Bob Goodlatte

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I will be brief. I reluctantly rise in support of this amendment. I for many years was a Member of the National Trust for Historic Preservation. I joined it at Montpelier in Virginia. I strongly support their efforts to acquire historic properties like Montpelier and Belle Grove, and their efforts to support battlefields and other historic treasures in this country. However, the role and the scope of the National Trust for Historic Preservation, unfortunately, in recent years, has taken a new direction that we can no longer as a Congress publicly fund, because the effect is to have money spent by the Federal Government to support litigation all over this country, to support lobbying efforts in this Congress, to affect rights of local governments and State governments, to affect private property owners' rights. We have seen an example of it right in my State of Virginia in the past few years. The effort on the part of the National Trust for Historic Preservation to control land use planning in the entire northern Piedmont area of Virginia, 8,000 square miles, because they were opposed to the Disney project, is a tragic broadening of the scope of that organization. They should not be involved in that type of thing. If they choose to be involved, they should do so without the support of the Congress. Mr. Chairman, when they go around the country filing lawsuits, as they intended to do in that case, and supporting lobbying efforts and other efforts, contrary to the interests of the people of the State of Virginia, certainly of the government of the State of Virginia, that is entirely wrong. While I will continue to support their efforts to acquire historic properties, Mr. Chairman, and I think that is a very worthwhile goal, they, I think, have stepped over the line when they attempt to use their organization and the funds of the organization to inject themselves in massive land use planning issues that should be left to the discretion of State and local governments. I strongly support this amendment.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman yielding to me. Mr. Chairman, I would ask the gentleman, is it not true that money is fungible; that the money coming into this organization from the Federal Government can be allocated based upon their needs as they take in other money from private sources? If they need additional funds for lobbying, they can take that from the private sector and use this money for legitimate purposes, so therefore the result of our funding them is to effectuate their ability to lobby the government?

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

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, as an original cosponsor, I fully support this amendment which an overwhelming majority of the American people support and feel strongly that it is an important addition to the Constitution. Through their elected representatives, the people have spoken: 49 of the 50 State legislatures, including my State of Virginia, have passed resolutions calling on Congress to pass this amendment. The American flag is the most powerful symbol of the United States. It represents the ideals of freedom, equality and liberty on which this Nation was founded. The Stars and Stripes have led our Nation, our Armed Forces in conflict time and again, reassuring our troops and reminding them of what they were fighting for. Many Americans have given their lives carrying that flag and protecting it. Many Americans are outraged when we think of our grand flag being desecrated. We are not altering the Bill of Rights as some in the minority has said. I am a staunch defender of first amendment rights. I do not believe that burning a flag is free speech despite what the Supreme Court has said in two wrong-headed decisions. Talking about the flag is free speech. Criticizing America and its Government, for those who care to do so, is free speech. But physically desecrating an American flag is not. Americans know speech when they see it, and they know that what Gregory Lee Johnson and Sara Eichman, the defendants in those court cases, did to the American flag is not free speech. The American people want us to confirm what one of the verses of America the Beautiful asks our Nation, ``confirm thy soul in self- control, thy liberty in law.'' Pass the amendment.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the following committees and their subcommittees be permitted to sit today while the House is meeting in the Committee of the Whole House under the 5-minute rule: Committee on Agriculture; Committee on Banking and Financial Services; Committee on Commerce; Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities; Committee on Government Reform and Oversight; Committee on the Judiciary; Committee on National Security; Committee on Resources; and Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that the minority has been consulted and that there is no objection to these requests.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, what a new day we have in this Congress. Mr. compliments to the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Neumann] and the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] who last year, for the first time in 8 years, even offered a balanced budget. The budget has not been balanced in 25 years, but no one had even tried for 8 years. Now, here today, all we have are 4 different alternative balanced budgets to consider. This is what the American people want to see, and this budget, the Neumann-Solomon budget, is the fairest and best of them all. It is not a battle between seniors and young people. This is fair to everybody, because this is the only budget that restores the trust funds for the Social Security trust fund, and does it the quickest of any. It restores the most. It also is fair from the standpoint of reducing, eliminating this deficit the quickest in 5 years. That helps people right now, not just our young people in the future, which is important, but it helps right now.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this substitute, and urge every Member of this House to vote for this historic opportunity to vote for a real balanced budget, and that is the Kasich balanced budget amendment. That is what is going to solve the problems of this country. It is going to return more money to the hard-working taxpayers of this country. That is what is going to be fair to all people all across this country. It does so in such a way that it does not create the kind of division that the Democrats on the other side would like to create in this debate. Mr. Chairman, this is not about class warfare, this is about protecting the future of our children, our grandchildren, and about what is happening right now in this Congress, and what is happening right now in this country. The fact of the matter is that with interest rates rising, the fact that the Federal Government borrows $200 million a year means that interest rates continue to rise, and we can save a substantial amount of money if we can balance the budget and go about the business of this country.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman and I concur in his statement. I think that it is definitely the case and so often overlooked here that nobody has a greater incentive to make sure that the waters and lands of the State of Virginia, the State of Louisiana, the State of Wisconsin, and every other State than those people who live in the States. This is clearly an issue of States rights and States' opportunity to have the flexibility to handle this problem themselves.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment. I commend the gentleman from Wisconsin and the gentleman from Louisiana for this effort. This corrects what I think is a serious defect in the bill created by the earlier Boehlert amendment which takes away the kind of flexibility that the States need to have in dealing with nonpoint- source pollution problems. The State of Virginia that I represent is a very diverse State. It has very diverse types of geography in different parts of the State. And it is the State itself and the State agencies and the elected officials in the State of Virginia that best understand the competing needs of different parts of the State. The State of Virginia borders a great deal of the Chesapeake Bay, and we very much value and treasure the Chesapeake Bay, but we also understand the needs of those in other parts of the State. And it is far more appropriate for the State to be able to take the lead in deciding this and not have to work with two competing different Government agencies, Federal Government agencies dictating to the State of Virginia how to handle a wide variety of land use issues that take place all across the State. I commend the gentleman from Louisiana and the gentleman from Wisconsin. I strongly urge this as a very good amendment which will correct a problem that exists in the bill.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to reintroduce the Franking Reduction Act of 1995, legislation that is necessary if we are to truly reform this House. The bloated franking budget has become nothing more than a blatantly abused political advertising slush fund, and it has got to stop. My bill, which has received bipartisan support, would slash the $31 million franking budget in half. The past 100 days have seen the passage of several substantial in- House reforms, proving to the American people our commitment to real change. The American people are getting the message that real change is finally happening here in Washington, which is precisely legislation consistent with our promise of reform to the American people. To keep the spirit of reform moving, I urge my colleagues to join me in some spring House cleaning. The frank has grown from a tool to inform and educate constituents about legislative issues into a campaign advertisement to promote personal and political agendas. We need to restore credibility to the franking process by making Members accountable for the costs they incur. Not only will my bill cut franking by 50 percent, but it also requires monthly statements of costs charged to each Member's account to be made available to the public. This bill will apply to sessions of Congress beginning after the date of enactment. The bloated franking budget can be cut without damaging the ability of Members to communicate with their constituents. In the 103rd Congress, I used less than 50 percent of my franking budget, without impairing my ability to effectively correspond with my constituents. It is a common misnomer that a reduction in franking affects a Member's performance. Rather, it forces Members to use their mail budget solely to inform and educate. Mr. Speaker, I think we can all agree that bringing an end to franking abuse is long overdue. Cutting the franking budget by 50 percent will restore the original intent of the frank while following through with our promise of continued congressional reform. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, with all of the recent discussion about Enola Gay and some academic types trying to rewrite history, I'd like to talk a moment about a great American living in my district who knows much about the subject of World War II. His name is Hayne W. Dominick, and as a 21-year-old machine gunner for the Army Air Corps he fought the Japanese across the Philippine Islands and then made the last stand at Corregidor. Days later, he survived the brutal and infamous Bataan death march. Like thousands of his comrades in that march, Mr. Dominick demonstrated a bravery, endurance, constancy in the face of torture and inhumane treatment, and compassion for his hurting comrades that is perhaps unmatched in military annals. Then, for another 4 years his courage carried him through the horrors and brutality of a Japanese prison camp. We must never forget the true nature of World War II. It was a war of aggression by military dictators and their followers in Japan and Germany. Our Armed Forces fought with supreme bravery and sacrifice to save our way of life, to save democracy, to give suffering people back their freedom. And it was fought and won by great patriots like Hayne W. Dominick.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of term limits. I have a great respect for some of those here today who have argued against them, but I think they have missed the point and missed the point entirely. It has been claimed that term limits will give strength and power to the congressional staff, to bureaucrats, to lobbyists who will be here in Washington, DC perhaps forever to come. I think that is entirely wrong. I think in fact the current system gives strength to those institutions of Washington, DC, because those who have been here for 20, 30, 40, and 50 years are the ones who have institutionalized themselves as part of that process. They have been unwilling to change. That is what has been seen when we have actually had some turnover here recently. Conventional wisdom is not being accepted right now. The status quo is not being accepted. It is because of the fact that we have new Members bringing that about. Term limits is the only way to assure that we will have this constant turnover, this constant freshness. Those who suggest that the only kind of experience in this Congress is the experience of warming a seat here for 20, 30, 40, or in the case of one individual who set the all-time record of 54 years, are wrong. I keep hearing Henry Clay's name being mentioned. Henry Clay was elected Speaker of the House in the early 1800's, not after he had been here for 20 years, in his very first term. Why? Not because of experience in the House of Representatives, but because of experience in life. It is time that we recognize that and return this institution to the people. I urge support for term limits.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of term limits, but I am not going to participate in what I perceive to be a sham, in suggesting that after we have had term limits adopted by the people of 22 different States and all of them have adopted them without retroactivity, that somehow people want to have retroactive term limits. In fact, the proof is in Washington State. The voters there had term limits offered to them with retroactivity. They rejected them, brought them back 2 years later without a retroactive provision, and they passed them. Mr. Chairman, let us not fool ourselves. This is an effort to provide cover for people who do not truly support term limits. If you do not believe it, look and see what they do on the final vote for final passage of a constitutional amendment for term limits. They are not going to vote for it unless it has this retroactivity in it, when, in point of fact, term limits will apply going forward prospectively anyway. Why not support it even if you do not get your retroactivity that you seem to want to have, when you can still impose term limits on yourself if you are a Member of Congress? Now, the reason why retroactive term limits are a bad idea is very simple: We hear those who oppose term limits all the time telling us we should not lose the institutional memory of this House of Representatives. Yet they want to turn around and in one single election cycle, turn over half of the membership of the House of Representatives, and you take those who have been here more than 12 years, add to those who will voluntarily leave, as many Members do before they ever get to term limits, add to that those who are defeated and those who run for other offices, and you will have close to, if not in excess of, one-half of the Members of this House leaving at one time. Term limits should be phased in. That is why they have been made prospective in every single State that has enacted term limits, and that is why they should be made prospective only as we vote on them in this House of Representatives as well. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to reject what is a sham, and I urge everyone to look at who votes for real term limits on the final vote today to tell you who really supports them.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Florida for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, now is the moment of truth for those who say they support term limits. Those who voted for any one of the other three amendments should step forward now and vote for real term limits, because this is certainly a step in the direction that the American people want us to take. This is, indeed, the opportunity to change the seniority system in this Congress. This is the opportunity to create more balance in terms of people having the opportunity to run for Congress. It is one that is vastly supported by the American people. Mr. Chairman, I have heard during this debate those who have said our Founding Fathers did not want to have term limits, but I do not think our Founding Fathers ever contemplated the situation we have today, where the vast majority of Members run for far longer terms than they ever ran for in the 19th century or the 18th century. Fifty-four years is now the new record. Before 1895, there was never an instance when more than 20 Members of this house had served more than 12 years. It is time to restore this citizen legislature. I urge Members to vote for term limits.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. I thank the chairman for yielding this time to me. Mr. Chairman, I commend the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Roberts] for what I think is a very fine bill, a very fair bill, and a bill that I think is going to lead us in the right direction here. You know, I am one who strongly supports the idea that this is something that eventually should be turned over to the States to run. I think government closer to the people is a government that runs a better program. We have set up a mechanism to accomplish that in this legislation by setting up a method by which States that go to the electronic benefit transfer system can eventually qualify to have the program administered through a block grant system. I think that is the right direction to take. In the meantime, measures need to be taken to tighten up this program, and I think this bill does just that. Before I address those, I would like to first respond to those on the other side who claim that this bill lacks compassion. I think that is utter nonsense. Compassion is not measured by the size and complexity of the bureaucratic program that has been established over the years. Compassion is not measured by the billions upon billions of dollars that we keep throwing at this program without results, but instead, making more and more people dependent upon the program. Compassion is measured by taking people by the hand and helping them where they need to be helped, but also setting them on their own and asking them to go ahead and take some responsibility for their own lives. That is what is ultimately the thing that will build back into peoples lives the dignity that is needed. Mr. Chairman, those who suggest that the work requirements here are unfair I think are completely off track. We have a situation here where anyone who is between the ages of 18 and 50 is required to work 20 hours a week, not 40 hours a week, as many people strive to do, merely 20 hours a week. If they have a dependent child at home, and they are the primary care giver, they are not required to comply with that. I require that. Today most young American families, both members of the household work, and I think that ultimately we need to expect that everyone should contribute something for the benefits that they receive, and to suggest that we are the ones who are lacking in compassion when the President's plan would have gutted the ability of food programs, food banks all across this country, to assist people with basic needs, and this plan preserves that, again I think it is very misleading to suggest that somehow we are being lacking in our compassion. The second problem we have with this program is that it has historically been beset by all manner of fraud. Food stamps are trafficked on the street, traded for drugs, used in a multitude of methods. I point out that we have done that by requiring that State and local governments and the Department of Agriculture verify the existence of stores that are trading food stamps because we have had problems with them being traded through post office boxes and through the trunks of cars, and we have tightened up the requirements that, if somebody is found guilty of trafficking in food stamps, and it involves more than $500, they can be barred from receiving food stamps. Mr. Chairman, I urge support of this bill.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to proudly introduce the National Right to Work Act. This act reduces Federal power over the American workplace by removing those provisions of Federal law authorizing the collection of forced union dues as a part of a collective bargaining contract. Since the Wagner Act of 1935 made forced union dues a keystone of Federal labor law, millions of American workers have been forced to pay for union representation that they neither choose nor desire. The primary beneficiaries of right to work are America's workers-- even those who voluntarily choose to pay union dues, because when union officials are deprived of the forced dues power granted them under current Federal law they'll be more responsive to the workers' needs and concerns. Mr. Speaker, this act is proworker, proeconomic growth, and profreedom. The 21 States with right to work laws, including my own State of Virginia, have a nearly three-to-one advantage over non-right to work States in terms of job creation. And, according to U.S. News & World Report, 7 of the strongest 10 State economies in the Nation have right to work laws. Workers who have the freedom to choose whether or not to join a union have a higher standard of living than their counterparts in non-right to work States. According to Dr. James Bennett, an economist with the highly respected Economics Department at George Mason University, on average, urban families in right to work States have approximately $2,852 more annual purchasing power than urban families in non-right to work States when the lower taxes, housing and food costs of right to work States are taken into consideration. The National Right to Work Act would make the economic benefits of voluntary unionism a reality for all Americans. But this bill is about more than economics, it's about freedom. Compelling a man or woman to pay fees to a union in order to work violates the very principle of individual liberty upon which this Nation was founded. Oftentimes forced dues are used to support causes the worker does not wish to support with his or her hard-earned wage. Thomas Jefferson said it best: . . . to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves is sinful and tyrannical. By passing the National Right to Work Act, this Congress will take a major step towards restoring the freedom of America's workers to choose the form of workplace representation that best suits their needs. In a free society, the decision of whether or not to join or support a union should be made by a worker, not a union official, not an employer, and certainly not the U.S. Congress. The National Right to Work Act reduces Federal power over America's labor markets, promotes economic growth and a higher standard of living, and enhances freedom. No wonder, according to a poll by the respected Marketing Research Institute, 77 percent of Americans support right to work, and over 50 percent of union households believe workers should have the right to choose whether or not to join or pay dues to a labor union. No other piece of legislation before this Congress will benefit this Nation as much as the National Right to Work Act. I urge my colleagues to quickly pass the National Right to Work Act and free millions of American from forced dues tyranny.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

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

Mr. GOODLATTE. I have no dispute whatsoever that a plaintiff should not be able to double dip, if you will, but I think that should be taken outside the courtroom. This argument that somehow insurance should be brought into the case is exactly comparable to where the defendant should not want the plaintiff to come into court and tell the jury that the defendant has insurance to take care of the losses.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Give me a big award. The one who has been responsible, then the defendant gets to come in and say, ``Don't worry about him because his medical bills are being paid by someone else,'' and that contravenes public policy.

Mr. GOODLATTE. It is my understanding that the problem with a plaintiff recovering double is largely being taken care of now with subrogation agreements that are taken care of outside of court. My concern is that we are sending separate messages for a plaintiff who has been responsible and for years has paid for health insurance, compared to one who might have the same economic circumstances, same type of injury, who has not paid. That plaintiff gets to go into court and say, here are all of my medical bills.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield for that point?

Mr. GOODLATTE. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. In fact what we are saying here is this is a case where liability has already been established on the part of the defendant. The defendant is the responsible party, the one who has caused the harm and now gets to say, hey, don't worry about charging me for this because the plaintiff has insurance and they will take care of it.