Bob Goodlatte

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Speaker, I rise today to introduce the bipartisan ``Security and Fairness Enhancement (SAFE) for America Act.'' This much-needed legislation eliminates the controversial visa lottery program, through which 50,000 aliens are chosen at random to come and live permanently in the United States based on pure luck. The visa lottery program threatens national security, results in the unfair administration of our nation's immigration laws, and encourages a cottage industry for fraudulent opportunists. Because winners of the visa lottery are chosen at random, the visa lottery program presents a serious national security threat. 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 of 2002. He was allowed to apply for lawful permanent resident status in 1997 because of his wife's status as a visa lottery winner. The State Department's Inspector General has even weighed in on the national security threat posed by the visa lottery program. During testimony before the House Committee on the Judiciary, the Office of Inspector General stated that the Office ``continues to believe that the diversity visa 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.'' Even if improvements were made to the visa lottery program, nothing would prevent terrorist organizations or foreign intelligence agencies from planting members in the U.S. by having those members apply for the program. As long as those individuals do not have previous criminal backgrounds, these types of organized efforts would never be detected, even if significant background checks and counter-fraud measures were enacted within the program. 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. These types of relationships help ensure that immigrants entering our country have a stake in continuing America's success and have needed skills to contribute to our nation's economy. However, under the visa lottery program, visas are awarded to immigrants at random without meeting such criteria. In addition, the visa lottery program is unfair to immigrants who comply with the United States' immigration laws. The visa lottery program does not expressly prohibit illegal aliens from applying to receive visas through the program. Thus, the program treats foreign nationals that comply with our laws the same as those that blatantly violate our laws. In addition, most family-sponsored immigrants currently face a wait of years to obtain 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 relatively no wait. This sends the wrong message to those who wish to enter our great country and to the international community as a whole. Furthermore, the visa lottery program is wrought with fraud. A report released by the Center for Immigration Studies states that it is commonplace for foreign nationals to apply for the lottery program multiple times using many different aliases. In addition, the visa lottery program has spawned a cottage industry featuring sponsors in the U.S. who falsely promise success to applicants in exchange for large sums of money. Ill-informed foreign nationals are willing to pay top dollar for the ``guarantee'' of lawful permanent resident status in the U.S. The State Department's Office of Inspector General confirms these allegations of widespread fraud in a September 2003 report. Specifically, the report states that the visa lottery program is ``subject to widespread abuse'' and that ``identity fraud is endemic, and fraudulent documents are commonplace.'' Furthermore, the report also reveals that the State Department found that 364,000 duplicate applications were detected in the 2003 visa lottery alone. In addition, the visa lottery program is by its very nature discriminatory. The complex formula for assigning visas under the program arbitrarily disqualifies natives from countries that send more than 50,000 immigrants to the U.S. within a five-year period, which excludes nationals from countries such as Mexico, Canada, China and others. The visa lottery program represents what is wrong with our country's immigration system. My legislation would eliminate the visa lottery program. The removal of this controversial program will help ensure our nation's security, make the administration of our immigration laws more consistent and fair, and help reduce immigration fraud and opportunism.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. And they have no good answer in terms of what to replace it with. Wind power and solar, two that are very commonly cited, produce just a tiny percentage of the electricity in our country today. I think wind power and solar are great and they have great potential and we should encourage more of them, but there is no way that they are going to replace our traditional sources of generating electricity any time in the near future. So the natural result is going to be that if you write legislation that heavily penalizes other sources of energy, particularly coal, what you are going to have as a result is much higher energy costs. And it will affect people all across the country in very dramatic ways, and they will see it when they open their bill for their electricity. But they are also going to see it in ways that may surprise them in terms of the cost of goods and services and in terms of their very livelihood because many jobs will go outside of the country to other countries like Russia and China and India that have no intention of complying with the same type of a cap-and-tax system that is being proposed right here in this Congress. Therefore, they are going to have cheaper sources of energy. China and India, right now, are building one new coal-fired power plant a week. Are they going to comply with cap-and-tax? Are they going to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions? No, they are going to dramatically increase those greenhouse gas emissions, and the end result is they will produce electricity cheaper. Therefore, they will be able to produce goods cheaper in those countries. They will be a magnet to draw jobs to those countries, to become manufacturing bases, as they are already growing to be. It is just going to get worse. Even though China has grown so much in terms of its manufacturing in recent years, the United States is still the world's largest manufacturing country. We are going to lose that when this bill takes effect if we don't get the American people to speak out about it and let the Members of Congress know that this kind of damaging legislation will cost jobs and raise the cost of living in this country if it is not brought to a halt. Every source of energy that we have, whether it is coal or nuclear power or oil or natural gas or solar or wind power or geothermal or renewable biofuels, all of them have environmental issues attached to them. You can't name a one that doesn't. Wind power has all kinds of environmental issues attached to it. People have attempted to build wind power facilities in my district and have gotten great push back on the effect about birds and bats and noise. Solar generating facilities that have been proposed for the southwest of this country have had lawsuits brought against them to prevent them from building these solar facilities because of the impact it will have on desert vegetation and desert wildlife and so on. Ethanol and other renewable fuels have environmental opponents to them as well. So it seems to me that the all-of-the-above approach of the Republican Conference, of promoting the development of new sources of energy, of promoting energy conservation and efficiency, and of promoting the development of all of our sources of energy, including our traditional sources, and producing them domestically to reduce our foreign trade deficit problems and to create more jobs in this country is the way to go here. That ought to be the alternative that this Congress turns to instead of a cap-and-tax government planning scheme that stifles private sector innovation, that causes higher consumer energy prices and causes job losses and lower wages and stock devaluation. Its potential for abuse and corruption is great. It is a windfall for certain people who didn't do anything to deserve the benefits that they will get when they suddenly find that they have something to sell or trade under this system. And it is not likely to actually reduce any emissions significantly. This idea that somehow we can reduce greenhouse gas emissions to the extent that we can turn down the thermostat of the world when other countries are going to increase their CO2 emissions around the world is folly. That is what this legislation is, and it has no guarantee that it will solve the global warming issue that many have focused on. Instead, we do have a guarantee that it will have a devastating impact on our economy. I thank the gentleman for allowing me to speak during this Special Order.

Mr. GOODLATTE. So what are they going to replace it with?

Mr. GOODLATTE. They like electricity? I like electricity. You like electricity. But you have to produce it with something.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Seventy-five percent of our electricity--people who are paying attention to this issue should know that 75 percent of the electricity produced in our country today is produced from coal and nuclear.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Well, I thank the gentleman from Illinois for holding this Special Order to talk about the cap-and-tax proposal that has been offered by Chairman Waxman of the Energy and Commerce Committee and subcommittee Chairman Markey of the subcommittee dealing with energy on that committee. And it concerns me greatly as it should concern all Americans. When you look at the sources of energy that we have in our country today, this legislation is going to drive up energy costs for the average American. It is going to drive up the costs of a whole lot of other things than simply their electric bills and the cost of other energy they receive. It is also going to drive up the cost of virtually every good that they receive and a lot of services that they receive as well. It concerns me greatly. I have served as the ranking member and previously the chairman of the Agriculture Committee. Today I serve as the ranking member on the subcommittee of the Agriculture Committee that deals with energy. And quite frankly, it is a situation where this is a solution in search of a problem. And quite frankly, the solution is going to create great problems for the American people. What we really need to have in this country in this time of very severe economic turmoil when people are losing their jobs and the economy is suffering is we need to be looking at producing more domestic sources of energy of all kinds. And yet this legislation is going to discourage the production of most of the principal sources of energy that we utilize in our country today, including coal production and nuclear power. The gentleman may correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that nuclear power, which is completely CO2 gas emission- free, is going to not receive any credit for the availability of electricity that is produced from this source which today produces about 20 percent of all of our electricity in the country. And it seems to me that if you're truly dedicated to solving our problems of energy sources, you would want to be encouraging increased production of all different sorts of energy. Now nuclear power is very capital intensive. But once you have a new nuclear power plant, it is the cheapest source of electric generation that exists in the country, even far cheaper than coal as a source of energy. And yet the fact that it is CO2-free doesn't seem to make any difference, because there are those in the environmental community who are very hostile to nuclear power production, even though we have--and countries like France which now produces more than 75 percent of its electricity from nuclear power--have addressed in new and innovative ways the waste disposal issue and other safety issues that make nuclear power very, very attractive. And then when it comes to coal, do you know that more than half of our electricity in this country is generated by coal? It is a very, very important source of energy. And yet it is treated like the lost step-child in this legislation because no effort is really made here to help coal address the serious concerns that have been raised by some about the amount of CO2 that is emitted from coal production. That to me does not make any sense. We are the Saudi Arabia of the world in terms of coal production. We have more coal reserves than any other country in the world. And we have tremendous capabilities in terms of long-term ability to generate cheap, low-cost power.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. I thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina for her hard work on the Rules Committee, on this rule fight, and I rise in strong opposition to the rule and the underlying bill. My goodness. How long are we going to debate this? 40 minutes or an hour? This very important piece of legislation under this rule? I can understand why we only have that amount of time because, after all, we're going to be working as late as 4 this afternoon here in the House. How could we possibly go just a little later than 4 to debate a very, very important piece of legislation? And then what amendments will we be debating? None. It's a closed rule. This is an atrocity. This is a very highly contentious piece of legislation. We held a 2-day markup on this bill with numerous amendments in the Judiciary Committee, and it is very clear that we need a rule that will allow for amendments to be considered on the floor of the House. But we certainly don't have that. So I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule. I would also point out that this underlying piece of legislation, which I will have the opportunity to speak more on in the general debate, is something that does, indeed, deal with thought. The only difference between beating up a senior citizen and beating up somebody who is in a protected class, under this piece of legislation, or beating up a pregnant woman, or beating up someone who's in a protected class, under this legislation, is the thought process that went into the motivation to assault that particular person. And that is legislation that is founded on criminalizing thought. It is very deeply concerning, because I, like most Americans, believe that every victim of every crime is entitled to be treated the same under the law. Why would a senior citizen not be deserving of these additional protections that are provided based upon sex or sexual orientation or race or religion? Why would pregnant women who suffer all kinds of violent crimes against them not be deserving of that same kind of protection? This legislation is bad. Vote down the rule. Vote down the bill.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, we all agree that every violent crime is deplorable, despicable, regardless of its motivation and regardless of who the victim is. However, this bill, no matter how well-intended, undermines basic principles of our criminal justice system and raises significant constitutional and federalism concerns. Under the provisions of H.R. 1913, justice will no longer be equal but will depend on the race, sex, sexual orientation, disability or other protected status of the victim. In my view, all victims should have equal worth in the eyes of the law. Why should other groups like senior citizens, veterans, children and pregnant women not also receive the added protections under this bill? The distinguished majority leader says that this is not about thought crime; it's about conduct. But the fact of the matter is that the identical crime, be it a murder, a rape, an assault, a battery, whatever it might be, conducted against one of the protected classes will receive additional penalties, compared to that pregnant woman or senior citizen or veteran or child, simply based upon the thought process of the perpetrator of the crime. Every victim is entitled to the same fair treatment under the law. This will have a chilling effect on citizens' willingness to speak freely, as citizens will adapt to a new world where the Federal Government can use any unpopular statements they make against them in the future. The bill raises the real possibility that religious leaders or members of religious groups could be criminally prosecuted based on their speech or protected activities. No one should be put in fear that their constitutionally protected free speech about controversial issues will be subject to efforts by prosecutors attempting to link that speech to violent action taken by others. There is no evidence that States are not fully prosecuting violent crimes involving hate. In fact, 45 States and the District of Columbia already have specific laws punishing hate crimes. I abhor acts of violence against any citizen, including crimes motivated by bias against certain groups, and I believe that such crimes should be punished to the fullest extent of the law. However, this legislation gives special preferences to certain classes of citizens and would create a chilling effect on one of our most cherished constitutional rights. I urge my colleagues to reject this legislation.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to this budget conference report. Tomorrow, the President will have completed 100 days in office. The American people look back on these 100 days and what do they see from this Congress but a blizzard of spending. We've seen an over $1 trillion stimulus package, an omnibus appropriations bill that we called for a freeze on that, instead, will spend over $400 billion in spending. The stimulus package, we called for something that spent half as much money and would have created twice as many jobs according to the economic projections that were relied upon. Now, the capstone of this first 100 days is an unbelievable budget conference report that projects to spend more than $3.5 trillion this coming year and which forecasts budget deficits as far as the eye can see. Much has been made about the fact that this year, the budget deficit will be approximately $1.7 trillion, but that includes the $1 trillion in spending. It includes the omnibus appropriations bill that we talked about here. And yet at the end of this time, the majority feels that it is worth boasting that we will have cut that deficit by two-thirds, to more than $500 billion. In the entire history of this country, our budget deficit has exceeded $500 billion only once or twice to this point. Yet this budget plan projects $500 billion budget deficits for as far as the eye can see and raises our national debt over the next decade to more than $23 trillion. We talk about these numbers like they are abstract concepts. A million dollars is a stack of thousand dollar bills 4 inches high. A trillion dollars is a stack of thousand dollar bills 63 miles high. For just this next year, we project a deficit of more than $1.2 trillion, 75 miles high up into outer space. And that's where this budget belongs.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I rise in strong opposition to the Democratic budget that is before the Congress and in support of the Republican alternative and the Republican Study Committee alternative--two far more responsible budgets. I know there are many on the Democratic side of the aisle who are proud to call themselves fiscal conservatives. You cannot vote for this budget, which spends too much, which increases spending by more than two-thirds over the course of this budget, to $5.1 trillion per year without avoiding the charge of ``big spender.'' You cannot support this budget, which taxes too much--which taxes $1.5 trillion over the course of this budget, without avoiding the charge of being a big spending tax-and-spend liberal. That is what you're facing in this budget. You cannot support this and continue to call yourselves fiscal conservatives. My greatest concern is that this budget calls for borrowing too much. Our budget debt will rise to $23 trillion by 2019--2\1/2\ times the amount that it is today, yet we will have those on your side of the aisle who will claim to be fiscally conservative on a debt that we leave our children and grandchildren and mortgages their future. That is not fiscal responsibility. Thomas Jefferson once wrote, ``To preserve the independence of the people, we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt.'' Unfortunately, it increasingly appears that Congress has chosen this disastrous path. I urge my colleagues to avoid this spending addiction and to vote tomorrow for responsible budgets that will lead our Nation back to prosperity and a brighter future for our children and grandchildren.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 985, the Free Flow of Information Act, which will encourage whistleblowers by protecting journalists' confidential sources. This bipartisan bill will bolster the free press as a very important check on government power. I had concerns with this legislation last year when we considered it in the Judiciary Committee, and I worked with my good friends, Representatives Boucher and Pence, to have many of these items addressed before it reached the House floor. For example, the bill now requires that in order to receive the protections of the media shield law, a journalist must be engaged in the ``regular'' practice of journalism for ``a substantial portion of the person's livelihood'' or ``for substantial financial gain.'' This will help ensure that an individual who has no journalistic experience cannot attempt to protect himself by creating a blog overnight. In addition, the bill contains a broader exception that allows compelled disclosure of information when national security is at stake, when there are leaks of classified information, and when the journalist was an eyewitness to a criminal act or tort. This legislation will enhance the freedom of the press and thus provide for a more informed and engaged citizenry. In addition, the improvements to the bill will help ensure that the interests of justice and national security are protected. It is for these reasons that I support the Free Flow of Information Act and urge my colleagues to support it as well. I want to thank all those who have worked on this measure on both sides of the issue. I think we have created an improved bill and one that I am very pleased and proud to support.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall 166, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present I would have voted ``no.''

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, I want to, again, encourage my colleagues to support this amendment. I say to the chairman of the committee, I appreciate the concerns that he has raised, but as has been correctly noted, we are having ever-increasing problems with fighting forest fires each season. They do not recognize boundaries. I think some of the labor concerns that the gentlemen have raised will actually work to the benefit of the groups that have raised these concerns because it is more likely that more work will be done by Federal-contracted employees under Federal rules on private and State lands if this kind of partnership and cooperation is allowed, than the reverse will be taking place. Nonetheless, we should not wait while we work through all those things and force people to dance on the head of a pin, when we have the opportunity to work cooperatively right now among all those who are affected by forest fires. We should enable a good neighbor policy to help fight forest fires. It will save the taxpayer dollars. It will make our forest healthier, it will allow us to move forward. And finally, I'd say to the gentleman that yesterday he conveyed to us his willingness to continue to work on these issues regarding the health of the forest, and I take him at his word, and look forward to continuing to do that. But I think this amendment should be passed.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, at this time I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the ranking member, the gentleman from Washington State (Mr. Hastings).

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes. Mr. Chairman, I commend Chairman Rahall for addressing this important issue over the last 2 years. The wildfire funding problems for the Forest Service are some of the most challenging issues the agency faces today. Wildfire funding costs have skyrocketed over the last decade and are consuming the Forest Service's budget, which means there is less funding for other Forest Service needs. We will continue to see high costs and more damage to our forests and communities unless we take steps to reduce fire risk in our Federal forests. We must provide the Forest Service with additional tools to get our Federal forests in a healthy, more fire-resistant condition. I support the underlying purpose of this legislation. However, the bill does not do enough to address the problem causing the increasing costs of fighting fires; that is, the unhealthy conditions of our forests. My amendment to the FLAME Act will provide the Forest Service with an additional tool to address these problems that will ultimately leave our forests in a healthier condition and will yield a savings for the taxpayers. My amendment creates a new contracting tool for the Forest Service to partner with States. This will give the Forest Service permanent authority to contract with States to reduce wildfire risks across boundary lines. This practice is commonly known as ``good neighbor authority,'' and has been tested in States like Colorado and Utah, where it has proven to be effective. Currently, H.R. 1404 contains no such tool for the Forest Service. The significance of this measure is that it will encourage both Federal and State agencies to work together to address unhealthy conditions in Federal forests. Fires know no boundaries. They can start on Federal land and easily spread to State and private forestland. My amendment provides a more comprehensive approach to preventing dangerous fires and fighting them when they happen. I'm pleased that my amendment has the support of several forestry groups, including the Society of American Foresters, the Council of State Foresters, the Forest Foundation and other forestry groups. I have also spoken with the Forest Service, and they have told me that they have no objections to this amendment. Let me be clear. This amendment is meant to protect our forests from catastrophic fire. Like everyone else, I want to see our treasured national forests protected from fires. By allowing Federal and State agencies to work in tandem to reduce hazardous fuels, we are ensuring that our forests are protected for generations to come. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, at this time I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop).

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

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. I thank the ranking member for yielding to me. I want to commend him and Chairman Rahall for addressing this important issue over the last 2 years. The wildfire funding problems for the Forest Service are some of the most challenging issues the agency faces today. Wildfire funding costs have skyrocketed over the last decade and are consuming the Forest Service's budget, which means that there's much less funding for other Forest Service needs. We will continue to see high costs and more damage to our forests and communities unless we take steps to reduce fire risk in our national forests. We must provide the Forest Service with additional tools to get our Federal forests in a healthy, more fire-resistant condition. This is a bill of great importance to States and communities across the country. The problems of forest management affect not just western States, but those along the eastern seaboard as well. Virginia is one such example. Last year, Virginia had more acres burn than any year since 1963, which shows how the problem of forest management has progressively worsened. This version of the FLAME Act is an improvement from the one passed by the House in the last Congress. However, the bill does not do enough to address the problem causing the increasing costs of fighting fires-- that is, the unhealthy conditions of our forests. My amendment to the FLAME Act, which I will offer tomorrow, will provide the Forest Service with an additional tool to address these problems that will ultimately be a cost-saving measure. My amendment creates a new contracting tool for the Forest Service to partner with States. This will give the Forest Service permanent authority to contract with States to reduce wildfire risks across boundary lines. This practice is commonly known as ``good neighbor authority'' and has been tested in States like Colorado and Utah, where it has proven to be effective. Currently, H.R. 1404 contains no such tool for the Forest Service. The significance of this measure is that it will encourage both Federal and State agencies to work together to address unhealthy conditions in Federal forests. Fires know no boundaries. They can start on Federal land and easily spread to State and private forest land and vice versa. My amendment provides a more comprehensive approach to preventing dangerous fires and fighting them when they happen. I'm pleased that my amendment has the support of the Society of American Foresters, the Western Council of State Foresters, the Forest Foundation, and other forestry groups. I have also spoken with the Forest Service and they have told me they have no objections to this amendment. I might also add that we have cleared this amendment in the Ag Committee, which shares jurisdiction with the Resources Committee for forestry issues, and they also have no objection to this amendment. This is something that the professionals who fight forest fires around our country--the professional fighters--and the societies that are comprised of American foresters want and need in this legislation. So I hope that there will be bipartisan support. I know in the Rules Committee there was bipartisan support for bringing this amendment forward. I certainly hope that that will continue as we try to maintain the type of bipartisan cooperation that has led to the point that we have reached thus far in bringing this legislation forward in a way to significantly enhance it.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express grave concern regarding the budget that the Budget Committee is acting upon this week and which some have proposed be brought to the floor of this House next week. I would suggest that it is very much in need of dramatic changes and would ask that the leadership of this Congress take that budget back and start over again because a debt of the magnitude that this country is already facing, added to the projected deficit for next year alone, now up to $1.8 trillion, is a staggering sum of money, and it is not something that is sustainable. We have known this for a long time. In fact, one of the namesakes of the annual dinners that our colleagues on the other side of the aisle hold, the Jefferson-Jackson dinners that are held all across the country, he has been known throughout American history for his strong stand against piling on greater and greater public debt. In fact, late in his life he said, ``There does not exist an engine so corruptive of the government and so demoralizing of the Nation as a public debt. It will bring on us more ruin at home than all the enemies from abroad.'' And we are, in fact, seeing this statement made long ago coming to haunt us in very severe ways at this time in our history. You know, we had up until last year a $9 trillion national debt that had been accumulated over more than 200 years of our Nation's history. And yet the projection now is that in the next 10 years, according to this budget--and that is based upon optimistic projections I would say with regard to government spending--the liabilities the government already has for a number of different programs, but the projection already offered by the administration is that that debt will increase by one-and-a-half times in the next 10 years. That is staggering to consider that we could outstrip all of the spending that has taken place over all of that period of time in such a short period of time, and I want to show you exactly how that works with this chart. This chart shows the doubling of the debt held by the public in a very short period of time. Projections now are that it will be even greater than this. This one shows that it grows to $16 trillion. We now have a new projection that says $23 trillion will be the national debt in total. The public portion of the national debt, that portion of the debt that we owe to American citizens and other people around the world, will grow to $16 trillion from less than $6 trillion just last year. That is a stunning figure, but this doesn't even tell the whole story because what this shows is just the public portion of the debt. Every year, the Congress borrows from the Social Security trust fund, and other trust funds, additional funds, and the government simply puts an IOU in those trust funds, funds so important to our senior citizens and others who are counting on those funds to be there in the future, to make sure that Social Security and other programs are actuarially sound, and yet the money has been borrowed, such that the total amount of our national debt by 2019 will come to $23 trillion. We have in this budget that has been offered in this Congress too much spending, too much taxation and, what we're focusing on today, too much debt. Let me call the words of President Jefferson to mind again: 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--and that is truly the crossroads that we have reached today. Thomas Jefferson recognized that 190-plus years ago and pointed out that with economy comes liberty and freedom. With as he called it profusion, or what we call today big government spending, comes servitude of the people to their government. That is not what our Founding Fathers intended when they created the United States Constitution which, in my opinion, is in need of one change that is vitally needed, and that is a balanced budget amendment to the United States Constitution. I will have more to say about this in the future, but I urge my colleagues to oppose this budget and support real fiscal reform, which would be to adopt a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, may I ask how much time is remaining on each side?

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

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute. Some of the other issues raised in this manager's amendment that need to be pointed out are that the amendment provides an alternative to cramdown of principal, but astoundingly the alternative is free money. If the judge does not want to give a cramdown, he can just rewrite the mortgage as a no-interest loan over the full term of a new 30-year deal. Now, just like there's no such thing as a free lunch, there's no such thing as free money for banks or credit unions to lend to the people who come to them. So while the gentleman--in fact, several have made the point that this only applies to existing mortgages. The fact of the matter is the money to pay for the modifications that are made here has got to come from someplace. And while I remain concerned that all you would have to do in the future would be to advance the enactment date--everything else in the law would be the same--so you could continue this policy and make it permanent, even if you didn't, money from future borrowers is what's going to be used to fund these changes in current mortgages. It's wrong.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remaining time. Mr. Chairman, the bottom line, in response to the gentleman from Georgia's argument, is that his case is the strongest one for leaving the bankruptcy laws the way they are because the incentives already exist for them to avoid the cost that he described. So somebody who is struggling right now with their mortgage payments, the incentive exists for them to work with the financial institution and for the financial institution to work with them so they don't face the uncertainties that occur in bankruptcy court. So, the bottom line is that what this is going to do is it's going to pass along to future people who want to buy homes, whether the law is extended in the future or not, the cost that will be borne by credit unions and community banks and others who are making these mortgages today--they have to cover costs that are unanticipated when they made the mortgages--they're going to have to pass them along in the future. To the extent that they can voluntarily work that out with the existing homeowner, that is the best solution. But that occurs right now and that incentive exists right now under the law. To change the law in the manner that's provided for here, even with the changes in this amendment, simply does not work. And it does not give the assurance to those who said that there needs to be a second chance, a second opportunity to negotiate between the lender and the homeowner voluntarily because, as I pointed out earlier, any clever bankruptcy attorney will advise his client to simply wait until they're within 30 days of foreclosure, then they don't have to engage in that, they can go straight to the bankruptcy court, bypass exactly what he was calling for happening, and go to the court and see what they can accomplish there under this very, very harmful law from the standpoint of the health of currently healthy banking institutions. So I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment and to oppose the underlying bill. This is not the way to keep a healthy system by allowing people to continue to borrow and buy homes.

Mr. GOODLATTE. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time, and I am pleased to support his amendment, which addresses a serious problem that's in the underlying bill that is not corrected by the manager's amendment, and that is that the cramdown bill will reduce the incentive for many solvent borrowers to keep making payments on their mortgages. While there are 3 million borrowers who are 60 days or more delinquent on their mortgages, 52 million borrowers remain current in their payments. The cramdown bill gives struggling, but still solvent, borrowers a powerful incentive to stop paying off their mortgages, trigger foreclosure notices and go into bankruptcy to cramdown their mortgage principal and restructure or eliminate all of their other debts. We will have an outright catastrophe on our hands if most borrowers get the idea that they can successfully game the bankruptcy system in this way. The gentleman's amendment would correct this problem and make sure that we don't have a run on the bankruptcy courts of great magnitude by creating what is currently in the bill now, an incentive to file bankruptcy if the value of your mortgage is greater than the value of your home. The Four Worst Things About the Mortgage Cramdown Bill (H.R. 200) No. 1: Back to the Financial Meltdown--The cramdown bill seriously threatens to send us through a time warp straight back to the September financial meltdown. Write-downs of mortgages in bankruptcy will inexorably force downgrades of mortgage-backed securities based on those mortgages. The downgrades will in turn force banks and insurance companies on the hook for the securities to boost their capital reserves. (For example, if a AAA-rated security is downgraded to a BB rating, a bank or insurance company will have to hold 10-times the capital reserves.) The resulting hoarding of capital could total hundreds of billions of dollars, freeze lending, kill many already wounded banks, and send us straight back to the brink we faced in September 2008. This could precipitate another bank bailout to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars, and it will undermine everything we yet have done to stem the financial crisis. No. 2: Moral Hazard--The cramdown bill will reduce the incentive for many solvent borrowers to keep making payments on their mortgages. While 3 million borrowers are 60 days or more delinquent on their mortgages, 52 million borrowers remain current in their payments. The cramdown bill gives struggling but still solvent borrowers a powerful incentive to stop paying off their mortgages, trigger foreclosure notices, and go into bankruptcy to cram down their mortgage principal and restructure or eliminate all of their other debts. We will have an outright catastrophe on our hands if most borrowers get the idea that they can successfully game the bankruptcy system in this way. No. 3: Higher Interest Rates and Down Payment Requirements--Including for the Innocent and the Risky Borrowers Most in Need--The cramdown bill is not the last step. It is the key step in the Democratic Congress' walk-up to its long-sought repeal of the primary residence mortgage exception from the Bankruptcy Code. Once the primary residence exception is gone, lenders' greatly increased risk will surely lead to higher interest rates, higher down payment requirements, and other, tighter terms of principal residence mortgages. This will especially hurt already risky, lower-income borrowers, anyone who needs to refinance out of a challenging mortgage, and everyone who responsibly waited on the home-buying sidelines until the housing bubble burst. In fact, once the first, very big step is taken through the cramdown bill, lenders would be foolish not to begin pricing in their likely increased risk right away. So what's the result of the cramdown bill? Nothing more than swapping the victims. No. 4: We Still Have Better Options We Can Try--Backers of the cramdown bill say we've tried everything else to stem the foreclosure crisis, and nothing else has worked. That's nonsense. The most recent voluntary programs are working better, and top-flight academics have proposed a terrific solution to get at the mortgages we still haven't been able to reach--mortgages served by third-party servicers that don't own the loans. These servicers lack sufficient incentive to seek loan modifications rather than to foreclose. What is more, if they do modify loans, they can be sued by mortgage-backed securities investors. Still on the table is a proposal to fix this problem by giving third-party servicers a small, per-loan incentive out of TARP funds, and cutting off litigation risk by overriding problem contract clauses and affording a litigation safe-harbor. This proposal appears to be the best possible solution for the critical mass of the remaining problem loans. It will cost little more than $10 billion in TARP funds. Why on earth would we risk the parade of horribles and hundreds of billions of dollars of downside risk threatened by the cramdown bill, when we still haven't tried other, better options.