Bob Goodlatte

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, each week, folks across Virginia and the nation are confronted with the rising cost of energy. However, Virginians understand that a major component in lessening energy costs is to produce more energy. I believe that Virginia should have every tool available to access their energy supplies. For many years, the Commonwealth of Virginia has seriously been considering the potential positive impact that Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) development off Virginia's coast would have on the Commonwealth. In fact, there has been wide support for environmentally responsible energy production by the Governor of Virginia, the Virginia General Assembly and by many local governments in the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth of Virginia has made it clear that they want to access their energy resources. I believe that we should access these resources and we can do it while being environmentally responsible. Therefore, I rise today, with the majority of the Virginia Congressional Delegation, to introduce the ``Virginia Access to Energy Act,'' to give the Commonwealth access to these energy supplies. This legislation would start energy production off of Virginia's coast based on the Department of Interior's own proposal. This legislation simply requires that the Department of Interior proceed with their proposed Virginia lease sale no later than one year after passage of this legislation. Passage of this legislation and development of VA's OCS will significantly boost the economy of the Commonwealth of Virginia. It has been estimated by the U.S. Department of Interior that Virginia's OCS has 130 million barrels of recoverable oil and 1.14 trillion cubic feet of recoverable natural gas. This translates into a significant boost to the economy of the Commonwealth of Virginia. In fact, some estimates have shown that development of Virginia's OCS will create 2,578 full- time equivalent positions on an annual basis, induce capital investment of $7.84 billion, yield $644 million in direct and indirect payroll, and result in $271 million in state and local taxes. While exploration activities alone will infuse the Virginia economy with a significant amount of new capital, this legislation will also authorize any qualified revenues generated by the lease sales to be shared between the federal government and the Commonwealth of Virginia. Additionally, the legislation sets up revenue-sharing for the Commonwealth for any future lease sales off of Virginia's coast. My legislation, the Virginia Access to Energy Act, is an important component to any long-term strategy to reduce our dangerous dependence on foreign oil. This legislation ensures that Virginia has every tool available to access its energy supplies, while at the same time creating thousands of jobs for Virginians and infusing the Commonwealth with new capital growth. I urge Congress to pass this legislation to allow Virginia to move towards a path of energy independence.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. I thank the gentleman. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure to yield 1 minute to the chairman of the Conservation Subcommittee, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Thompson).

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. For the past 2 years, we've seen the administration and the Environmental Protection Agency take overzealous action in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed, with the potential to dramatically affect jobs, the economy, and local government budgets throughout the six- State region. The EPA has proposed arbitrary limits on the amounts of nutrients that can enter the Chesapeake Bay and how these nutrients enter the bay. At the same time, the EPA is seeking to expand their regulatory authority by seizing authority granted to the States and converting the bay's cleanup effort into a process that is a top-down approach with mandatory regulations. These overzealous regulations will affect everyone who lives, works, and farms in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed, and the cost of complying with these requirements will be devastating during our current economic downturn, resulting in many billions of dollars in economic losses to States, cities, towns, farms and other businesses, large and small. The EPA's approach is far from the best approach to restore the Chesapeake Bay. I believe that each individual State and the localities in each State know better how to manage the State's water quality goals than the bureaucrats at the EPA. I'm sure that there are some who wonder why what is happening in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed is important to their district. While EPA's unprecedented actions are starting in the Chesapeake Bay, they are coming to a watershed in your region of the country in your State. The EPA has stated in the document ``A Coming Together for Clean Water: EPA's Strategy for Achieving Clean Water'' that ``The EPA will use the Chesapeake Bay as a demonstration for strengthening total maximum daily load pollution-reduction plans. The Chesapeake Bay Watershed will be a model for watershed protection in other parts of the country.'' It is important that we in Congress tell the EPA to slow down. The EPA does not have the authority to micromanage States' water quality goals, and we must stop their power gap. I want to be clear, we all agree more must be done to restore the bay, and this is not meant to cut off the good work that is happening in the bay watershed. We have made substantial investments to clean up the bay. This amendment will not stop work that is going on in the States or the voluntary programs managed by Federal agencies that work with those on the ground to restore water quality. What this amendment will do is stop the EPA's regulatory power grab. It will stop the EPA from taking over responsibilities that have traditionally been left to the States.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time to make two points. First of all, the gentleman from Virginia is quite correct. The Chesapeake Bay is getting healthier, and that's a very, very good thing, all of which is happening as a result of the voluntary, incentivized, State-controlled regulation of this process. None of it has occurred under this TMDL provision that the gentleman from Maryland referred to, because of the fact that it is only now being imposed on farmers. They are very concerned about it, as are small cities and towns, as are homebuilders and others. This will have a devastating economic impact on the entire bay region, small cities and large included. The second point is that we checked with the Department of Agriculture, and we checked with counsel on the Agriculture Committee. They agree that this restricts only those purposes described in the legislation related to the implementation of this language related to what the EPA is trying to do with their TMDL. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I rise to enter into a colloquy with the chairwoman. Without consulting with my office in any way, the General Services Administration took advantage of the lack of specific congressional direction in the stimulus bill and initiated renovation work on the Richard H. Poff Federal Building, a Federal building in my district, in Roanoke, Virginia. This renovation was funded at $51 million. However, the total cost for the renovations are now in excess of $65 million when you factor in the relocation costs for the agencies that were located in the Poff building. I have repeatedly demanded a comprehensive cost-benefit analysis from the GSA showing that this project is financially worthwhile, as is required by law. To date, I have not received such an analysis. It is completely unacceptable for GSA to move forward any further with this project until such an analysis is produced. I would like to request that you and the committee commit to working with me to demand that the GSA provide a comprehensive cost-benefit analysis that shows these renovations are worthwhile before any further funds are appropriated to renovate this Federal building.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I rise to enter into a colloquy with the chairwoman. I intended to offer an amendment that would have prevented funds from being used in this bill to subsidize wireless phone service in the underlying legislation. As you know, the Universal Service Fund provides Federal money to subsidize landline and cell phone service for low-income individuals. I can understand the need to ensure that low-income individuals have a basic telecommunications link of some sort for emergency calls. However, the State and local governments are the appropriate levels of government to provide this service. Especially in a time of fiscal distress like we are currently facing, I do not believe it is the role of the Federal Government to be subsidizing cell phone service. Would the chairwoman commit to work with me on report language in the fiscal year 2012 appropriations bill addressing this issue?

Mr. GOODLATTE. I thank the chairman.

Mr. GOODLATTE. I thank the gentlewoman.

Mr. GOODLATTE

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

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. I thank the gentleman from California for yielding. I also want to tell him how much I enjoyed visiting his congressional district less than 2 weeks ago and visiting the Reagan Presidential Library, which is a fabulous recounting of the life of the man who I think was the greatest President of the 20th century. He led America to win the Cold War. He reinstilled the economic greatness of this country from the malaise of the 1970s. And, most importantly, he instilled in us his eternal optimism in America. In his farewell address, Reagan described how he envisioned the ``shining city'' he invoked countless times. He observed of his time in office, ``We weren't just marking time. We made a difference. We made the city stronger, we made the city freer, and we left her in good hands. All in all, not bad; not bad at all.'' ``Not bad,'' reflects the modesty of the man but not the magnitude of his accomplishments. Asked what Americans saw in him, Ronald Reagan replied, ``Would you laugh if I told you that I think, maybe, they see themselves . . . ?'' Hardly would we laugh. A few years ago I visited Rancho del Cielo, Reagan's beloved ``Ranch in the Sky''. The home reflects the man . . . with Nancy's and his TV trays still standing by their respective recliners, both facing the old black and white television. It seems they've just gone out for a trail ride and will return at any moment. At purchase the ranch was a mere 600 sq. feet. Reagan labored diligently to remodel and expand it. Even so, the only thing grand about it is the natural surroundings. Asked once to explain the ranch's almost magnetic appeal for him, Reagan replied with a quote from the Psalms: ``I look to the hills from whence cometh my strength.'' Mikhail Gorbachev, Margaret Thatcher and Queen Elizabeth were among the notables he hosted there. Gorbachev was disappointed by the humble ranch, knowing the lavish palaces of European leaders. However, it's fitting that the place at which Reagan felt most at ease disarmed the world's dignitaries . . . he always related best with common folks. And yet he was far from ordinary. To the contrary he lived an extraordinary life which had a profound impact on the span of human history. He left us on the eve of the 60th anniversary of D-Day, and almost 20 years to the day of one of his most beloved speeches, where he offered a compelling picture of how ``the boys of Point du Hoc,'' struck a death knell to the Nazism and Fascism gripping Europe. He extended this same moral clarity to the great conflict of his day, possessing a steadfast commitment to not just contain communism, but defeat it. In rebuilding the military, and facing down the tyranny of communism, he relegated the Evil Empire to the ash heap of history. In restoring our faith in the free enterprise system through cutting taxes he encouraged innovation. And most importantly he instilled in us his eternal optimism in America. In his farewell address Reagan described how he envisioned the ``shining city,'' he had invoked countless times. He observed this of his time in office, ``We weren't just marking time. We made a difference. We made the city stronger, we made the city freer, and we left her in good hands. All in all, not bad, not bad at all.'' Not bad reflects the modesty of the man but not the magnitude of his accomplishments. He set this Nation on a new course that still inspires us. We have a right to dream great dreams he said . . . because after all we are Americans. Yes, Mr. President we do see ourselves in you.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, last night we gathered in this Chamber to hear President Obama deliver his State of the Union Address. I was particularly encouraged to hear the President say, ``the best thing we could do on taxes for all Americans is to simplify the individual tax code.'' The President stated he was prepared to join both parties in simplifying our tax code. I join the President in calling for a simplified tax code, and I rise today to introduce the Tax Code Termination Act. This legislation can be the impetus for overhauling our tax system. The fact is our current tax system has spiraled out of control. At a time when Americans devote a total of 7 billion hours each year to comply with the tax code, we need tax simplification. Today's tax code is unfair, discourages savings and investment, and is impossibly complex. The Tax Code Termination Act will force Congress to finally debate and address fundamental tax reform. This bi-partisan legislation is simple. It will abolish the Internal Revenue Code by December 31, 2015, and call on Congress to approve a new Federal tax system by July of the same year. While almost every Member would acknowledge 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 four more years, at which time it would expire and be replaced with 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 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. I thank the chairman for yielding. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of this legislation, which repeals the sweeping health care reform law rammed through Congress last year. This new law amounts to a Big Government takeover of our health care system, one that will lead to fewer choices, higher prices, and rationed care. It creates more than 150 new government agencies and programs at a cost of well over $1.2 trillion. It includes over $560 billion in devastating new tax increases and cuts Medicare by over $500 billion. Americans are frustrated by rising health care costs. We must repeal the new health care law that kills jobs, raises taxes, threatens seniors' access to care, will cause millions of people to lose the coverage they have and like, and increases the cost of health care coverage. Then we must replace it with commonsense reforms that lower health care costs and empower patients. For those who argue that somehow this is going to save the taxpayers money, think of the mandates that are not covered by the Federal Government. Think of the fact that it is not credible that at a time when senior citizens, baby boomers, are going to retire in unprecedented numbers to take over $500 billion out of a Medicare program. And think of the jobs that are already being lost because the taxes on this are already being put into place, yet the benefits don't occur for 4 years. That legislation was smoke and mirrors. This legislation repeals it. We should support it and then start anew on commonsense reforms.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Speaker, I am shocked and saddened by the senseless act of violence that occurred Saturday against Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, her staff and members of the Tucson community. Just 2 days before this horrific attack, Gabby joined me and many other Members of Congress in reading aloud the U.S. Constitution on the House floor. It was my honor to yield to Gabby to read the First Amendment. And on Saturday, she and those participating in her Congress on the Corner event were exercising their First Amendment freedoms of free speech and to peaceably assemble. It is unconscionable that anyone would take violent action to deprive someone of their life and liberty. Our thoughts and prayers are with Gabby, her family, her staff and others who were affected by Saturday's tragic events in Tucson. While this tragedy serves as an unfortunate reminder of evil actions, it must also remind us of the good in people as we hear the stories of the heroes of that day, people who gave their lives, people who saved other lives. We as Members of Congress cannot allow this senseless act of violence that occurred against Congresswoman Giffords to deter us from our jobs or deter the American people from exercising their precious freedoms. I read again the words that Ms. Giffords read on the floor on Thursday. Amendment I: ``Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.'' Madam Speaker, I don't know if Ms. Giffords spoke on the floor after that. Those may have been the last words she uttered on the floor of the House. I join my colleagues in praying that we will see her again on this floor exercising her precious freedoms. God bless her and all of the victims of this tragedy.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. I now yield to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Schrader).

Mr. GOODLATTE. I now yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Meehan).

Mr. GOODLATTE. I now yield to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Nunnelee).

Mr. GOODLATTE. I now yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller).

Mr. GOODLATTE. I now yield to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Fleming).

Mr. GOODLATTE. I now yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Garamendi).

Mr. GOODLATTE. I now yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce).

Mr. GOODLATTE. I now yield to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Courtney).

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. I will now read at the end of article IV, section 4. ``The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened), against domestic violence. Article V. The Congress, whenever two-thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two-thirds of the several States, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States.'' That is the portion that was omitted earlier and that, by unanimous consent, is now included in the reading of the Constitution.