previously, according to the Congressional Budget Office, CBO, this bill would increase the Federal deficit by more than $210 billion with this one bill alone. The American people know that we can't borrow and spend our way back to prosperity. The path to our economic recovery starts with fiscal responsibility in Washington. The Federal Government must follow the example set by our Nation's families. Unfortunately, Democrats continue to ignore this reality. We have accumulated a 2009 deficit of $1.42 trillion and a national debt of over $12 trillion and Democrats seem determined to dig us deeper into this debt hole. While my colleagues on the other side of the aisle may have concocted a scheme to enable this bill to pass today, I hope they realize that the Senate has already rejected a bill substantially similar to this one, almost identical in cost, because of its crippling deficit impact. In fact, 13 Democrat Senators opposed it. Mr. Speaker, the Rules Committee is a very powerful committee--one that determines under what rules every bill will be brought to the House floor. In yet another strong-armed tactic, the majority has used yet another rule to limit discussion and amendments offered by Republicans. Instead of having an honest debate, the Democratic majority has decided they didn't like the discussion, so they have effectively decided to stifle alternative ideas and debate. This doesn't seem very democratic to me. House Republicans have a better alternative. Our proposal, which was not given the light of day, much less a vote, would provide: $54 billion in savings from medical liability reform that would enact caps on noneconomic damages and lawyers' fees, encouraging speedy resolutions of claims, and limit punitive damages. This will reduce defensive medicine, protect doctors from frivolous lawsuits, and bring down the cost of health care; $5.7 billion in savings from the creation of a pathway for approval at the Food and Drug Administration for bio- similar products, with appropriate protections that continue to promote innovation while providing access to affordable drugs; and $19 billion in savings through enacting health insurance administrative simplification policies such as the creation of standardized forms and transactions. Mr. Speaker, there is a fiscally responsible way to solve this physician reimbursement problem. I urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 3961.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, what's in this 2,000-page monstrosity that's costing the taxpayers over $1 trillion in costs? Well, we're going to see tax increases of $800 billion, and $500 billion in cuts from Medicare. Well, take a look on page 94. Section 202(c) prohibits the sale of private health insurance policies beginning in 2013, forcing individuals to purchase coverage through the Federal Government. On page 225, however, section 330 permits, but does not require, Members of Congress to enroll in government-run health care. Page 122, section 233(a)(3) requires the commissioner, a new health insurance czar, to issue guidance on best practices of plain language writing. This from the same people who wrote this 2,000-page health care bill. Page 183, section 305(a) gives the commissioner the power to enlist appropriate entities, like Planned Parenthood and ACORN, to engage in outreach to specific vulnerable populations about the bill's new programs. Oppose this bill.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this unfair rule and the underlying bill, and in support of the Republican substitute. This bill is a tragedy, and to be taking it up a day after the unemployment figures were released that showed 10.2 percent, 15.5 million Americans out of work, the highest number in American history, and when you add in those who are underemployed, one out of every six Americans is looking for more work. That means that the average American can look out from their home, their neighbor to their left, their neighbor to their right, and in their own home, and they will see at least one person who is looking for more work or who is completely unemployed. And the same day a report came out showing that this legislation will cost up to 5.5 million more jobs. It is an outrage. That is why this legislation should be opposed. Don't let this 2,000-page, 400,000-word, job-killing, tax-increasing, bureaucratic legislation fall on your job.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, yesterday, I had the opportunity to speak about the Democratic plan that will encompass 2,000-plus pages, 400,000 words, more than $1.3 trillion in costs, over $800 billion in tax increases, and the likelihood that it will kill more than 5 million jobs. Today, I would like to talk about the Republican alternative that will be offered when this legislation comes up for a vote, and I would like to contrast it with what we are talking about. The Republican alternative lowers health care premiums. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the alternative would reduce health insurance premiums by up to 10 percent for employees who get coverage through small businesses with 50 or fewer employees. According to the CBO estimates, all told, under the GOP plan, premiums for millions of families would be nearly $5,000 lower than Speaker Pelosi's cheapest insurance plan. It guarantees affordable coverage for patients with preexisting conditions. The Republican alternative makes it illegal for an insurance company to deny coverage to someone with prior coverage on the basis of a preexisting condition. So, if you lose your health insurance because you lose your job, because you move or get divorced or just want to change plans, you are protected. It protects seniors' Medicare benefits. Under the plan offered by Speaker Pelosi, there are more than $500 billion in cuts in the Medicare program at a time when baby boomers--those born after World War II--are starting to retire. We're going to need to have reforms of the Medicare program to achieve savings, but those savings are going to have to be plowed back into the Medicare program to pay for the millions of Americans who are going to become eligible for that program. The Republican alternative has no tax increases, none, nada, zip, period, no tax increases compared to more than $800 billion in tax increases primarily focused on small businesses. In fact, the Republican alternative encourages small businesses to offer health care coverage without taxing job creation. Unlike Speaker Pelosi's bill, which punishes small businesses with onerous mandates and exorbitant taxes that the CBO says will be passed on to the employees in the form of lower wages, the Republican alternative plan gives small businesses the power to pool together and offer health care at lower prices just as corporations and labor unions do. It enacts real medical liability reform to cut down on the amount of defensive medicine, and the Congressional Budget Office says it will save the Medicare and Medicaid programs $54 billion alone, much less additional savings that will come to private insurance companies and hospitals and doctors in terms of the reduction in defensive medicine that will be practiced. It prohibits abortion funding, a serious problem in the Democratic alternative that has caused a great deal of turmoil on their side of the aisle. There's no entitlement expansions, forcing Americans on to a government-run plan, and it reduces the deficit. According to the CBO, the Republican alternative reduces the deficit by $68 billion over the next 10 years and continues to reduce the deficit in the second budget window. Compare this to the plan offered by Speaker Pelosi, which will raise premiums on health insurance for individuals. It will reduce health care choices. It will cause delays and denials of care. It will take $500 billion in Medicare cuts and $729.5 billion in new taxes. Now, this new bill that has been offered by the Democrats is 2,000 pages long. You may recall that the last bill offered by them was only a thousand pages long and had 53 new government agencies and programs. In fact, many may be familiar with this diagram that shows what additional new programs were created under the 1,000 page bill. You might think this is pretty confusing and would cause a lot of difficulty for a lot of people. Well, guess what? With a 2,000-page bill they added another more than 90 new programs and agencies to the 53 that are on the original chart. Here is the original chart. This is all of the bureaucracy and confusion and cost that has been added in this new bill. If anyone on either side of the aisle has any doubt about whether the simple proposals offered by the Republican alternative have broad-based public support, most of these proposals, 60, 70, 80 percent of the American people support. Certainly they do not support this kind of bureaucracy. Certainly they do not support the kinds of tax increases that could cost as many as 5.5 million jobs, according to one projection out today. And they certainly do not support this kind of government takeover of our American health care system.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the health care reform bill offered by Speaker Pelosi and the Democratic leadership, which we anticipate will be voted on possibly before the end of this week, and in support of the commonsense, practical alternative offered by Congressman John Boehner, the Republican leader in the House. Madam Speaker, this legislation offered by Speaker Pelosi is over 2,000 pages long and contains about 400,000 words. To give you an idea of the magnitude of this government takeover of the health care system in the United States, this legislation uses the word ``shall'' 3,425 times. When you see the word ``shall'' in legislation, you should read a mandate, a requirement, that the government is requiring somebody to do something to comply with what people here in Washington know best, not in terms of what people know is best for themselves. This legislation contains that word 3,425 times. It is truly a remarkable, complex government takeover. In the original bill offered earlier this year, which was 1,000 pages long, there was the creation of 53 new Federal Government agencies and programs. In the new improved revised version, there are now 111 Federal Government agencies and programs contained in this legislation, which will cost the American taxpayers and our senior citizens more than $1.1 trillion. That is the official government estimate. There are many health care experts who say that the implementation of this legislation will cost far, far more. As an example, many have pointed to the projected cost of Medicare when it was enacted in 1965. It was projected that it would cost $10 billion to $12 billion 25 years later; but by the end of the 1980s, Medicare was actually costing the American taxpayers more than $100 billion. In fact, today it costs more than $400 billion per year; and the Speaker's proposal says, well, let's take out of that $400 billion per year. Let's take about $40 billion a year, or 10 percent of that, and divert it to other new government programs. Well, Madam Speaker, the problem with that is that the Medicare program today is faced with enormous challenges. The projected unfunded liability for Medicare over the lifetime of the average American today is more than $17 trillion, here at a time when starting next year senior citizens will increase in their numbers dramatically because the baby boomers, those born in the years after World War II and up until the early 1960s, will be retiring, will be reaching eligibility age for Medicare, and year after year after year the number of Medicare- eligible senior citizens will increase dramatically. At the same time that will be occurring, this Congress is suggesting that it will be okay to take $400 billion out of the Medicare program to spend on an entirely new health care program that is projected to cost $1.1 trillion over 10 years, and I suggest will cost far more than that. So Medicare is going to be jeopardized by this legislation, and senior citizens across this country are aware of that. They certainly were aware of it in Virginia this year, my home State, when they turned out on Tuesday in very large numbers to send a message to Washington that this health care proposal and other dramatic government takeovers of sectors of our economy is unacceptable and it resulted in a sweep across the elections in Virginia. And in the only two States in the country where there were Governors races up this year, New Jersey and Virginia, Democratic Governors were replaced by Republican Governors. People are looking to Washington. There is a story in today's New York Times entitled ``Democrats to Use Election to Push Agenda in Congress.'' Well, good luck with that, because I can tell you that the people who turned out at the polls in Virginia were not asking for this agenda to be pushed forward as a result of what they have been seeing going on in Washington, D.C. Instead, they want commonsense, bipartisan reforms of health care. Health care is in need of reform. It costs too much, and not enough Americans receive it. The Republican alternative provides for that. The Democratic alternative does not.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, the reviews are starting to come in on House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's health care reform proposal, and those reviews are pretty serious. In my home State, the Richmond Times Dispatch calls the bill grotesque; but perhaps the best description that I have seen, the most accurate description I have seen, is in The Wall Street Journal, that wrote an editorial on Sunday calling this legislation the worst bill ever. How could anyone conclude otherwise? This 1,990-page runaway train of more than 400,000 words, creating more than 53 new government agencies and programs, is not the change that the American people asked for. This bill is going to raise the cost of health care to the overwhelming majority of Americans. It's going to make our health care system more complicated than it already is, more costly than it already is. There are simple reforms that we could adopt if we would pay attention to what the American people want.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 836, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, somewhere in this Capitol, behind closed doors, the Democrats, by themselves, are writing a health care reform bill that is going to cost the taxpayers of this country more than $1 trillion. Added on top of the enormous debt that we already have, this legislation is also going to include mandates that are going to risk millions of American jobs. At a time when we have nearly 10 percent unemployment and nearly 15 million people in this country looking for work, they're going to pass legislation that's going to cost millions of more jobs if they attempt to mandate on small businesses, which are struggling, an additional obligation of an 8\1/2\ percent payroll tax. In addition, this is going to harm our senior citizens in a multitude of ways. Those of them who are on Medicare Advantage plans, like thousands in my congressional district in Virginia, are going to lose the opportunity to participate in those plans as they take $162 billion in cuts out of that portion of Medicare and $400 billion in cuts from Medicare overall. Save our seniors. Vote against this bad plan.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Speaker, I rise today to discuss H.R. 3548, the Unemployment Compensation Extension Act of 2009. Madam Speaker, let there be no doubt that I understand that our economy faces historic and unprecedented challenges and I will remain committed to working with Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle to enact responsible legislation which puts money back into the hands of those who can really turn our economy around--the American people and small businesses. However, H.R. 3548 extends the current unemployment benefits extension program, as established by the FY 2008 supplemental, and extended in two subsequent acts, by an extra 13 weeks for only those States with unemployment rates above 8.5%. Enactment of H.R. 3548 would cause individuals in States with unemployment rates in excess of 8.5% to be eligible for benefits for a total duration of 92 weeks. Madam Speaker, like you, I believe that a key component of an economic recovery plan is assistance for the unemployed. Unfortunately, this legislation would only apply to unemployed individuals in 29 States with unemployment rates above 8.5%. To be clear, individuals in 21 other States would be ineligible to receive compensation under this legislation. Virginia's current unemployment rate stands at 6.5%. Thus, Virginia residents are not eligible for these benefits. I cannot support legislation that does not allow Virginia residents to benefit from the formulas adopted under this legislation Even more egregious is that businesses in Virginia and other excluded States are required to foot the bill for these benefits via the extension of the Federal Unemployment surtax through 2010. This tax would otherwise expire at the end of this year. Madam Speaker, I cannot support legislation that imposes a tax on businesses in Virginia when funds generated under this tax will be of zero benefit to the residents of Virginia, or the remaining 20 States in the Nation. There are many counties and cities in Virginia that have unemployment rates above 8.5% and yet citizens living in those areas who are unemployed will receive no benefits from this legislation even as employers in the same areas will pay taxes taking money out of the local economy and seeing it circulate instead in some other part of the country for the arbitrary reason that statewide unemployment is above a particular percentage. Further, the individual who is out of a job and can't find another is suffering through the same situation for themselves and their families no matter where they live. Madam Speaker, this legislation is unfair to my constituents and that is why I voted against it.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, Representative Joe Wilson's outburst at the joint session of Congress last week was inappropriate. However, Representative Wilson has already apologized for his actions. He was right to apologize, and President Obama graciously accepted his apology. Now it's time to move on to the substance of the health care reform bill. Even President Obama has called for an end to the partisan bickering over the health care bill. However, with the introduction and consideration of this resolution, it is clear that the Democrat leadership has rejected this call. A majority of Americans oppose the Government-run healthcare plan that the House Democrat leadership is pushing. However, instead of debating the substance of the bill and addressing the concerns of the American people, it is clear that the majority would rather reopen old wounds with this resolution and divert attention back to an incident that is over. What is it that the Democrats are trying to divert attention away from? Is it the fact that the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office has declared that their current health care reform proposal, H.R. 3200, ``Does not contain any restrictions on noncitizens--whether legally or illegally present, or in the United States temporarily or permanently-- participating in the [taxpayer-subsidized health insurance] exchange?'' Is it the fact that Republican amendments to make clear that no benefits would be given to illegal aliens were defeated by the Democrats on party-line votes? Regardless, Speaker Pelosi and the Democrat majority's insistence on demanding an apology from a man who has already apologized is a waste of time at best and a purposeful diversion at worst. The American people deserve better. We do not have time for these partisan tactics when we should be addressing the grave concerns of the American people about the merits of the current health care reform proposal.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. In particular, if the FDA ultimately lifts the quarantine for lack of confirmatory evidence, the agency has no obligation, authority or means to indemnify producers for their losses. Conversely, under the authority of the Animal Health Protection Act and Plant Protection Act, the USDA, which has jurisdiction over other sectors of our food safety and has done an outstanding job, must indemnify producers who have incurred such losses. The language allows the FDA to act on suspicion to require a producer to cease distribution of food. Once again, no consideration is given in this legislation to indemnification for economic damages, particularly if the FDA was wrong. From a public health and safety point of view, end product testing offers little protection or assurance. HAACP was introduced as a system whereby the manufacturer evaluates their process and institutes site and process specific controls, rather than attempt to detect problems by testing the finished product. That is the better way to go. Mr. Speaker, I would urge my colleagues to oppose this rule, this closed rule, and this bad bill.

Mr. GOODLATTE. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. I thank her and the gentleman from Oklahoma for their leadership in attempting to address this issue, even though we bring a bill to the floor under a closed rule, with no opportunity, not only on the floor of the House, but also in the House Agriculture Committee, to mark up a bill that proposes to make food safer. Unfortunately, this bill does little, if anything, to enhance food safety. The legislation does not require the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to spend one additional penny on the inspection of food; yet the legislation imposes significant regulatory burdens on small businesses without properly holding the regulatory agency accountable. The bill contains an expanded registration requirement that effectively creates a Federal license to be in the food business. Like the Democrat stimulus bill, cap-and-trade, and the proposed health care bill, this is another example of broadening the size and scope of government, raising new taxes on small businesses, and intruding in the private lives of Americans. On-farm performance standards: New language added to the bill would exclude row crop producers from FDA regulatory authority over growing and harvesting of crops. Language was also improved that would relieve livestock producers from some of the burdens of the law. Although these are needed changes, they do not go far enough to make the bill acceptable. This bill still leaves our Nation's fruit and vegetable producers subject to objectionable regulatory burdens. We can still expect to have an agency of the Federal Government telling our farmers how to do their jobs. Registration of food-processing facilities was originally envisioned as a commonsense way of helping the FDA identify facilities under the bioterrorism act in 2002. This provision turns registration into a Federal license for any food business to operate by charging exorbitant fees, making it unlawful to sell food without a registration license and allowing the FDA to suspend a company's registration. Traceability is another issue. It does not make food safer. Traceability simply adds enormous regulatory burden without even knowing if it can be done in the first place. There is no requirement that the system developed by the FDA be feasible or affordable. Recordkeeping: Broad recordkeeping authorities will impose significant regulatory burdens. Minimal consideration is given to risks associated with the product produced at the regulated facility when developing the recordkeeping requirements. The language lacks protections from disclosure of proprietary information. The issue of quarantine authority. The bill's quarantine authority allows the Food and Drug Administration to quarantine a geographic area if there is credible evidence that food poses a health risk. No consideration is given to economic losses suffered by food producers, processors or distributors in the quarantine area. It's my understanding that the ranking member of the Agriculture Committee will offer something that will help to correct that later on, and I hope everyone will support that measure.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, it is a real honor today to welcome our guest chaplain, the Reverend Jonathan Falwell, the senior pastor of Thomas Road Baptist Church in Lynchburg, Virginia, one of the largest churches in America, which has a tremendous outreach to the community in Lynchburg and across Virginia, across our Nation and, indeed, across the world helping people in need. He also serves as the executive vice president of spiritual affairs at Liberty University, the world's largest evangelical Christian university, with over 40,000 students, both on campus and online. I very much welcome not only Reverend Falwell, but his entire family who is with us in the gallery today, and we are delighted that they could be with us to share in a full day of activities here at the United States Capitol and to meet as many Members of the House and staff members and others who work so hard here on behalf of our country. I hope Members will take the opportunity to come by and say hello to him at the various places he'll be during the course of the day. I'm honored to call Reverend Falwell a constituent and, most importantly, a dear friend; and I offer the thanks of this entire body to him for delivering today's morning prayer. He is joined by his wife, Shari, as well as their four children, Jonathan Jr., Jessica, Natalie and Nicholas, as well as his mother, Macel. Thank you all for being with us.