Bob Goodlatte

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition to the amendment, even though I am not opposed to the amendment.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The amendment seeks partially to reinstate a credit counseling requirement for chapter 13 bankruptcy petitioners that H.R. 1106 will strip entirely away. There is no good reason to wipe out the credit counseling requirement for debtors facing foreclosure. Bankruptcy credit counseling benefits consumers by providing the financial education needed to emerge successfully from bankruptcy. Homeowners facing foreclosure are ideal candidates for credit counseling. This is not always because they can avoid bankruptcy. It is often so that they can get help to increase their prospects of being successful after bankruptcy. The vast majority of Americans who receive credit counseling believe strongly that it benefits them. Finally, credit counseling offers one last real opportunity for a homeowner to reach out to a lender and determine whether a loan modification is possible. A majority claims that many borrowers were hoodwinked into obtaining their loans. That's largely why the majority wants homeowners to be able to take their loans into bankruptcy. But if credit counseling might show homeowners a better option than bankruptcy, why not let them try counseling. The amendment we are considering does not go far enough. It does not fully restore the requirement for counseling that is in current law. The Rules Committee should have made Mr. Forbes' credit counseling amendment in order. That amendment would fully restore the counseling requirement and ensure that borrowers receive counseling before they file for bankruptcy. However, because the amendment before us does restore at least a limited requirement for counseling, I support it. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert).

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

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, let me take the 30 seconds to say that while I think this is a good amendment and I support it, it doesn't go as far as it should have. We should have had the opportunity to vote today and debate today the amendment offered by Congressman Forbes from Virginia. But nonetheless, that not being the case, I support this amendment. But I still strongly oppose this underlying legislation, which is going to cause hardships for future homeowners who are going to wind up paying higher mortgage rates and larger down payments for the problems that exist today. That's wrong. We should not pass that and spread that risk to those people, and we should not jeopardize legitimate credit unions and community banks that have been doing so much to help extend credit in this country.

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

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, at this time, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Mrs. Bachmann).

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes. First, I'd like to respond to the gentleman from Vermont who said that Citigroup endorsed this legislation. Well, I must tell you the American Banking Association doesn't support this, nor do the community bankers, the bankers who still have their heads above water all across my congressional district and many other districts across the country that are making mortgage loans day in and day out. They don't support this legislation. But a bank that is receiving already tens of billions of dollars in government assistance supports it. That should convince us that this legislation leads us in the right direction? Then to the gentleman from Georgia, I would point out that the Congress, a number of years ago, created a special Chapter 12 bankruptcy proceeding for farmers, and that was a temporary change in the law as well, as this one is. The gentleman is correct; it only applies to existing mortgages. But that law, created many, many years ago, still exists because it's been extended and extended, and we are at risk of having the same thing happen here, particularly when the mindset is that we should turn to the advice of banks that are failing to tell us a good way to handle a problem that banks that are succeeding say it is a bad, bad practice. And I also want to speak against this amendment. Far from making bankruptcy a last resort, this gives homeowners two bites at the apple. Even if they obtain the Obama compliant loan modification from their lenders, i.e., workouts that meet the terms of President Obama's mortgage program, they can still go into bankruptcy. Once there, they can shop for a better deal from the bankruptcy court. Lenders, meanwhile, have to honor the already-cut voluntary deals all the way through bankruptcy. At the end of the case, the homeowner keeps whichever deal is sweeter. That's not making bankruptcy a last resort. That's guaranteeing abuse of both voluntary modification and bankruptcy. We're going to see a run on the bankruptcy courts if this legislation is adopted. Meanwhile, what happens to the borrower who rejects an offer meeting President Obama's terms? Nothing. The bankruptcy court can theoretically refuse to confirm a borrower's cramdown plan, but under the terms of the amendment, that will likely happen only when the lender offered a modification without a voluntary cramdown and the borrower has no need for bankruptcy relief anyway. And what about borrowers who are within 30 days of foreclosure sales? They don't even have to contact their lenders about voluntary modifications. So none of the amendment modifications do not apply. The new manager's amendment does nothing to change this exception that swallows the whole bill. As a result, borrowers who may have entered into mortgages that they shouldn't have in the first place, and bankruptcy attorneys can game the system by simply waiting until borrowers are within the 30 days of a foreclosure sale to file for bankruptcy. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds. First, I say to the gentlewoman from California that the largest credit union association in the world, Credit Union National Association, a member-owned collection of credit unions around the United States, strongly opposes this legislation. When we talk about the ``little people'' and the organizations that reach out and help people day-to-day with loans, they know the impact that this will have. And secondly, to the gentleman from North Carolina, the fact of the matter is cramdowns were entirely prohibited going back to the 1898 law. So for more than 100 years, when they liberalized in other areas, they simply continued in this area. It's not true that they have only prohibited cramdowns since 1978. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, at this time I am pleased to yield 1\1/ 2\ minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price).

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, last night Members on both sides of the aisle rose repeatedly and applauded the remarks of President Obama, who called upon the American people to show their resilience that they have on so many occasions in the past to rise above the difficulties that we face and to lead our country out of this serious economic crisis. However, today in the light of day, this Congress has taken a very, very different approach to try to solve those problems: the big government approach. Today, during the debate on the omnibus spending bill, I had planned to offer an amendment. My amendment would have protected the private property rights of citizens and also highlighted the philosophical differences between the Democrat majority and the Republicans. I would note that not a single amendment was made in order as a result of the vote on this nearly $500 billion spending package. Apparently, the majority believes that government knows best and the leadership of their party in this Congress are the only ones who know best how to dole out Americans' hard-earned money and property and they have no qualms about robbing Peter to pay Paul. Despite the lip service the majority gives about the spirit of the American people, the majority's policies clearly demonstrate that they believe something quite different, that the people cannot be trusted to make the best use of their own money and property nor can they be trusted to turn our economy around. Republicans actually believe in the American people, and they have put their policies where their mouths are. Republicans unabashedly believe that Americans know best how to control their own money and have advocated for targeted tax relief to individuals and small businesses to help the economy by putting money back into the hands of Americans. In addition, Republicans believe that the right of private property is a fundamental right that the founders of this Nation consciously sought to protect from overly zealous government bureaucrats. The need for private property protections is especially important in trying times like these when politicians get the idea that they know best the uses for Americans' money and property. I have sponsored legislation to protect private property from aggressive government use of eminent domain powers, and that is what the amendment I offered at the Rules Committee to the omnibus spending measure would have done. My amendment would have prevented funds in this gigantic spending bill from being used to seize private property from one person to give to another. This seems simple enough, but the majority decided to block this amendment, which would have prevented the use of any of the funds in this massive nearly $500 billion spending measure from being used for that purpose, to take people's property for private economic development purposes. But the majority decided to block the amendment and not allow a vote on the House floor. In fact, the vote to stifle debate on this amendment occurred on a purely partisan basis in the Rules Committee. It seems clear that the majority's solution to the current economic crisis is to spend other people's money. The truth is that we are beginning to see the results that this laboratory of big government spending is producing, and it is no surprise that the results are dismal. The government simply cannot operate as efficiently nor adapt as quickly as individuals and entrepreneurs. The likely response by the government to its own failure will be more spending, as is evident from the trillion dollar stimulus package that Congress passed 2 weeks ago as well as the nearly half trillion dollar omnibus spending bill we voted on today. There is no end in sight to the unprecedented levels of spending we are witnessing, and that is precisely why we should draw a very clear line now. House Republicans believe that instead of spending ease, we need a spending freeze. We may now see a budget deficit of $3 trillion this year alone. That's $3 trillion. Divide that by the 300 million people in the United States, and it's nearly $10,000 for each person in the country that the government will spend more than the government will take in, $10,000 per person more that will be spent on all these massive government programs than the government will take in. This is beyond unacceptable. We need reform, and it is clear that Congress must have this reform forced upon it. That's why over 160 bipartisan cosponsors have joined me in an attempt to force the Federal Government to rein in spending and eliminate the deficit by amending the Constitution to require it. Earlier this year I introduced a balanced budget constitutional amendment, House Joint Resolution 1. This legislation has already garnered over 160 bipartisan cosponsors, and it requires that total Federal outlays cannot exceed total revenues. We'd have 5 years to bring this into line. It is time we started the process of reforming the way this government spends money. This is a simple concept but one that is lost on a congress determined to put political considerations above the common good. Simply put, this constitutional amendment would bind the hands of congress by cutting up its credit cards. The time to act is now, and if President Obama is serious about his call to rein in spending, then he should join in our call for a balanced budget constitutional amendment to force the Federal Government to do so.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Speaker, pursuant to the Republican Leadership standards on earmarks, I am submitting the following information for publication in the Congressional Record regarding earmarks I received as part of H.R. 1105. Requesting Member: Congressman Bob Goodlatte Bill Number: H.R. 1105 Account: USDA, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service Legal Name of Requesting Entity: USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service--Wildlife Service Address of Requesting Entity: 105 B Ponderosa Drive, Christiansburg, VA 24073 Description of Request: $140,000. Increasing coyote population poses a direct threat to producers due to livestock losses. This funding will allow the Wildlife Service to administer a livestock protection program to protect animals from coyote predation in western Virginia. Requesting Member: Congressman Bob Goodlatte Bill Number: H.R. 1105 Account: EPA, State and Tribal Assistance Grants Legal Name of Requesting Entity: City of Lynchburg, Virginia Address of Requesting Entity: 900 Church Street, Lynchburg, VA 24504 Description of Request: $500,000. Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO) occurs when older sewer pipes carry both water and sanitary sewer. During storms, the system capacity is reached and overflows raw, untreated sewage into the nearest stream, creek or backyard. The City of Lynchburg began implementing a long term CSO Control Plan in 1993 when a Special Order, sought by the Environmental Protection Agency, was signed, requiring the City of Lynchburg to address its CSO problem. This funding helps accelerate the program's completion. Requesting Member: Congressman Bob Goodlatte Bill Number: H.R. 1105 Account: Corps of Engineers, Construction--General Legal Name of Requesting Entity: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, City of Roanoke, Virginia Address of Requesting Entity: City of Roanoke, 215 Church Street, Roanoke, VA 24011 Description of Request $1,029,000. When completed, the project will provide flood damage reduction to industrial, commercial, and residential property. Requesting Member: Congressman Bob Goodlatte Bill Number: H.R. 1105 Account: Cooperative State Research Education and Extension Service Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University Address of Requesting Entity: 219 Burress Hall, Blacksburg, VA 24061 Description of Request: $868,000. Funds for the Biodesign and Processing Research Center (BPRC) at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University will enable the BPRC to continue conducting research for the conversion of agricultural crops and agriculture/animal wastes to value-added products such as fuels, bio-oils, fertilizers, and other industrial products. Requesting Member: Congressman Bob Goodlatte Bill Number: H.R. 1105 Account: USDA, National Resources Conservation Service Legal Name of Requesting Entity: USDA Natural Resources Conservation Services Address of Requesting Entity: 1606 Santa Rosa Drive, Suite 206, Richmond, VA 23229 Description of Request: $160,000. The Buena Vista Watershed Plan will ensure that the NRCS has necessary resources to maintain its flood protection intitiative along the Maury River in Rockbridge County, Virginia. This plan is an effort to prevent flooding on interior streams and stream bank erosion. This project is necessary to protect homes and businesses in Buena Vista and minimize long-term environmental degradation to the entire watershed area.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the Business Activity Tax Simplification Act. I joined my good friend Rick Boucher of Virginia to introduce this legislation in order to provide a ``bright line'' test to clarify state and local authority to collect business activity taxes from out-of-state entities. Many states and some local governments levy corporate income, franchise and other taxes on out-of-state companies that conduct business activities within their jurisdictions. While providing revenue for states, these taxes also serve to pay for the privilege of doing business in a state. However, with the growth of the Internet, companies are increasingly able to conduct transactions without the constraint of geopolitical boundaries. The growth of the high tech industry and interstate business-to-business and business-to-consumer transactions raises questions over where multi-state companies should be required to pay corporate income and other business activity taxes. Over the past several years, a growing number of jurisdictions have sought to collect business activity taxes from businesses located in other states, even though those businesses receive no appreciable benefits from the taxing jurisdiction and even though the Supreme Court has ruled that the Constitution prohibits a state from imposing taxes on businesses that lack substantial connections to the state. This has led to unfairness and uncertainty, generated contentious, widespread litigation, and hindered business expansion, as businesses shy away from expanding their presence in other states for fear of exposure to unfair tax burdens. In order for businesses to continue to become more efficient and expand the scope of their goods and services, it is imperative that clear and easily navigable rules be set forth regarding when an out-of- state business is obliged to pay business activity taxes to a state. Otherwise, the confusion surrounding these taxes will have a chilling effect on e-commerce, interstate commerce generally, and the entire economy as tax burdens, compliance costs, litigation, and uncertainty escalate. Previous actions by the Supreme Court and Congress have laid the groundwork for a clear, concise and modern ``bright line'' rule in this area. In the landmark case of Quill Corp. v. North Dakota, the Supreme Court declared that a state cannot impose a tax on an out-of-state business unless that business has a ``substantial nexus'' with the taxing state. However, the Court did not define what constituted a ``substantial nexus'' for purposes of imposing business activity taxes. In addition, fifty years ago, Congress passed legislation to prohibit jurisdictions from taxing the income of out-of-state corporations whose in-state presence was nominal. Public Law 86-272 set clear, uniform standards for when states could and could not impose such taxes on out- of-state businesses when the businesses' activities involved the solicitation of orders for sales. However, like the economy of its time, the scope of Public Law 86-272 was limited to tangible personal property. Our nation's economy has changed dramatically over the past fifty years, and this outdated statute needs to be modernized. The Business Activity Tax Simplification Act of 2008 both modernizes and provides clarity to an outdated and ambiguous tax environment. First, the legislation updates the protections in P.L. 86-272. This legislation reflects the changing nature of our economy by expanding the scope of the protections in P.L. 86-272 from just tangible personal property to include intangible property and services. In addition, our legislation sets forth clear, specific standards to govern when businesses should be obliged to pay business activity taxes to a state. Specifically, the legislation establishes a ``physical presence'' test such that an out-of-state company must have a physical presence in a state before the state can impose corporate net income taxes and other types of business activity taxes. In our current, challenging economic times, it is especially important to eliminate artificial, government-imposed barriers to small businesses. Small businesses are crucial to our economy and account for a significant majority of new product ideas and innovation. Small businesses are also central to the American dream of self-improvement and individual achievement, which is why it is so vital that Congress enact legislation that reduces the tax burdens that hinder small businesses and ultimately overall economic growth and job creation. Unfortunately, small businesses are often the hardest hit when aggressive states and localities impose excessive tax burdens on out- of-state companies. These businesses do not have the resources to hire the teams of lawyers that many large corporations devote to tax compliance, and they are more likely to halt expansion to avoid uncertain tax obligations and litigation expenses. The clarity that the Business Activity Tax Simplification Act will bring will ensure fairness, minimize litigation, and create the kind of legally certain and stable business climate that frees up funds for small businesses to make investments, expand interstate commerce, grow the economy and create new jobs. At the same time, this legislation will protect the ability of states to ensure that they are fairly compensated when they provide services to businesses that do have physical presences in the state. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, it has become abundantly clear that the Internal Revenue Code is no longer working in a fair manner for our Nation's citizens. Many Americans look at the dim state of our economy and the billions of their tax dollars that are being given to private businesses, and they want to know why their Tax Code is so unfair. The Tax Code Americans are forced to comply with discourages savings and investment, and it is impossibly complex. It has become all too clear that the current code is broken beyond repair and cannot be fixed, so we must start over. For this reason, I rise today to reintroduce the Tax Code Termination Act. This bipartisan legislation, which I have introduced with nearly 70 cosponsors, will accomplish two goals: It will abolish the Internal Revenue Code by December 31, 2012, and call on Congress to approve a new Federal tax system by July of that same year. At a time when Americans devote a total of 7 billion hours each year to comply with the Tax Code, we need tax simplification. A few years ago, Money Magazine asked 50 professional tax preparers to file a return for a fictional family. No one came up with the same tax total, nor did any of the preparers calculate what Money Magazine thought was the correct Federal income tax. Results varied by thousands of dollars. The need for tax simplification is further highlighted by the tax problems experienced by some of President Obama's cabinet nominees. These are highly educated individuals, some of whom claim specialized knowledge of the Tax Code, and one of whom will actually be in charge of ensuring compliance with the Tax Code, Treasury Secretary Geithner. And even they cannot correctly file their taxes. In addition, in today's Politico, there was an article detailing the problems that members of the Senate have in filing and complying with the Tax Code. In fact, the title is, ``For Senators, Tax Questions Are Taxing.'' If it is this hard for government officials, including those who write and enforce the Tax Code, to comply with the code, then imagine what it is like for the average American family to comply with it. All Americans find the Tax Code, well, taxing. While almost every Member would recognize that our Tax Code is no longer working in a fair manner for Americans, nothing has been done to create a more equitable Tax Code. Congress won't act on fundamental tax reform unless it is forced to do so. My bill will force Congress to finally debate and address fundamental tax reform. Once this bill becomes law, today's oppressive Tax Code would survive for only 4 more years, at which time it would expire and be replaced by a new Tax Code that will be determined by Congress, the President, and the American people. This legislation will allow us as a Nation to collectively decide what the new tax system should look like. Having a date certain to end the current Tax Code will force the issue to the top of the national agenda. Although many questions remain about the best way to reform our tax system, I am certain that if Congress is forced to address the issue, we can create a Tax Code that is simpler, fairer, and better for our economy than the one we are forced to comply with today. Whichever tax system is adopted, the key ingredients should be a low rate for all Americans, tax relief for working people, protection of the rights of taxpayers, and reduction in tax collection abuses, promotion of savings and investment, and encouragement of economic growth and job creation. Taxes may be unavoidable, but they don't have to be unfair and overcomplicated. Just like other programs that require reauthorization, the Tax Code must be reviewed to examine whether it is fulfilling its intended purpose, and then Congress must make any changes that are necessary. America's future depends on overcoming the handicap of the current Tax Code. There is a widespread consensus that the current system is broken, and keeping it is not in America's best interest. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and end the broken tax system that exists today.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I, too, rise and congratulate my colleague from Michigan. The long and distinguished career of Mr. Dingell is to be congratulated by all of us. But today I rise in strong opposition to what is working its way back to the floor of this House in the form of a so-called ``stimulus package.'' This package will stimulate Big Government. It is not going to stimulate our economy. And with regard to the comments of the gentleman from Oregon, let me just say that I would invite all of my colleagues and everyone in the country to look at what is in this legislation and they will see that this is all about growing the size of government, not creating jobs to grow our economy. And I would invite people to look at the Republican alternative, which we have offered, which costs half as much money and is projected to create twice as many jobs. That is what people want. That is what people understand. They want to see the great engine of growth in this country, the small businesses empowered by the kinds of incentives that are contained in our legislation to create the jobs that are needed in this country. Oppose the stimulus. This is not the way to rebuild the American economy.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for yielding me this time and for his leadership on this very important issue. And I rise in strong opposition to this legislation. Mr. Speaker, February 17, 2009, I bet if we took a poll we would find that 90 percent of the American people know the date that's been set for the digital transition. February 17, as has already been noted, the television stations of the country have spent $1 billion in advertising, the government has spent huge sums of money promoting transfer, and 98 or 99 percent--depending on who you talk to--the American people are ready. If you're connected to a cable system, you're ready. If you're connected to satellite, you're ready. If you have a digital-ready television set, you're ready. Or if you're like a million of the people who listened to this message, went out and got the converter box, you're ready to make the transition now. There is a much simpler solution to the problem of those who do not have the coupons today. We could fix it today. We could fix it right in this room today by simply saying, ``Go buy the converter box. Save your receipt. When you get the coupon, return it with the receipt and you will get your $40 back.'' There are plenty of ways of solving this problem without a 4-month delay, and look at the consequences of that delay. First of all, we have television stations today that are having to maintain two systems that are having to pay for the electricity of two systems. It's estimated that the 1,758 U.S. TV stations may face up to $141 million in additional electric bills because of the delay. Imagine the amount of CO2 gas emissions that are occurring because we're going to extend this for 4 months and require most of those stations to continue to broadcast in both of these services. Secondly, we have to reeducate the voters. Who knows what date it is in June that this is being extended until? The people don't know the answer to that question. And we shouldn't have to reeducate them and expend any more dollars reminding them that that deadline is coming up. We have a problem with the fact that billions of dollars have been invested in this country in new equipment to take advantage of this spectrum by emergency responders--police, fire, emergency rescue organizations--all of which will have to delay the use of that equipment by 4 months because they don't have the ability to use this spectrum. And then we have the companies that have bid billions of dollars to buy other portions of the spectrum to bring generation 3 and generation 4 wireless technology. We're talking about a stimulus package. We're trying to stimulate the economy and create jobs. This is an anti-stimulus bill that would delay the efficiency and growth in our economy that comes about when you go ahead and stick to the date that this Congress voted for a long time ago. It is time to move ahead, and I hope that my colleagues will join me in opposing this bad idea.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Speaker, I want to welcome my good friend and neighbor back to the House and offer my condolences as well regarding the passing of his mother, who I never had the opportunity to meet, but who I heard much about from my good friend, who is rightfully proud of her record as an attorney and a public office holder in his hometown of Abingdon, Virginia. I rise, however, in opposition to the legislation that is offered today. This is of great concern to me and to the television broadcasters and emergency services personnel and others in my district. Since the decision to switch from analog to digital television, there has been a massive public awareness campaign that has been very successful in identifying February 17 as the day of transition. This legislation, S. 328, will delay the switch, would undermine this transition and require another massive public outreach campaign to make the public aware. The American public has had almost 3 years to prepare for this transition for which entire industries have had to adapt, and the American public is ready. Forcing them to do so for what will essentially prove to be an arbitrary deadline will set a dangerous precedent that could easily lead to more delays and would likely result in an onslaught of lawsuits. Delaying access to the 700 megahertz spectrum will unfairly prevent those entities that have been awarded access to this bandwidth from having immediate access, again, something that has been planned for several years. This is particularly troubling when considering our first responders, the very individuals that we sought to aid with this initiative in response to the communications blunder that occurred during the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. Some claim that this delay will not prevent first responders from accessing this bandwidth, but that is simply not true. Television stations will have to stop broadcasting on channels that are sought for communications.

Mr. GOODLATTE. I would simply ask that the remainder of my statement be made a part of the Record and urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation. Since the decision to switch from analog to digital television, there has been a massive public awareness campaign that has been very successful in identifying February 17 as the day of transition. This legislation, S. 328 will delay the switch, would undermine this recognition and require another massive outreach campaign to make the public aware. The American public has had almost 3 years to prepare for this transition, for which entire industries have had to adapt. Forcing them to do so for what will essentially prove to be an arbitrary deadline will set a dangerous precedent that could easily lead to more delays, and will likely result in an onslaught of lawsuits. Delaying access to the 700 MHz spectrum will unfairly prevent those entities that have been awarded access to this bandwidth from having immediate access--again something that has been planned for several years. This is particularly troubling when considering our first responders, the very individuals that we sought to aid with this initiative in response to the communications blunder that occurred during the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. Some claim that this delay will not prevent first responders from accessing this bandwidth, but that is simply not true. Television stations will have to stop broadcasting on channels that are sought for communications and neighboring channels will also have to be cleared to avoid interference. Delaying the transition will also hinder the deployment of broadband, something that has also been planned for years, and will unfairly limit the companies and consumers that plan on utilizing this type of broadband access. Furthermore, this proposed delay is being used to justify $650 million in new spending in the proposed new economic stimulus bill. In a time of economic distress and budgetary disarray, increasing the debt to American taxpayers by hundreds of millions of dollars hardly seems prudent. In fact, this legislation will work against any effort to stimulate the economy because the economic activity and growth that comes with deploying new broadband technology and new emergency communication will be delayed. There are some reports that nearly 93 percent of households affected by this switch are already prepared, deeming this legislation excessive and overly burdensome. I urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I was here in 1994 when the Republicans gained the majority in the Congress for the first time in 40 years, and remember the reforms that we put into place, term limits on committee chairmen where before chairmen who could barely walk into this Chamber were serving as Chairs of committees simply because of seniority. Well, we've thrown that out today. I guess that's change, but it's really change back. I was here in 1994, January of 1995, when we changed the rules on motions to recommit to make it easier for the minority to offer motions to recommit. Well, I guess we've changed that because now you've made it more difficult to offer real improvements to legislation by rolling back the motion to recommit. Yes, we have change in the air, but that change is simply going back. This is not progress for this Congress, and I very much regret that the Democratic leadership has chosen to curtail the rights of the minority and to not bring forward the kind of progress that comes from having term limits on committee chairmen. The new criteria for determining emergency situations that allow them to waive their own PAYGO rules are laughable. The rule appears to be that spending can be designated as emergency spending if it is necessary, unforeseen, or temporary in nature. I would suspect that the majority believes that all of their spending priorities are necessary. These rule changes are an abomination, and every taxpayer should be up in arms over these changes and the attitudes they represent. It is common sense to American families that they cannot spend more than they have, and it is unfortunate that common sense seems to elude Congress. It is clear that Congress must be forced to address its spending addiction. The way to accomplish this is through an amendment to the Constitution to require a balanced budget, which I just introduced a few minutes ago here today, with more than 115 bipartisan cosponsors. These rules are not reforms.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Speaker, I rise to re-introduce legislation that will amend the United States Constitution to force Congress to rein in spending by balancing the federal budget. It is common sense to American families that they cannot spend more than they have--yet far too frequently, this fundamental principle has been lost on a Congress that is too busy spending to pay attention to the bottom line. Our federal government must be lean, efficient and responsible with the dollars that our Nation's citizens worked so hard to earn. We must work to both eliminate every cent of waste and squeeze every cent of value out of each dollar our citizens entrust to us. Families all across our Nation understand what it means to make tough decisions each day about what they can and cannot afford and government officials should be required to exercise similar restraint when spending the hard-earned dollars of our Nation's citizens. Congress took a dramatic step forward during the 109th Congress when it passed the Deficit Reduction Act. This law found savings of approximately $40 billion over five years by eliminating wasteful spending and programs. This legislation was an important first step, but it was just that--a first step. Furthermore, the legislation was passed by the Senate by a margin of just one vote and was passed by the House by a margin of two votes, which shows exactly how difficult the task of balancing the budget is--and how important it is to force Congress to do so. This is exactly why I am re-introducing this legislation today. My legislation, which garnered 163 bipartisan cosponsors in the 110th Congress, would amend the Constitution to require that total spending for any fiscal year not exceed total receipts and require the President to propose budgets to Congress that are balanced each year. It would also provide an exception in times of war and during military conflicts that pose imminent and serious military threats to national security. Furthermore, the legislation would make it harder to increase taxes by requiring that legislation to increase revenue be passed by a true majority of each chamber and not just a majority of those present and voting. Finally, the bill requires a 3/5 majority vote for any increases in the debt limit. This concept is not new. 49 out of 50 states have a balanced budget requirement. It has become clear that it is extremely difficult for Congress to agree on a budget that is fiscally responsible. By amending the Constitution to require a balanced budget, we can force Congress to control spending, paving the way for a return to surpluses and ultimately paying down the national debt, rather than allow big spenders to lead us further down the road of chronic deficits and in doing so leave our children and grandchildren saddled with debt that is not their own. Our Nation faces many difficult decisions in the coming years, and Congress will face great pressure to spend beyond its means rather than to make difficult decisions about spending priorities. Unless Congress is forced to make the decisions necessary to create a balanced budget, it will always have the all-too-tempting option of shirking this responsibility. The Balanced Budget Constitutional amendment is a common sense approach to ensure that Congress is bound by the same fiscal principles that America's families face each day. I urge support of this important legislation.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Speaker, it was 100 years ago in 1908 that Joseph Nielsen and his successors began their work complimenting Virginia's majestic landscape with quality buildings in which to worship, learn, complete commerce and live. The history of Nielsen Construction represents the very fabric of America. Mr. Joseph Nielsen immigrated to the United States at the beginning of the twentieth century; a time of tremendous growth and innovation. That young immigrant dedicated himself to hard work and perseverance. The qualities identified as uniquely American in the golden age of industry and expansion and his vision brought him to the growing, but still largely rural, western part of Virginia. The next phase of Nielsen's success came through the acquisition of the existing W.M. Bucher & Son, a prominent builder in the Shenandoah Valley. This intertwined the futures of a young immigrant and his dream and the growth and development of the Shenandoah Valley. Today, Nielsen Builders represents the best of American industry. It represents the highest quality in design and build construction. It provides the structure and security to thousands of church goers, students, businesses and families through its homes, churches, schools and businesses. I wish Nielsen Builders success as it embarks on opening its second century of business and continuing the legacy of commitment, excellence and tradition. I extend a hearty congratulations to the management and employees of Nielsen Builders of Harrisonburg, Virginia as they celebrate this tremendous milestone.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Speaker, the Art Museum of Western Virginia has been transformed. Formerly located in Center in the Square in Roanoke, Virginia, the museum has undergone a multimillion dollar makeover under the guidance of renowned architect Randall Stout and has been reborn as the Taubman Museum of Art. Created in 1951 as the Roanoke Fine Arts Center, and then fully accredited for the first time in 1977, it became the Roanoke Museum of Fine Arts in 1980. Following its relocation from South Roanoke to the downtown multicultural structure called Center in the Square, it became the Art Museum of Western Virginia in 1992, testament to the regional nature of its mission. But change beckoned the museum as it sat on the cusp of the 21st century, due both to outgrowing its space and an expansion in its collection. A vision developed for the new Art Museum of Western Virginia. Museum officials and community supporters determined that instead of renovating an existing structure in downtown Roanoke for the new facility, a state-of-the-art structure was in order. That vision was developed not only to help bring attention to the museum itself but to help speak to the region's steady movement toward becoming a player in our technology-driven economy. Thanks to the city of Roanoke, an undeveloped site near one of the city's busiest intersections was donated to house the museum, and the city contributed $4 million for the project. Once Randall Stout was hired to develop an image of the museum at that site, it became clear that his growing stature in architectural circles would result in the transformative structure that many had hoped for. The plan was to help put Roanoke on the map with a building that would attract visitors not only from around the Commonwealth of Virginia and the United States but from around the world. On September 10, I was honored to be a participant in breaking ground for the new museum. After just over 3 years of construction, Roanoke's new art museum opened to the public on Saturday, November 8. And I was fortunate to again be present to help cut the ribbon on a building that is difficult to put into words. But once you see the Taubman Museum of Art, you learn to understand that Randall Stout captured the mountains, valleys, rivers, and seasons in rock, steel, and glass. The new museum in Roanoke is named for Nick and Jenny Taubman, a family name well known to Roanokers. Nick is the former leader of Advance Auto Parts and presently serves as the United States Ambassador to Romania. His wife, Jenny, chaired the museum's capital campaign. And their pledge of $15.25 million was the largest donation received toward the museum. The facility also benefits greatly from the Horace G. Fralin Charitable Trust, which has contributed financially and formatively. Under the leadership of Heywood Fralin, the Fralin Trust has contributed works by American artists that now make the Taubman Museum a home for some of the greatest our Nation has known--Winslow Homer, Norman Rockwell, and John Singer Sargent to name just a few. Under the able direction of Georgeanne Bingham, the Taubman Museum is not only a structure housing works of art, it is becoming a true destination. The museum also houses Art Venture, geared toward bringing men, women and children together in a gallery that will permit hands-on opportunities to create their own art. A special new media gallery is courtesy of the great leaders and minds at Virginia Tech, a longtime supporter of the new museum and an integral part of the institution's plans for educational outreach in the arts. The museum even features Hokie Stone, once specific only to the buildings on Tech's campus in Blacksburg. While breaking ground for the Taubman Museum, I said that it was a key to the new frontiers that must be crossed in the Roanoke Valley region of Virginia in order to keep it competitive in the 21st century. Now that the structure is complete, I remain convinced that the facility is the latest successful effort that is opening eyes to the vast array of possibilities that are within our reach in western Virginia. I agree with my friend Heywood Fralin that the museum is without a doubt, the most significant new structure in Virginia. I extend congratulations to Georgeanne Bingham, Nick and Jenny Taubman, Heywood Fralin, Randall Stout, and countless others who toiled for the past 3 years to help the Taubman Museum rise to the cusp of opening. The expectations were great, but I am sure that everyone who sets foot in the museum will be deeply impressed by what it has to offer to a broad range of art enthusiasts. The collections inside will speak well. Visitors will get to see old favorites, develop an appreciation for new acquisitions, and experience art in a technologically advanced way. And the building itself--the structure as seen from the exterior and what envelops inside--carries with it special significance. It has automatically become a landmark-- and in a setting in downtown Roanoke, it is good company. When given the opportunity to move from ground level and into the museum's interior and then move around it's exterior, one understands that it is surrounded by the landmarks that speak both to the region's past and point the way to its future--from the ancient Blue Ridge and Alleghany Mountains and valleys, to the star atop Mill Mountain, to the railroad tracks that first brought commerce to the region, to the historic buildings that served in previous centuries and have now been reborn for modern times. The Taubman Museum will join so many other efforts leading the way for the region, its citizens, and visitors through the frontiers yet to come. I am delighted that the Taubman Museum has been erected in the Sixth District of Virginia. I encourage our Nation to embrace the structure and its contents and to come to Roanoke to enjoy this grand cultural attraction for many, many years to come.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to take the time to recognize the retirement of my friend and colleague from Alabama: Terry Everett. Terry has served the people of the Second District of Alabama with honor and distinction for the past eight terms. He has been a faithful public servant fighting for farmers, veterans, and conservative values. Terry has served on four committees including Agriculture, Armed Services, Veterans Affairs, and the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. However, I would like to highlight Terry's extraordinary work for the agriculture community. As a farmer himself, Terry brought real world experience to the committee, experience that we see less and less from our members. The country as a whole has become more suburban and urban, and the members who represent it have followed. He knew firsthand how the laws we passed in the Agriculture Committee impacted the livelihood of our producers. Since coming to Congress in 1993, Terry has been a strong and consistent voice for not only the producers of Alabama, but the entire Nation. Agriculture is Alabama's largest industry and Terry served as the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Specialty Crops and Foreign Agriculture Programs during the 2002 Farm Bill. He also currently sits on that subcommittee and the Subcommittee on Conservation, Credit and Energy and Research. The peanut farmer knew no better friend than Congressman Everett. He served as a co-chair of the House Congressional Peanut Caucus. Under his leadership on the 2002 Farm Bill, the peanut industry moved from a 60-year-old Depression-era supply management program to a thriving industry that could respond to market signals and bring peanut farmers into the 21st century. During the 2008 Farm Bill, Terry expanded his reach and authored a provision to help producers who were suffering from drought. This provision provided a cost-sharing component for producers to build irrigation ponds for their crops during periods of drought. Without this provision, many producers in the South would not have been able to cover the cost of an irrigation pond project. This was yet another example of Terry taking the lead on an issue that was critically important to the livelihood of producers across the Nation. His leadership and experience will be missed. But, we do wish him and his wife Barbara all the best for a wonderful retirement.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I thank my colleague, the subcommittee chairman, as well as Chairman Peterson, for their work, along with others on this side of the aisle, and join them in supporting S. 3597. This bill makes a technical correction to the Nutrition title of the 2008 farm bill. This measure will ensure funds allocated for Community Food Projects in fiscal year 2008 remain available through fiscal year 2009. Without this correction, valuable grant funding will be lost. S. 3597 will allow the U.S. Department of Agriculture to carry this funding forward to provide grants that help communities respond to local nutrition issues. Because of the importance of this funding and the value that communities find in utilizing these funds to help people in need, providing food for them, I urge my colleagues to support S. 3597. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. I want to thank Ranking Member Davis, my colleague from Virginia, for not only yielding me time but also for his leadership in working so hard with Chairman Waxman, with Members of the Senate and others who have been involved in pushing this legislation forward, for helping to finally reach this day in which we have legislation that concurs with legislation in the Senate. I urge my colleagues to support the Presidential Historic Records Preservation Act of 2008. I introduced similar legislation a few weeks ago in the House, along with my colleagues in the Senate, Senators John Warner and Jim Webb. Mr. Speaker, the National Historical Publications and Records Commission is a statutory body affiliated with the National Archives and Records Administration. The NHPRC was established by Congress in 1934 to promote the preservation and use of America's documentary heritage essential to understanding our democracy, history, and culture. Currently, the NHPRC is authorized to administer grants to promote preservation and use of America's documentary heritage. The NHPRC supports projects that preserve and make accessible records and archives, and research and develop means to preserve authentic electronic records. Unfortunately, the NHPRC does not preserve the documents of all Presidents. The Presidential Historical Records Preservation Act of 2008 would allow NHPRC to make grants on a competitive basis to eligible entities to promote the historic preservation of, and public access to, historical records and documents relating to any President who does not have a Presidential archival depository currently managed and maintained by the Federal Government pursuant to the Presidential Libraries Act of 1955. Mr. Speaker, this legislation, in order to be eligible to receive these grants, an entity must qualify as a 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code or be a State or local government. In order to maintain the integrity of the grant program, the NHPRC may only approve grants to those entities that possess historical works and collections of historical sources that the commission considers appropriate for preserving, publishing, or otherwise recording at the public expense. The entity must also have appropriate facilities and space for preservation of such historical works and ensure public access to these collections. Finally, to maintain the fiscal integrity of this act, the receiving entity must have raised funds from non-Federal sources in support of the grant efforts. In addition, grants may not be used for the maintenance, operating costs, or construction of any facility to house the historical records of any President who does not have a Presidential archival depository currently managed by the Federal Government. Mr. Speaker, as you can see, the focus of the bill is preservation and access to documents, not constructing new buildings or monuments. I also commend my colleagues in the Senate for their improvements to this bill by allowing the Archivist to provide greater online access to historical documents of our Nation's Founding Fathers. With this provision, future generations will have greater access to the stories and journeys on the creation of our great country. I want to thank my colleagues, Ranking Member Davis and Chairman Waxman, for their help with this legislation. I would also like to thank the staff at the Archives and Senators Warner and Webb for their assistance, as well as the Senate Committee on Government Affairs and Homeland Security in crafting this important bill. Finally, I especially want to thank my constituents at the Woodrow Wilson Presidential Library in Staunton, Virginia, for their assistance and guidance as this bill has taken on many forms over the past few years. The Woodrow Wilson Presidential Library has preserved several thousand documents, and it is my hope that these NHPRC grants will help organizations like this serve the American public.