Bob Goodlatte

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California for yielding me this time. I rise in strong support of this rule. I think it is a very fair rule. This legislation has been marked up very, very extensively in the Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims and in the full Committee on the Judiciary for weeks and weeks, and I think the legislation we brought forward is outstanding. We have allowed nonetheless 32 separate opportunities to amend the bill, and I commend the Committee on Rules for their work and strongly support this rule. I also strongly support the underlying legislation. I want to particularly call to my colleagues' attention an amendment that I strongly oppose, and that is the Chrysler-Berman-Brownback amendment that deals with what some are representing as splitting out the legal portion of this bill and only dealing with illegal immigration. The fact of the matter is this does not split the bill. In the Senate, they voted to split the bill and are actually moving two separate bills forward. But this amendment would not do that. Mr. Speaker, what this amendment does is kill legal immigration reform because there is no provision anywhere to move forward with those provisions of the bill dealing with legal immigration. Therefore I would strongly urge the Members of the House to oppose that amendment when it comes up for consideration probably tomorrow. I also would urge strong support for the amendment that I will be offering dealing with the H-2B program as a much more reasonable reform of the current H-2A program than to go with the Pombo amendment which sets up an entirely new program with 250,000 new nonimmigrants coming into the country. That is not good, and I would urge opposition to that and support for the rule.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum] for yielding me the time, and I rise in support of this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I think it is important that we make clear what this does not do. First of all, it is not a national ID card, as some have suggested. One would not have to carry it with them. They would not use it in any way different than they use their Social Security card right now, which is if someone presents it at the time they enroll with an employer for employment purposes. There is no new use called for for the Social Security card or Social Security number. There is no new data base here. There is nothing involved here other than the information that the Social Security Administration uses right now, and yet it ends a substantial amount of bureaucracy. Mr. Chairman, it is going to be the step toward curing the problem of dealing with whether or not, when somebody presents, they are using somebody else's Social Security number, and all manner of havoc can be caused when somebody takes somebody else's identity and uses that Social Security number. It costs the taxpayer money if we add to somebody else's record in terms of how much Social Security benefits have been paid. It can have a devastating impact on somebody if that takes place. The bill does not require that a photograph be put on the card. The Congressional Budget Office says that it does not cost $3 to $6 billion. It costs $51 million, according to the Congressional Budget Office, our own agency, and we need this, and I am afraid I do not have the time to yield. I support the amendment.

Mr. GOODLATTE. I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding me the time. Mr. Chairman, I would like to commend the gentleman from California [Mr. Cox] for the amendment that he offered and the gentleman from Texas for including it in his manager's amendment. I think it is a very, very important part of the bill. A few years ago when I was practicing law, I represented a client whose family was being harassed by an individual who was unlawfully in the United States and who also was engaged in unlawful, unauthorized employment in the United States as well. After a great deal of effort we finally got through to a representative of the Immigration Service who had authority to act on this and requested that they send an investigator down to Roanoke, VA, 240 miles from the office here in Washington, to investigate this. We assured them that we had very substantial evidence to indicate this individual was in the country without authorization. The individual said that there was absolutely nothing they could do. There was simply no money in the budget to send somebody down to Roanoke, VA to make this investigation. When we pressed him harder, he finally said, Look, I can go right outside the door on the street in front of our building and find 5 people who are in a similar status, who have overstayed their visas, are not authorized in the country. We simply don't have the manpower and resources to take this action and to apprehend people who are not here legally. This provision in the bill would enable the Attorney General to designate local law enforcement authorities in Roanoke, VA and everywhere else in the country to be able to step in and assist in dealing with what is a very, very difficult problem for the understaffed, undermanned Immigration Service to handle. I commend the gentleman for including this in the bill and strongly urge support for the manager's amendment.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me, and for his fine work on this bill. Mr. Chairman, we are a nation of immigrants. My grandfather emigrated to this country from Germany in the early part of this century. My wife's parents both emigrated to this country from Ireland after World War II. I daresay there is not a person in this room who cannot go back but a few generations and find a member of their family who came to this country. It is an important principle. We remain a shining beacon of much hope for people around the world, and under the bill we will remain so. However, Mr. Chairman, we have gone too far. We have a very serious problem that is out of control with regard to illegal immigration and we have a legal immigration problem in this country that is badly in need of reform. This bill goes in tremendous strides to taking care of that problem. It is vitally important that we keep both of those aspects together in this bill. Legal immigration and illegal immigration are related to each other in so many ways. It is vitally important that we keep both in mind as we work to reform this very important process. Mr. Chairman, we do a number of things to crack down on illegal immigration, which the Immigration Service says now numbers more than 4 million people in this country without authorization. I would suggest that that estimate is very, very low, based upon my experience. This is a problem that covers every aspect of our country. This bill increases border enforcement agents, it increases barriers at the border, it increases penalties for alien smuggling, it increases penalties for document fraud, a serious problem with people who enter legally but then get fraudulent documents to remain here. It has provisions to expedite the removal of deportable aliens. It has the authority for the Attorney General to designate to State and local governments the ability to assist in apprehending those who are illegally here. It has a very excellent employer verification program. I will support the amendment that makes that mandatory on a trial basis in five of the seven States that have the largest problem with illegal immigration. This bill reforms our agricultural worker program, and it has restrictions on benefits to aliens. It is an outstanding bill. I encourage all Members of the House to support it.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I move that the committee do now rise.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, today, I am pleased to introduce the Security and Freedom Through Encryption Act. The SAFE Act. Twenty-seven of my colleagues in the House join me as cosponsors of this important legislation. We joint Senators Leahy and Burns in this bipartisan initiative which is intended to send the administration two loud and clear messages: Our antiquated export restrictions are out of step with today's technology and must be brought into the information age; and And American citizens and businesses will not tolerate big brother holding the keys to their private and proprietary information. American consumers are demanding information security and are getting it. Without security features, the innovative content, electronic commerce, and enhanced communications capabilities necessary to make the development of the GII--global information infrastructure--a success simply will not occur. Current law allows Americans to utilize any level of encryption that innovative minds can develop, but the administration wants to change that. They want to use export controls as a back door approach to controlling the use of encryption here at home. The administration has proposed allowing the export of products with strong security features but only if key escrow is built in. If this does not work, administration officials have said they will seek legislation forcing Americans to use only encryption to which the Government has access. We are here to tell the administration not to bother. We reject that solution as a big Government answer to a Big Government problem. It completely ignores consumer privacy and security. While we recognize the concerns of law enforcement officials who want to preserve surveillance capabilities, the technology genie is clearly out of the bottle. The administrations' ``64-bit key escrow'' policy ignores the realities of today's marketplace and the technology which abounds. Criminals and terrorists are not always stupid, they are going to use the highest security to communicate and conspire that is technologically available. Terrorists will not buy American just because of it's PC. There are currently over 500 foreign products and programs with strong encryption capabilities available in the world marketplace. These are products that U.S. companies can not even export. Some of them are here on display. These products are being produced and sold by foreign companies and can be downloaded on the Internet and used anywhere in the world. An economic study released in December by the Department of Commerce demonstrates that failure to address these export controls by the year 2000--4 years from now--will cost the U.S. economy $60 billion and 200,000 jobs. The administration's proposed policy would be yet another blow to the U.S. computer industry. It is time we gave our companies the ability to compete rather that giving foreign competitors the advantage. Therefore, our bill will do four things: Continue to ensure that all Americans have the right to choose any security system to protect their confidential information. Prohibit big brother from mandating a back door into people's computer systems. Make it unlawful to use encryption in the commission of a crime or to willfully coverup a crime. Allow the U.S. computer industry to export generally available software and hardware if a product with comparable security is commercially available from foreign suppliers. U.S. software companies, world leaders in cutting edge technology, must have the freedom to develop products with strong security features which meet computer user demands and privacy concerns in the United States and abroad. Mr. Speaker, this is a bipartisan effort that I urge of all my colleagues to join and support. The original cosponsors are Representatives DeLay, Boehner, Moorhead, Schroeder, Gejdenson, Manzullo, Coble, Barr, Bono, Lofgren, Campbell, Eshoo, Doolittle, Farr, McKeon, Engle, Waldholtz, Ewing, Mica, Chambliss, Everett, Ehlers, Orton, Matsui, Boucher, Chabot, and Moakley. Mr. Speaker, I would like the text of my legislation reprinted in the Record.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Agriculture Marketing Transition Act. I also rise to congratulate my chairman for the fight he has waged against the advocates of big government, and the Washington knows best mindset. One of the most unfortunate results of the veto of the Balanced Budget Act was its negative impact on farmers. That legislation included the most sweeping reform of farm programs in 60 years. After coming so far on agriculture reform last year, it would be a shame to retreat from much needed change that will save taxpayers billions of dollars and expand opportunities for our hardworking farmers. If this bill is not passed and signed into law, then the Department of Agriculture will be forced to implement outmoded depression era farm laws that do more harm than good. I was proud the Agriculture Market Transition Program, enjoyed quick, bipartisan support from the House Committee on Agriculture. Passing this bill means true reform. Farmers will finally be able to produce for the market instead of for the Government. This legislation is preferable to extending current law because folks are fed up with complicated farm programs. These programs require farmers to count, measure, certify, and document every acre and crop on the farm. The Agriculture Market Transition Program eliminates nearly all of this needless paperwork burden. More importantly, this program also strengthens our export potential and ability to compete with foreign farmers. It ends the annual acreage idling program that hurts competitiveness and has forever stigmatized federal farm programs by paying farmers not to plant. Farmers get the Government off their fields and out of their business. That's why the Farm Bureau and many other agricultural organizations support our approach. Without Government interference, farmers will be able to make more money by increasing production to meet world demand that is rapidly growing. Increased grain production could mean lower feed prices for the hard pressed livestock, poultry and dairy farmers in my district. Now is not the time to retreat on market reforms. We must support and strengthen America's position as the most reliable and important supplier of food in the world. By signing this farm reform bill, the President can prove that he meant it when he said that the ``era of big government'' is over. With spring on the way, farmers and their families cannot afford to wait. We have a solid bipartisan solution that brings real reform to our farm programs. It makes sure that our farmers have the opportunity to do what they do best--provide the safest and most abundant food supply at affordable prices. Mr. Chairman, I urge support for this taxpayer-saving, farmer- friendly bill.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring to my colleagues' attention the Charitable Medical Care Act of 1996 which I am today introducing with Representatives Moorhead, McCollum, Smith of Texas, Hoke, and Bryant of Tennessee. This important legislation will make it easier for free medical clinics to recruit medical professionals to volunteer their services for the poor. Free clinics have developed as a privately funded, grass-roots effort to provide outpatient health services primarily to the working poor. There are over 200 free clinics in the United States which have evolved with no Federal support and little local government support. My District is privileged to be home of several outstanding free clinics including one of the finest free clinics in the country, the Bradley Free Clinic of Roanoke, VA. The Bradley Free Clinic is also headquarters of the Free Clinic Foundation of America, which has been working to provide services to assist and establish free clinics across the country. My friends at the Bradley Free Clinic brought to my attention the problems free clinics nationwide encounter finding medical staff willing to volunteer their time and services because of concerns over medical liability. Medical professionals who would like to provide free care for the poor are discouraged by the possibility that doing so will put their medical malpractice coverage at risk. Retired medical professionals don't have liability coverage and therefore can't volunteer. As a result, the poor don't get the care they need. In response I am introducing a bill similar to legislation passed in Virginia in the 1980's to exempt health care professionals who provide free services in connection with a free clinic from liability for simple negligence only. In fact, Virginia is one of eight States which have laws in place exempting doctors who voluntarily provide free care in good faith from liability for simple negligence. While Medical liability suits against health care professionals who volunteer their services at free clinics are very rare, under this legislation health care professionals would not be protected if they commit gross negligence or willful misconduct. In addition, the exemption would only apply if the patient received the care at no charge, there was no reimbursement to the health care professional for providing the service and the patient had informed consent before the service was rendered that any liability incurred by their health care provider would be limited to gross negligence and willful misconduct. With over 30 million uninsured Americans, the need for privately sponsored free clinics and health services has never been more acute. It is estimated that charitable medical care provides care to 30 percent of the Nation's uninsured and is an important alternative to expensive emergency room care which is far too often the only care available for the uninsured or underinsured. This legislation would help ensure that free clinics continue to fulfill this important role by making it possible for them to attract volunteers. The Free Clinic Foundation and the Catholic Health Association are strong supporters of this legislation. Senator Moseley-Braun has sponsored companion legislation in the Senate. I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan effort and cosponsor the Charitable Medical Care Act of 1996.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to address the concerns raised by some over the language in the bill protecting minors from indecent communications over the Internet. At a meeting of House conferees I offered the compromise language replacing a harmful-to-minors standard with indecency and it was adopted as the House proffer on cyberporn. I am appalled by the unjustified hue and cry that this indecency provision will chill free speech and is therefore unconstitutional. This indecency standard has survived First Amendment scrutiny by the U.S. Supreme Court as applied in a wide variety of circumstances. In FCC v. Pacifica Foundation (1978) the Supreme Court held that the broadcast of indecent material could be banned during hours when children were likely to be viewers or listeners. In stating why broadcast indecency could be restricted Justice Steven who delivered the opinion pointed to the facts that broadcasts extend into the privacy of the home and is uniquely accessible to children. The Internet is very similar to the broadcast medium in those respects--it extends into the privacy of the home and it is uniquely accessible to children. Some have even claimed that an indecency standard will keep great literary works such as ``Catcher in the Rye'' off the Internet. I strongly disagree and I believe that the definition of indecency, which is very narrow, makes this clear. The exact definition of indecency is ``any material that in context depicts or describes, in terms patently offensive as measured by contemporary community standards, sexual or excretory activities or organs.'' The context of the material cannot be disregarded when making a determination of indecency. Therefore, if someone transmits the entire novel ``Catcher in the Rye'' they would not be violating an indecency standard, but if they transmit only certain passages out of context they might. Indecency is not an inherent attribute of words or pictures, but rather a matter of context and conduct. In addition, it must be evaluated by prevailing community standards, not the views of just a few individuals. We need to maintain a high standard when it comes to protecting children from exposure to pornography. The indecency provision in this legislation is right on target. It will keep smut away from children and protect on-line services or information providers who make a good- faith effort to keep indecent material away from children. In addition, a very important factor cannot be overlooked--the battle over cyberporn threatened to completely throw the progression of telecommunications legislation off track. By bringing the House proffer on cyberporn closer to that contained in the Senate bill, my compromise prevented conferees from getting bogged down in this debate and allowed today's debate to come to pass. Regarding Section 271(d)(2)(A) (Consultation with the Attorney General) The conference agreement provides that the FCC must notify the Attorney General promptly when an application is filed by a Bell operating company for in-region interLATA relief. Before making its determination on the merits of the application, the FCC must consult with the Attorney General. In this regard, the Attorney General may submit an evaluation to the FCC using any antitrust standard that the Attorney General believes the FCC should consider in assessing the application. This requirement recognizes the special expertise of the Attorney General in antitrust and competitive matters. However, this paragraph expressly provides that the Attorney General's evaluation does not have a preclusive effect on the FCC. In other words, the FCC is not required to adopt or even agree with that evaluation or with the conclusions of the Attorney General. While the FCC must give the Attorney General's evaluation substantial weight, it is not required to follow the Attorney General's views. Moreover, the FCC is free to give substantial weight--indeed greater weight if justified by the proffer--to the evidence offered by the applicant, Bell operating company. This is also true both of the conclusions and the recommendations concerning public interest, convenience and necessity or concerning competitive issues. This provision is also not intended to give the views of the Attorney General any special weight or entitle them to any special deference upon judicial review of an FCC decision under this subsection. The critical determination under this subsection is the FCC's determination whether the Bell operating company has met the requirements of the Act. The courts will accord that FCC determination ``full Chevron deference'' as provided for in Chevron v. National Resources Defense Council, 467 U.S. 837 (1984).

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this very, very important bill that is going to provide deregulation in an industry that is badly needed. We are going to finally bring the telecommunication policy of this country into the last half of the 20th century before we enter the 21st century. Mr. Speaker, this bill is going to create millions of jobs, estimated over 3 million jobs due to the new competition and the new technologies that are going to be made available. I would also like to thank the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde], the chairman, and the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bliley], the chairman of the conference, for making it possible for me to play a key role in working out an agreement that protects the rights of local governments to see that their zoning regulations are carried forward in making sure that, when new cell towers are located, they have the ability to determine in each locality where they are placed while fairly making sure that those locations do not interfere with interstate commerce and with the opportunity to advance this new technology. I strongly support this legislation and urge my colleagues to vote for the conference report.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. I thank the gentleman for yielding. The fact of the matter is, we have a specific budget on the table that you can look to.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for his kind remarks and for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, this is an effort on our part to open the Government back up to show the President and the American people that we are doing everything possible to negotiate in good faith, while moving forward on our commitment to finally balance the Federal budget. It is always easier to criticize a proposal, to complain without offering a positive solution. We, on the other hand, have worked very hard over the last 2 days in fashioning this positive solution to get the Government back to work and to balance our budget. That is what my goal has been as I have worked to find a solution; that is what we are going to do here today. Now it is time for the President to fulfill his responsibility. Mr. Speaker, all that we ask is that President Clinton meet himself halfway. He signed into law back in November an agreement that by the end of the first session of the 104th Congress, 2 days ago, we would have a balanced budget using CBO scoring. All we ask of him today is that he put down his marker, that he tell us where his balanced budget with CBO scoring is. Let us see what his priorities are. We cannot settle this until we have the ability to compromise. You cannot compromise when the other side does not have a position to compromise with. So we are asking him to put it on the table and then we can work this out and work out the priorities. The President said when he ran that he could balance the budget in 5 years. He said during this crisis that we could balance the budget in 7 years. All we ask is that the President meet himself halfway by putting his version of that on the table so that we can move this negotiating process forward and fully reopen the government. I am pleased that we have already voted to put Government workers back to work. Now let us reopen the Government fully once the President does what his responsibility is: Put your budget on the table.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston], the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, for yielding me the time, and I rise in strong support of this resolution to get payment to our Nation's veterans. They have sacrificed for our country, they have laid their lives on the line, and this is a very important continuing resolution, and those on the other side of the aisle who pointed out that there are a number of other things that need to be resolved, they are absolutely right as well. As a matter of fact, there are a number of things that should be taken care of, and we pointed out on our side that many of them would have been taken care of if the President had signed into law the veterans appropriations, the Department of Housing and Urban Development appropriations, the Commerce Department appropriations, and State Department appropriations, the Justice Department appropriations, the Interior Department appropriations. But this week he vetoed every single one of those appropriation measures and has effectively closed down all of those agencies except for essential personnel. Now the President of the United States has a constitutional right to veto every single one of those pieces of legislation, but he also has a moral obligation and an obligation based on the law he signed over 30 days ago to balance the budget in 7 years using real numbers, to come forward with his itemized response to everything he does not like in each one of those appropriations bills, in each one of the entitlement measures we have in the country, so that we can sit down with him and negotiate. It is time to stop name calling, it is time to get down and negotiate, but we have got to have a reasonable, responsible approach to do that, and both parties laying their cards on the table, and everybody sitting down and getting serious about this is exactly what is needed, and I call upon everybody, including the President of the United States, to stop the press conferences and start negotiating.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, the President has now had four tries at sending the Congress a balanced budget, and he still has not gotten close to honoring the commitment he made to the American people and the law he signed 29 days ago agreeing to a balanced budget in 7 years using real numbers, not smoke and mirrors. President Clinton's latest budget keeps piling on the debt, an estimated $265 billion in the red. Mr. Speaker, we voted on that budget here in the House today, and Democrats and Republicans alike combined to reject it 412 to zero. That is right, not a single Member of the House in either party voted for the President's latest budget. Yesterday we had a similar bipartisan vote in favor of a 7-year balanced budget using realistic assumptions about economic growth. While the President cannot send us a budget that actually balances, he can stand over at the White House and scare our seniors, scare our families, scare our veterans with dire rhetoric and self-serving political posturing that lacks one essential element, the truth. He and his allies have spent an estimated $30 million attempting to mislead the American people about Medicare, Medicaid, education, and the Earned Income Tax Credit. So let us look at the facts. He says Republicans are devastating Medicare, destroying Medicare. Here are the facts: In this current year we are spending per senior citizen $4,816 on Medicare; in the year 2002, $7,101 per senior citizen on Medicare. Where is the cut? I would suggest to my colleagues that only in Washington, DC, can a $2,300 increase in spending on Medicare be called a cut. Only in Washington, DC, and on negative misleading ads such as the one the United Mine Workers are running in my district on the radio this week, absolutely false, totally intended to try and scare senior citizens, and for what? Purely political demagoguery and nothing else. Medicaid. We are increasing the amount of money spent on Medicaid by nearly 50 percent over the next 7 years. Education. The chairman of the committee is going to speak on this at great length, but let us take a look at just one example, a very important part of education, student loans. Cuts to student loans they say. Well, here in 1995 the total amount of money made available for student loans this year is $24.5 billion. In the year 2002 under our budget that has been sitting on the table waiting for a budget from the President to negotiate over we increase it to $36.4 billion over the next 7 years, more than, or nearly, a 50-percent increase in student loans, and yet the President would have the students of this country and their parents scared with the idea that we are trying to cut education. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Earned Income Tax Credit. The President says we are being unfair to hard-working, low-income families in this country, yet we are increasing the amount of money that is spent, that the amount of tax credits that are available for the Earned Income Tax Credit for low- income families by $5 billion in the 7th year of our budget, increasing again, and overall in the last 7 years we spent $9\1/2\ trillion. That is the total amount of money the Government spent; in the next 7 years with our budget, $12 trillion, a $2\1/2\ trillion increase, and yet the President wants to spend more, originally proposing to spend nearly $1 trillion more, still wanting to spend $300 billion more than what is necessary, more than what it takes to balance the budget in 7 years, and we cannot balance the budget using his smoke and mirrors. Mr. Speaker, the President has got his seasons mixed up. It is Christmas, not Halloween, so maybe he should put away the senior scare tactics and bogie-man budgets and join the Congress in actually helping our Nation by balancing the budget. Today each and every Member of Congress had a crystal-clear decision. Members could vote for President Clinton's fourth budget, and with their vote they would say to their folks back home, ``I agree with President Clinton; we simply don't want to balance the budget. So let's not even try. Let's just keep piling on the debt that our children and grandchildren will be stuck with, and we'll keep playing the tried and true Washington political game of saying one thing and doing another, saying we want a balanced budget, but voting to keep up the outrageous spendathon.'' Mr. Speaker, clearly that was rejected by the Members of this Congress today. Members today who voted no voted no and said, ``President Clinton, it is really time to finally balance the budget. The American people are waiting and watching.'' No more Washington, D.C. gimmicks. No more political games. No more divisive grandstanding. Let's do the right thing. Let's balance the budget. Let's put our government back to work. The vote was unanimous. Republicans and Democrats voted ``no'' and sent a bipartisan message to President Clinton that we are moving forward to balance the budget and it's about time that he joined us. The American people are waiting and watching.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to President Clinton's unbalanced budget and in support of the balanced budget that has already passed this Congress. The President has now had four tries at sending the Congress a balanced budget. And, he still has not gotten close to honoring the commitment he made to the American people and the law he signed 29 days ago agreeing to a balanced budget in 7 years using real numbers, not smoke and mirrors. President Clinton's latest budget keeps piling on the debt--an estimated $265 billion in the red. While the President cannot send us a budget that actually balances, he can stand over at the White House and scare our seniors, scare our families, and scare our veterans with dire rhetoric and self-serving political posturing that lacks one essential element--the truth. The President has his seasons mixed up. It is Christmas, not Halloween. So maybe he should put away the ``senior-scare'' tactics and ``bogey-man'' budgets and join the Congress in actually helping our Nation by balancing the budget. Today, each and every member of Congress faces a crystal clear decision. Members can vote for President Clinton's fourth budget and with their vote they will say to their folks back home, ``I agree with President Clinton. We simply don't want to balance the budget so let's not even try. Let's just keep piling on the debt that our children and grandchildren will be stuck with anyway. And, we'll keep playing the tried and true Washington political game of saying one thing and doing another. Saying we want a balanced budget, but voting to keep up the outrageous spend-a-thon.'' That's what some wrongheaded members might say. Or, Members of Congress can vote ``no'' on President Clinton's budget. By voting ``no,'' a Member of Congress is saying, ``President Clinton, it really is time to finally balance the budget. No more Washington, DC gimmicks. No more political games. No more divisive grandstanding. Let's do the right thing. Let's balance the budget. Let's put our government back to work.'' I urge my colleagues, Republicans and Democrats, to vote ``no'' and send a bipartisan message to President Clinton that we are ready to move forward to balance the budget and it is about time that he joined us. The American people are waiting and watching.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 866, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea''.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to bring to the attention of all Members of Congress, action being taken by the administration which threatens the personal privacy of everyone using a computer. Let me explain. Even before Julius Caesar began dispatching runners with coded messages, governments and private citizens have searched for ways to protect vital personal and business secrets. As communications have become more sophisticated, so too have the methods used to secure private and confidential communications. Information sent by computer today is often protected by ``encryption'' technology. The technology applies a mathematical equation which scrambles data so it can only be read by the person holding the ``key'' which unscrambles the information. For years, the Government has argued that it should hold a ``key'' to everyone's computer--you may recall the ``clipper chip'' debate during the last Congress. Despite the wholehearted rejection of the clipper chip, the Government is back at it. Yesterday, the National Institute of Standards and Technology [NIST] held a hearing on an administration proposal called the ``64-bit software key escrow encryption export criteria.'' Beyond this technical jargon, this appears to be a very dangerous proposal; some are referring to it as the ``son of clipper.'' The new proposal is opposed by a wide range of interests, including the high-technology industry, free speech advocates, and free-market groups. The Ad Hoc Taxpayer Coalition for Computer Privacy, which includes Americans for Tax Reform, and Citizens for a Sound Economy, says this proposal is anticonsumer, antimarketplace, anti-American business, and antiprogress. A group of three dozen high-tech business interests have informed the administration that they will attempt to craft their own policy because the administration's just misses the boat. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert letters from these two groups in the Congressional Record as well as letters from the Business Software Alliance, the Information Technology Association of America, and the Information Technology Industry Council. Mr. Speaker, it appears that the administration is trying to set a national policy on computers without a true public hearing. Such serious issues should not be resolved behind closed doors or at obscure hearings. Congress is being called upon to become involved in the debate over a national encryption policy. I think we should take a close look at this and I urge my colleagues to consider this seriously. The Ad Hoc Taxpayer Coalition for Computer Privacy, November 8, 1995. Hon. Newt Gingrich, Speaker of the House of Representatives, The Capitol, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Speaker: We are writing to express serious concerns about the Administration's efforts to continue to restrict the ability of computer users at home and abroad to protect their personal and private information over electronic networks through the use of encryption technology. The Administration seems determined to ensure government surveillance of all electronic information and communications. It began with President Clinton's ``Clipper Chip,'' but has not stopped. Consumers aren't happy with these proposals, and neither is the business community nor civil libertarians. In fact, it's hard to find anyone supportive outside the Administration except for the few that would benefit from the Administration's ``proposed relaxation'' of the nation's export policy. The Administration refuses to let American computer hardware and software companies sell products with good encryption worldwide unless the U.S. Government is guaranteed access to a key that unlocks that information. The Administration is trying to leverage these companies' need to export--they derive more than half their earnings from sales abroad--and desire to develop a single product worldwide, to force them to include a feature in products they sell in the U.S. and abroad that will allow government access. Administration officials also have said that if American companies do not ``voluntarily'' include such a feature, then they will seek legislation making such a feature mandatory. The Administration's approach is the wrong policy for today's marketplace. It's anti-consumer. Computer users will not entrust their sensitive information to computer networks unless its security and privacy are assured. Without good privacy protection, there simply will not be a Global Information Infrastructure--and America won't be in the lead. It's anti-marketplace. There is no consumer demand for encryption products that give the government easy access. The Administration has come forward with a typical big-government approach--a government designed solution for a government problem. This completely overlooks the realities of a free- market. It is anti-American business. The Administration's current policies are seriously harming the continued competitiveness of one of our fastest growing and most successful industries--the computer hardware and software industry. Computer users are demanding good encryption but American companies are not allowed to supply it. Yet there are hundreds of foreign encryption products manufactured and encryption programs are widely available on the Internet. Finally, it is anti-progress. Wishing that there was no encryption available will not make it so. The technology is widely understood and available--you can't put this genie back in the bottle. Government policies should not encumber the American computing industry as it leads the world technology revolution. We strongly urge you to oppose attempts to limit the ability of Americans to use whatever encryption they wish and to support the immediate relaxation of harmful export controls on American products and programs with encryption features. Americans for Tax Reform; Association of Concerned Taxpayers; Competitive Enterprise Institute; Citizens for a Sound Economy; The Business Leadership Council; The Small Business Survival Committee; Citizens Against a National Sales Tax/VAT. Virginia Postrel, Editor, Reason magazine; Sheldon Richman, Senior Editor, The Cato Institute; Tanya Metaksa, Executive Director, Institute for Legislative Action, National Rifle Association; Kellyanne Fitzpatrick, The Polling Company; and Donna Matias, Institute for Justice.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Balanced Budget Act of 1995. It is time we balance the budget for everyone in this country and our children and grandchildren. Mr. Speaker, today is a historic day for America. It is a historic day because today we are keeping our promise to the people of this great Nation for a better future. This Balanced Budget Act brings more change to the way Washington operates than any other legislation in the last half century. It eliminates deficits over the next 7 years and does so honestly and fairly. And in doing so, we ease the crushing burden of Federal debt on our children. A balanced budget will not only keep the national debt from going higher and higher, it means help for folks right now. Balancing the budget will lower interest rates which will mean lower mortgage rates, lower car loans costs, lower rates on student loans, and more jobs. For instance, according to DRI-McGraw/Hill, an independent economic consulting firm, fixed rate mortgages would drop by 2.7 percentage points and adjustable rate mortgages would drop by 1.7 percentage points by 2002. This would boost home values by 8 percent, existing home sales by 11.5 percent, and housing starts 65,000 each year. This bill keeps other promises as well, including our promise to preserve, protect, and strengthen Medicare. It saves Medicare from bankruptcy while still substantially increasing spending on this important health care program. It is security for our seniors who have planned for their retirements with the hope that Medicare will be there. And it is security for baby-boomers who know we are committed to a sound Medicare system when they retire. We deliver on our promise of tax relief for America's families and a cut in the capital gains tax to spur job creation and economic growth. According to the congressional Joint Economic Committee, a $500 per- child family tax credit means families with children earning less than $25,000 will see their entire Federal income tax liability eliminated. Families with incomes of $30,000 will have 48 percent of their Federal income tax liability eliminated. And capital gains tax relief means jobs and economic growth. Investment will not happen without capital, and capital will not be freed up without tax relief. Economic growth and more jobs means more tax revenue. Despite what our critics say, we can balance the budget and still give relief to our hardworking and overburdened taxpayers. And one thing we know for sure, increasing taxes has not produced balanced budgets. The American people want a smaller, more efficient government, but Washington has failed to deliver. However, with this bill we begin slimming an overweight Federal bureaucracy including eliminating an entire Cabinet level agency--the Commerce Department. Mr. Speaker, the Balanced Budget Act is the right thing for America and America's families. We must keep our word to balance the budget. Most important, we must keep alive the American dream for the sake of our children. I urge my colleagues to vote for this historic bill.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Canady], my good friend, the chairman of our subcommittee, and the ranking minority member, the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank] for the strong bipartisan support of this important legislation that we have been struggling for years to bring forward, and I also very much appreciate the very kindly way that this debate has proceeded. We are in general agreement about this, but I would hope that we would have the same kind of level of debate. Even at times when we are in strong disagreement on the underlying issues, we should never let the debate break down, as it does sometimes. Congressional reforms have been a major priority since last year's elections. For instance, we have taken steps to clean up sloppy administrative and financial practices in the House of Representatives. We have passed into law the Congressional Accountability Act, making Members of Congress subject to the same laws that we pass and impose on everyone else. Now we are focusing on lobbying reform and rules governing gifts to Members of Congress, which rules we just changed earlier this evening. The people that I talk to feel that lobbyists have too much power and more access to the government than average folks. They are right to feel that way. That is why we are taking strong steps to rein in lobbying activity abuse. Existing rules governing lobbying are unclear, contain weak enforcement provisions, and lack clear guidance as to who is to register as a lobbyist. This bill will take care of this problem. The main focus of this legislation is to provide for meaningful disclosure by full-time lobbyists. Currently, only those lobbyists who, in their personal judgment, believe it is their principle purpose to lobby must register. In other words, it is up to the individual lobbyist to decide whether or not to register. This legislation, however, carefully defines the term ``lobbyist.'' Someone who spends more than 20 percent of his or her time engaged in lobbying activities for a client in a 6-month period is considered to be a lobbyist. That person must register with the Clerk of the House and the Secretary of the Senate. Lobbyists will be required to file a semiannual report which contains information about clients, issues, and [[Page H 13109]] Federal agencies in which their lobbying activities are involved, and the ability of the government to enforce lobbying rules is strengthened, but the controversial provisions related to grassroots lobbying contained in last year's bill have been removed, and I think that will be a great reassurance to a great many Americans concerned abut their individual right to contact their Representatives in Congress and make their voice heard. This bill in no way will interfere with that right. In addition to creating an effective system of disclosure for lobbyists of domestic clients, this bill amends the Foreign Agents Registration Act. That act addresses the disclosure of interests of foreign individuals, corporations, and governments. Under this legislation, major loopholes in these requirements are eliminated, which will greatly enhance the disclosure of lobbying by foreign interests. The House of Representatives is known as the people's House, and the people's business should be conducted without undue influence. These reforms will help make sure that happens.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this continuing resolution, and I reach out my hand in thanks to the many Members of the other side who are going to join us in supporting this continuing resolution and making it a bipartisan bill going back to the President Frankly, I am stunned that before we had even taken action this evening, the President took it upon himself to say that he would veto legislation that is going to have strong bipartisan support that would reopen the government and, most importantly, establish the principle that 300 of us on both sides of the aisle voted for, and that is to balance the budget in this country for the first time in 33 years. I urge my colleagues to support this continuing resolution on both sides of the aisle. Let us send this to the President and let him know that we want to see a balanced budget for the first time in this country in over 25 years.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this legislation, and commend the gentleman from Florida for his leadership. Mr. Chairman, I have seen and heard it all now with this effort to block the chairman's ability to bring to the floor these charts. It is no wonder that abortion proponents are opposed to having a mother having informed consent, to children and parents having the benefit of parental notification, if they would hide even this inhumane, abominable procedure from this Congress and the American people. Perhaps it is shame on the part of those most dedicated abortion proponents, who would cause a vote to block this information from being presented. Even they feel the shame, that we as a society would allow a partial birth abortion. By the way, those charts fully conform to this legislation. And by the way, this legislation fully protects the life of the mother. It is only the difference of 3 inches between full delivery and doing the same procedure which would be murder in this act. Mr. Chairman, I strongly support this legislation. Let us ban this procedure.

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

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this concucurrent resolution. I think one of the most unfair tax situations we have in this country is the earnings test on senior citizens between the ages of 62 and 70, a 50 percent tax on those earning just over $11,000 per year, in addition to the taxes they have to pay on the income that they earn, plus any State taxes and so on. Someone can be in an 80 or 90 percent tax bracket because of this earnings test. It is a tremendous disincentive for senior citizens between 62 and 70. Between 65 and 70, it is a 33 percent additional tax, a trememodous disincentive to work, at a time when many people need to remain in the work force, many people want to remain in the work force, and they ought to have the opportunity to do so. I would say to my friends on the other side of the aisle that it is their party who originally enacted the rules in the Senate that prevent us from bringing this up in this bill. We will certainly stick by our commitment to this. It is not a matter of our not wanting to do it because of something we have done, it is because of the rules that exist. I urge my colleagues to support the resolution.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this vitally important legislation for the future of our country. Today we are keeping our promise to America for a better future, and fulfilling the people's mandate for change. No more excuses, no more Washington gimmicks. It's time to do the right think--it's time to balance the budget. Passing this budget reconciliation bill will bring more change to the way Washington operates than any other legislation in the last half century. It eliminates deficits over the next 7 years and does it honestly and fairly. And in doing so, it eases the crushing burden of Federal debt on our children. A balanced budget is more than just an accounting trick. Balancing the budget will lower interest rates which will mean lower mortgage rates, lower car loan costs, lower rates on student loans, and more jobs. For instance, according to DRI-McGraw/Hill, an independent economic consulting firm, fixed rate mortgages would drop by 2.7 percentage points and adjustable rate mortgages would drop by 1.7 percentage points by 2002. This would boost home values by 8 percent, existing home sales by 11.5 percent, and housing starts by 65,000 each year. With this bill we keep other promises such as bringing real reform to the welfare system. It breaks the cycle of dependency, and emphasizes work, personal responsibility, and the preservation of the family. It shifts power and resources back to the States and slices away government bureaucracy. The bill includes Medicare provisions, passed earlier this year, which preserve, protect, and strengthen Medicare. It saves Medicare from bankruptcy while still increasing spending on this important health care program. It's security for our seniors who have planned for their retirements with the hope that Medicare will be there. And it's security for baby-boomers who know we are committed to a sound Medicare system when they retire. We deliver on our promise of tax relief for America's families and a cut in the capital gains tax to spur job creation and economic growth. According to the Joint Economic Committee, a $500 per-child family tax credit means families with children earning less than $25,000 will see their entire Federal income tax liability eliminated. Families with incomes of $30,000 will have 48 percent of their Federal income tax liability eliminated. And capital gains tax relief means jobs and economic growth. Investment will not happen without capital, and capital will not be freed up without tax relief. Economic growth and more jobs means more tax revenue. Despite what our critics say, we can balance the budget and still give relief to our hardworking and overburdened taxpayers. And one thing we know for sure, increasing taxes has not produced balanced budgets. The American people want a smaller, more efficient government, but Washington has failed to deliver until now. With this bill we begin slimming an overweight Federal bureaucracy by eliminating an entire Cabinet-level agency--the Commerce Department. The budget reconciliation bill is the right thing for America and America's families. We keep our word and balance the budget. Most important, we save the future of the American dream for our children.