Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 862 I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

personal explanation

I thank the gentleman.

In response to the gentleman from New York, I just want to point out a few facts: first of all, in the last 50 years, the budget has been balanced six times. Democrats have controlled the House of Representatives 37 of those years, and in only two of those years did they balance the budget. Four times when Republicans were in the majority, the budget was balanced: 1998, 1999, 2000, and 2001.

When those budgets were offered in this House, many Democrats voted in a bipartisan fashion for at least one of those budgets. The gentleman from New York voted against all four of the last balanced budgets that occurred in the time that he has been in Congress.

I thank the gentleman.

I need to comment on the revisionist history that we are hearing.

Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is that tough votes are made when Congresses make the decision to balance the budget. That decision wasn't made in 1993 when Democrats voted to raise taxes; it was made when we sent a budget to the President that he vetoed. The government shut down, and after that shutdown, then and only then did President Clinton get in favor of welfare reform and other things that led to a slowing of the rate of growth in government spending.

He calls a ribbon cutting to show up and vote for budgets that are actually balanced. The gentleman from Virginia, my good friend, voted against all four--all four--of the budgets that were balanced in the 1990s and leading up to 2001.

Mr. Speaker, at this time it is my pleasure to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise), a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds to point out that this does allow you to borrow; you just have to have a supermajority and a special reason to do so. And I point out that if the States had anything like the proportionate debt that is constituted by this government today of $15 trillion, they wouldn't be borrowing much money either.

At this time, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Duffy), a member of the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. Speaker, it is now my honor to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Platts), chairman of the Government Organization Subcommittee of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute to respond to the gentleman.

If the gentleman's complaint is that there have been decisions made during Republican Congresses that he doesn't agree with that spent too much money, that didn't yield to balancing budgets, the gentleman is correct.

But the gentleman neglects to point out that there have been many, many Democratic Congresses in the last 50 years, 37 of them, of which only two of them resulted in a balanced budget. That is not a good record either. In fact, during the 1990s, when we were fortunate enough to receive four balanced budgets, those balanced budgets were under a Republican Congress and a Democratic President.

In point of fact, it was only after there was a confrontation about the level of spending and a government shutdown that the necessary reforms were made to slow the rate of government spending so we could achieve those balanced budgets.

The gentleman from North Carolina takes credit for his vote in 1993, which I did not agree with. I'm going to take credit for my four votes that were balanced budgets in 1998 through 2001, which he voted against. So we need bipartisan support for a rule in our Constitution that requires that the budget be balanced every year, except in times of national emergency when we should have bipartisan support to not balance.

At this time it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns), chairman of the Energy and Commerce Oversight and Investigation Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hultgren), a member of the Agriculture Committee.

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Posey), a member of the Financial Services Committee and, as a realtor, may want to comment on some of the remarks made here today regarding the ability of people to borrow money under certain circumstances.

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. DesJarlais), a member of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee.

Mr. Speaker, at this time it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tipton), the chairman of the Agriculture, Energy and Trade Subcommittee of the Small Business Committee.

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Rokita), a member of the Budget Committee and a leader on this issue.

I yield an additional minute to the gentleman from Indiana.

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence), who is not only the vice chairman of the Constitution Subcommittee but has been a great partner in this effort to pass a balanced budget amendment to the United States Constitution.

(Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot), a distinguished member of the House Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Stutzman), the chairman of the Economic Opportunity Subcommittee of the House Veterans' Affairs Committee.

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey), a member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee.

I am happy to yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from Georgia.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Thompson), the chairman of the Conservation, Energy, and Forestry Subcommittee, my subcommittee on the House Agriculture Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to respond to the gentlewoman to say that 49 out of 50 States have a balanced budget requirement. And while she sites California as perhaps the worst example--and it may be the worst example--still, the fiscal situation of California is much better than the fiscal situation here in Washington. The $25 billion deficit that they have to deal with this year--and they have to deal with it--for a State that has one-eighth of the population of the country of America which, taken nationwide, would mean a $200 billion deficit nationwide. We have a $1.3 trillion deficit, more than six times as much. And this is good discipline. It's worked in the States. It will work here as well.

It is now my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake), a member of the Appropriations Committee.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce), a member of the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute to address the Chair but in response to comments made by the gentleman from Massachusetts.

We do need to look at that way-back machine. I hear the gentleman's complaints about decisions made by Republicans. In the last 50 years, and the gentleman has been here for many of those years, in the last 50 years, this Congress has balanced its budget a mere six times. Thirteen of those years Republicans were in control of the House, and four of those years we had balanced budgets, including the year the gentleman mentioned.

And in that year, the gentleman voted ``no'' on the balanced budget that was passed by this Congress that year. And the year before that, we had a balanced budget; the gentleman voted ``no.'' And the year before that, we had a balanced budget. And then in 1998, we had a balanced budget. And the gentleman voted ``no'' every single time a balanced budget was offered in this Congress. In fact, for the 37 years that Democrats controlled the Congress in the last 50 years, only twice did they do it.

Now, I have to agree with the gentleman about something, and that is that Social Security and Medicare are endangered.

I yield myself an additional 30 seconds to say that Social

Security and Medicare are endangered. And do you know why they're endangered? Because we have a $15 trillion debt. And in all of those years that we didn't balance the budget, what did the Congress do? They went into the Social Security trust fund and took every penny of it and spent it on something else.

And how ironic will it be that all that debt that we're transferring to the next generation, all of that debt will be on our children and grandchildren; and when they need Social Security and Medicare, it won't be there for them, not because of anything in a balanced budget amendment but because of the debt that we have accumulated.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Gardner), a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston), the chairman of the Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee of the Appropriations Committee.

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Schilling), a member of the Agriculture Committee.

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Walsh), chairman of the Small Business Economic Growth Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute to respond to my good friend from New York.

I would just say to the gentleman that we do need to do the job, but you don't have to look ahead to wonder what's going to happen, all you have to do is look back. Over the past 50 years we've balanced the budget just six times and we've run up a $15 trillion national debt. Now, the gentleman has cited some criticism of Republican votes, but there are plenty of Democratic votes in the 4 years that the Democrats were in control of this Congress. Just recently we added $4 trillion to the national debt. Now, the fact of the matter is, over the 50 years, 37 of those years Democrats have controlled the House of Representatives and only 2 of those 37 years was it balanced. So when the gentleman says that some years will run surpluses and some years will run deficits, that's very true, but the history has been almost all of those years will run deficits unless we have a discipline in our Constitution to require that we do otherwise.

And I would also point out that in the 4 years since the gentleman has been here and I've been here we've had balanced budgets. The gentleman, for I'm sure reasons that he felt were very justified, voted against all four of the budgets that balanced in this Congress.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute to respond to the gentleman.

First of all, let me just be very clear that when the gentleman talks about the sins that he wants to impose upon Republicans for not balancing the budget, I think that's a very good argument. But since this is a bipartisan bill and dozens of his colleagues will be voting for this, I think it's because those of us who vote for it recognize that this is true on both sides of the aisle, that there has been a lack of tough decisions that have led to balanced budgets.

Every single year I vote for the toughest budget offered in this Congress. Those budgets never pass. Why? Because there's no requirement that they do so. So, what do we have? We have complaints on the other side of the aisle that this is a terrible plot on our part to bring about all kinds of harsh cuts. This balanced budget amendment doesn't make any distinction between whether you balance a budget by raising taxes or cutting spending. I'm going to do it to cut spending because I see lots of waste in our government. And I've voted for budgets that bring about a balance without raising taxes, but that is not the point here. The point is that it doesn't get done either way.

I yield myself an additional 30 seconds.

As to the gentleman's complaint that this is all because we haven't taxed the rich, my goodness, in the last Congress, under the control of your party, you extended all of those tax cuts for everyone. And the fact of the matter is that the top 1 percent of American families pay 38 percent--38 percent--of the personal income taxes in this country today.

That, by the way, is up from 34 percent in 2001. So all of this can be on the table when we have a discussion about how to balance the budget.

All we're debating here today is the principle of whether or not we should balance the budget and looking at the past history where we have not, indeed, balanced it but six times in 50 years.

Mr. Speaker, at this time it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. West), who is not only a member of the House Armed Services Committee, but a great advocate for fiscal responsibility and a balanced budget.

Mr. Speaker, at this time it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Johnson), a member of the House Veterans' Affairs Committee and a great supporter of the balanced budget amendment.

The balanced budget amendment is fair to all because all it simply says is that for all time, the people of this country want their government to live within their means, not just right now, but in the future as well. Right now, we're not anywhere near living within our means; $1.3 trillion deficits each of the last 3 years, all that's being passed on to those children.

If you don't balance the budget and you continue to pile up enormous debt, women, children, minorities, all will suffer in the future because our economy will shrink, just like Greece's economy is shrinking right now because they can't meet their obligations.

And to answer the gentleman's question, I think it's best to turn to those people themselves.

Well, I just pointed out that the rich pay far, far, far more in taxes than other people do, and they should. But this balanced budget amendment doesn't make any distinction between how you balance it, whether it's by increasing revenues, whether it's by economic growth, or whether it's by tax increases.

Will the gentleman yield?

I'm not the chairman of the Judiciary Committee; Congressman Smith is. But I am happy to be here in his stead.

If you don't have the resources to pay for what you need because you've spent it on a lot of other things, you're not going to have the infrastructure.

Will the gentleman yield?

Absolutely there's a goal of doing that, and it is the goal of being able to generate a growing economy that results from living within your means and then using those means to pay for what our society needs.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute to say to the gentleman that the balanced budget amendment also will not deliver a pennant to the Chicago Cubs.

Now, let me also say this. In talking about those groups that the gentleman is rightly concerned about how they will do in the future, CNN asked them what they thought of a balanced budget amendment to the United States Constitution, and 75 percent of women said they favored a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution; 72 percent of nonwhite voters said they favored a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution; 79 percent of our senior citizens said they favored a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution; 79 percent of those who earn less than $50,000 a year said they favor a balanced budget amendment to the United States Constitution. And the same is true whether you look at urban areas, suburban areas, rural areas, or any geographic region of our country. Consistently, they support a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution.

I would be happy to yield.

I don't know. I'm a Boston Red Sox fan. We finally got ours, but we have a ways to go.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, it is now my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois, who is the chief deputy whip and a member of the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Roskam.

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Latta), a member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute to respond to the distinguished minority whip and to point out this chart.

The gentleman is quite right when he talks about profligacy when there have been Republican Congresses. Although, I would point out to the gentleman that, when we were in the majority and when we had President Bill Clinton and when we had those four balanced budgets, he voted for one but not the three others. We did not cut taxes then. Taxes were cut after the attack on this country, on September 11, 2001, to stimulate the economy, and we got roundly criticized for the deficits that ran up during that time.

I will yield to the gentleman from Maryland in just a minute.

This chart show that, in 2004, we had a $400 billion deficit. It was the highest deficit in American history, and it was part of the reason we lost our majority later on. Then in 2007, as the deficit stepped down each of the interceding years, the gentleman from Maryland became the majority leader, and the gentlewoman from California became the Speaker of the House--and look at what has happened to our deficits ever since.

The Congress writes budgets; the Congress doesn't balance budgets. Both parties are to blame.

There have been six balanced budgets in the last 50 years. In 37 of those years, Democrats only balanced it twice. This is a bipartisan balanced budget amendment that the gentleman voted for once before. He should join us today and set the future on a different track.

I don't. I have all these speakers.

Madam Speaker, I am delighted to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton), the former chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee.

(Mr. BARTON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Noting that the Republicans on the supercommittee have put a proposal on the table and the Democrats have not, I now yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo), a member of the Financial Services Committee.

Madam Speaker, how much time remains on each side?

Madam Speaker, at this time it is my pleasure to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Womack), a member of the Appropriations Committee.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Mulvaney), a member of the House Budget Committee.

Madam Speaker, I would advise my colleague that I have only one speaker remaining.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

The gentleman from New York and I agree on one thing: Prosperity is the goal. And this is not a pathway to prosperity. Fifty years with six balanced budgets is a pathway that has led to a $15 trillion debt that we have right now. That's not prosperity. The largest debtor nation on Earth is not prosperity. $50,000 per American citizen in debt is not prosperity. And the $60 trillion in future obligations that we have yielding this result is definitely not prosperity for our children and grandchildren.

That is why we need the discipline that a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution provides. That is why this is a bipartisan vote. That is why dozens of Democrats will join us today in enshrining in our Constitution something that will require that future Congresses balance the budget.

I urge my colleagues to join us in this matter, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

I thank the chairman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, this chart tells the story. We have had a number of opportunities over the years to pass balanced budget amendments to the United States Constitution. It's not my idea; it's not a new idea. But as we've gone through time, we've managed debt. Now, as the chairman just noted, in the last 15 years the debt has tripled.

But looking ahead, this chart, which shows the ratio of our debt to our gross domestic product, and shows that by 2080 it will be nine times the total economic output of our country, indicates that what some on the other side have said simply is not the case.

Congress has not made the tough decisions. We have overpromised the American people, and the fact of the matter is, now we need to have something in the Constitution that the American people expect and demand of us. And that is a balanced budget amendment.

Now, we have lots of different balanced budget amendments that have been proposed in this Congress, I think 18 of them that I've seen thus far. And some ask for more stringent requirements--which I very much like--limiting the ability to balance this budget by putting a heavier burden on the American people through taxes. Capping the amount of money that we spend--certainly something that I also think we need to be cognizant of.

Others have said let's take certain things off the table, like Social Security or capital spending or disaster spending.

This balanced budget amendment, which passed this House with 300 votes, including 72 Democrats, strikes the right balance. It enshrines in our Constitution the principle that we should live within our means but gives future Congresses the flexibility to, in times of national emergency, have some years that are not balanced. That, I think, is a reality that we have to deal with.

But the fact of the matter is that in the last 50 years, since 1961, this Congress has balanced the budget of this Nation six times. It should be the other way around. There are certainly 6 years in those 50 that were crises in which you might say we should not balance the budget this year.

But when the gentleman from New York says that in good times we should pay down the debt, and in tough times we should borrow, that has not been what has happened because most of those 50 years have been good times.

Now, there's another important point to make here. Any amendment to the United States Constitution has to, by its very nature, be bipartisan. It requires a two-thirds majority. And many of my friends on the other side of the aisle have worked very hard to build support on their side of the aisle for this. I especially want to thank Peter DeFazio and Jim Cooper. Many Members, the Blue Dogs, have endorsed this balanced budget amendment. But it is necessary to have a bipartisan approach to this.

And you know what? This is a bipartisan problem. There have been Republican Presidents and Democratic Presidents, Republican Congresses and Democratic Congresses that have contributed to those 44 years when we've run deficits.

So now today we come and ask for a bipartisan solution to this problem, a solution that, depending upon the poll, 75 to 80 percent of the American people support.

Congress continues to prove it cannot make the tough decisions on its own. The budget has only been balanced six times in 50 years. The American people know what it means to balance their budgets. They are surprised that the Congress does not have this requirement. State governments do--49 out of 50 States, most of which have it in their constitutions. Local governments have to balance their budgets. Families and businesses have to live within their means, and they can't go more than a few years without living within their means.

But to run up a $15 trillion debt which, divided by the population of our country, means that the average person today owes more in debt based upon their share of the government's debt than they have in personal income, is a disgrace. This is not only an economic issue. This is not only something that we should be imposing upon future Congresses for economic reasons. This is also a moral issue.

This is wrong to borrow money year after year after year, over a trillion dollars in each of the last 3 years, so that today the average dollar spent by the Federal Government, 42 percent of it, by far the largest share, is borrowed against our children's and grandchildren's future.

And where does that lead us? It leads us to where Europe is.

This chart shows government debt as a percentage of GDP for the United States and five European countries--Spain, Portugal, Ireland, Italy, and Greece. When Greece first got into their problem last year, they were at 120 percent of GDP. That's what their debt totaled. Already just a little over a year later, it is 152 percent of GDP because their economy is shrinking because of irresponsibility on the part of their government.

The United States just this week crossed the 100 percent line. The United States owes as much in debt as we have in the total economic output of this Nation for 1 year.

It is time to put a halt to this, and the best way to do it is to enshrine in our Constitution a principle we all understand, we all live by, and that is you cannot live like this, you cannot live beyond your means year after year after year.

I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join this bipartisan effort to enshrine in our Constitution a principle sought by the vast majority of the American people.

I thank the chairman, and I just want to make it very clear that some inaccurate assertions have been made about the protection of Social Security and highway trust funds.

The funds can be spent each year, and then any excess funds that need to be retained can be put into a rainy day fund. And so the Social Security trust fund or another type of fund like that is perfectly permissible under this provision. What is not permissible is continuing to run up debt year after year after year, and that is what endangers Social Security and Medicare and important programs for our senior citizens, and that is why this amendment is needed.

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Duncan), a member of the Natural Resources Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McIntyre), the ranking member of the Seapower Subcommittee of the Armed Services Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds to say that the last time that the Congress balanced a budget with a Democratic controlled Congress was 1969, more than 42 years ago.

At this time, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. McCotter), a member of the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. Speaker, it is my distinct pleasure to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling), the chairman of the House Republican Conference.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to complete the record.

As I said in my remarks earlier, Presidents of both parties and Congresses of both parties have much to explain in terms of the lack of the balanced budgets over the last 50 years. Only six times in 50 years have they been balanced. But here is the record: of the 13 of those 50 years that Republicans controlled the Congress, they only balanced the budget four times. Of the 37 years that Democrats controlled the Congress, during that time, they only balanced the budget twice.

It is now my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn).

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Altmire), a member of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Bucshon), a member of the Education and Workforce Committee.

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Conaway), the chairman of the Agriculture Committee General Farm Commodities Subcommittee.

(Mr. CONAWAY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to answer the question, what do the 99 percent want? Well, CNN asked them in July. The answer was 74 percent favored a balanced budget amendment; 74 percent of men, 75 percent of women, 76 percent of white voters, 72 percent of nonwhite voters, 72 percent of 18- to 34-year-olds, 74 percent of 35- to 49-year-olds, 75 percent of 50- to 64-year-olds, 79 percent of 65 and older voters want a balanced budget amendment to the United States Constitution.

At this time, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Culberson), a member of the Appropriations Committee.

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Meehan), chairman of the Counterterrorism and Intelligence Subcommittee of the Homeland Security Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Farenthold), a member of the Homeland Security Committee.

Mr. Speaker, at this time it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Matheson).

As the gentleman from Utah correctly noted, it requires the same supermajority of 60 percent to not balance the budget or to raise the debt limit. Quite frankly, if you have a constitutional amendment in place that requires a balanced budget, you're going to generate surpluses most years, and therefore raising the debt limit will occur less and less frequently. But those two requirements are in place in order to have an enforcement mechanism so that Congresses of the future will not do what Congresses of the past have been doing.

Would the gentleman repeat that question?

I understand it and answered it.

The answer is, yes, it requires a supermajority to raise the debt limit and a supermajority to not balance the budget, which would be an unusual thing in the future because in the last 50 years, it's only been balanced six times.

No, there is no such requirement today.

Absolutely.

Very much so.

I don't agree with that at all. In fact, in the greatest debt limit crisis you might ever say we've had, which was just this summer, close to, if not in excess of, 60 percent of the Members of the House voted to raise the debt limit. So I don't believe that future Congresses would be any more irresponsible. I think future Congresses are likely to be more responsible than prior Congresses because we have not balanced the budget for but six times in the last 50 years.

We have a $15 trillion debt.

It's my opinion that Members of the United States Congress will uphold the oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States. And that scenario will be very unlikely to occur; and when it does, judges will, as they historically have on matters involving the internal business of the Congress, exercise judicial restraint.

No, I very definitely do not share the view offered by my good friend and colleague from Virginia (Mr. Scott).

The fact of the matter is the downgrade that we received in the bond ratings was due to the fact that we have a $15 trillion debt and the Congress has not come to agreement on sufficient reductions in that debt to satisfy the bond rating agencies. A balanced budget amendment to the United States Constitution is exactly what's needed to put that kind of pressure on the Congress to make real and meaningful reductions in our deficits.

I have a lot of Members who are planning to come tomorrow to debate this issue, and I'm going to have to reserve our time for that purpose.

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Berg).

Will the gentleman yield?

The goal is to balance the budget and to pay down this enormous national debt of $15 trillion.

How much time remains on this side of the aisle?

I yield myself 30 seconds just to say to the gentleman that the only time you're going to need to raise the debt limit is on an occasion when you've already voted by a supermajority to not balance the budget. Therefore, under those circumstances, it seems entirely reasonable to me that you'd also have a supermajority to raise the debt limit.

That, I think, is the key to that provision. It's a discipline in this bill.

I yield to the gentleman.

I yield myself an additional 30 seconds to respond to the gentleman.

I will just say to the gentleman that the doctrines that the court has imposed upon internal operations of the Congress have historically called for judicial restraint, so it will be very rare, in my opinion, that you will find courts involved in this process. I believe that there is very good material, which we have put into the record in the Judiciary Committee, that would reflect upon just that process. This is something that the Congress has to resolve for itself, and that's why we need it in the Constitution, because the Congress does not resolve it now.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my deep concern over the draft guidelines by the Interagency Working Group (IWG) on Food Marketed to Children. These guidelines would state that food must meet certain nutritional standards to be marketed to children. Quite frankly, these guidelines are so draconian that the advertising of nearly all foods to children and adolescents would be banned. This ban would include thousands of healthy products that could no longer be marketed to children, including most soups, cereals, yogurt, bread, and cheese--all foods determined beneficial for participants in the Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC). It is shocking that the Federal Government would be working to limit the advertising of foods like low fat and fat free dairy products which play a vital role in the diets of children and adolescents.

While I have strong concerns about nutritional products that would be affected by the IWG's marketing guidelines, it is important to note how far reaching these guidelines are. The IWG defined marketing to include packaging, point of sale displays, text messages, sponsorships, philanthropic activity, and even the shape of food. These guidelines would limit the ability of companies to sponsor a sporting event or to partner in a charitable activity because it could be seen as marketing to children. Does the Federal Government really want to be telling a company that they can't be involved in their communities in these ways? This will be harmful to the communities while doing little to benefit children's nutritional health.

The IWG guidelines are just another example of excessive government red tape. I urge the IWG to withdraw this proposal.

I thank the chairman for yielding and for his leadership on this issue.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 822, the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011.

This bipartisan bill has 245 cosponsors, and it enhances Americans' right to self-defense by enabling millions of permit holders to exercise their right to self-defense while traveling outside their home States.

The Second Amendment is in the United States Constitution, and we are all taking an oath in this body to uphold the United States Constitution, including rights under the Second Amendment. The 10th Amendment is certainly an important right as well, but it does not trump the right or the responsibility of this body to protect rights under the Second Amendment.

Forty-nine States have laws that permit their citizens to carry a concealed firearm in some fashion or another. Unlike driver's licenses, however, concealed-carry permit holders in one State are not always authorized to carry their firearms when traveling outside their home States.

H.R. 822 remedies this problem by granting concealed-carry permit holders reciprocity between States. The firearm owner must abide by all applicable State laws when carrying in a foreign jurisdiction. This bill affirms that the Second Amendment protects the fundamental individual right to keep and bear arms and that the States cannot unreasonably infringe upon that right.

In McDonald v. Chicago, the Supreme Court concluded that the due process clause of the 14th Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment right recognized by the Supreme Court in the District of Columbia v. Heller.

This bill does not create any kind of Federal bureaucracy that may concern some people. It simply extends to them their Second Amendment rights when they travel in other States. H.R. 822 recognizes that right, and I urge my colleagues to support this measure.

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon we are going to talk about a very important development here in the House of Representatives--in fact, in the entire Congress. Because of the vote this summer on the Budget Control Act, we are going to have in both the House and the Senate for the first time in about 15 years a vote on a balanced budget amendment to the United States Constitution. The last time we did this was on March 2, 1995--actually, the House had already passed it with 300 bipartisan votes, and it was brought to the Senate floor on that day. The U.S. Senate failed by one vote to send a balanced budget amendment to the States for ratification. The amendment had passed the House by the required two-thirds majority previously, and the Senate vote was the last legislative hurdle before ratification by the States.

As we know, balanced budget amendments--in fact, any constitutional amendment is voted on by the House and the Senate, requiring a two- thirds vote in each body, and then it does not go to the President of the United States, as legislation does. Instead, it goes directly to our States, and then three-quarters of the State legislatures would be required to ratify it.

If that amendment had passed, then we would not be dealing with the fiscal crisis we now face. If that amendment had passed, then balancing the budget would have been the norm rather than the exception over the past 15 years, and we would have nothing like the annual deficits and skyrocketing debt that we must address today.

The good news is that, like 1995, this Congress is again standing at a crossroads at this very moment. The decisions we make today will steer the direction of the country for the next 15 years. We have an opportunity now to take action to ensure that 15 years from today our children will face a much brighter fiscal picture. We must not allow ourselves to miss this opportunity.

Experience has proven time and again that Congress cannot, for any significant length of time, rein in excessive spending. The annual deficits and the resulting debt continue to grow due to political pressures and a dependency on government programs. In order for Congress to be able to consistently make the very tough decisions necessary to sustain fiscal responsibility over the long term, Congress must have an external pressure to force it to do so. The most realistic change we have today to enact this type of institutional reform is through a balanced budget amendment to our Constitution.

Many Members of Congress have introduced balanced budget amendments in this Congress. I introduced two versions on the first day of the 112th Congress.

H.J. Res. 2 is the exact text that passed the House in 1995 and failed in the Senate by one vote. This amendment requires total annual outlays not to exceed total annual receipts. It also requires a three- fifths majority to raise the debt limit. This legislation also has limited exceptions for times of war.

H.J. Res. 1, which I also introduced, goes much further. In addition to the provisions of H.J. Res. 2, it requires a two-thirds majority to raise taxes and imposes an annual spending cap that prohibits spending from exceeding 18 percent of GDP.

In the U.S. Senate, 47 Republican Senators--all the Republican Senators--have cosponsored a balanced budget amendment, which is a strong sign that the Senate is ready to engage in debate on this subject as well.

Our extraordinary fiscal crisis demands an extraordinary solution, so we simply cannot afford to succumb to political posturing on this issue at a point in time so crucial to our Nation's future. We must rise above that and move forward with a strategy that includes legislation that will get to 290 votes on the House floor.

So as we consider a balanced budget amendment, I encourage the Members of the body to devote our efforts to passing the strongest balanced budget amendment that can garner two-thirds of the House of Representatives. We're at a crossroads in the country. We can make the tough choices and control spending, paving the way for our return to surpluses and ultimately paying down the national debt, or we can allow big spenders to lead us further down the road of chronic deficits and leave our children and grandchildren saddled with debt that is not their own.

I have been joined by a number of outstanding Members of the House, and I am going to call upon them to offer some comments about the importance of a balanced budget amendment to them and to their constituents as well.

Since he got here first, I'm going to yield first to one of our new Members, from the State of Indiana, a great fiscal conservative, someone who believes strongly in limiting our government and balancing our budget, Congressman Todd Rokita.

I thank the gentleman from Indiana for his remarks.

We are joined now by a very important member of our conference, a leader, the chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee and a strong supporter of fiscal responsibility and a balanced budget amendment, the gentleman from Texas, Congressman Pete Sessions.

I yield to the gentleman.

Thank you for your good work. Thank you for your efforts on behalf of this cause.

I want to make reference to the fact that this Special Order that we're all participating in is sponsored by the House Constitution Caucus, which is chaired by Congressman Scott Garrett of New Jersey. We'll hear from him in a few minutes.

But now I want to yield to another new Member of Congress who has been very, very instrumental in working on a balanced budget amendment and has made a number of good, constructive observations and recommendations about this issue, and that's Congressman Mo Brooks from Alabama.

I thank the gentleman for his very passionate support of the cause of fiscal responsibility.

As I mentioned earlier, this Special Order is being sponsored by the Congressional Constitution Caucus. And it's now my pleasure to yield to another great champion of limited government and lower taxes and less government regulation and balancing the budget, Congressman Scott Garrett of New Jersey.

I thank the gentleman from New Jersey, and I like the sound of that 28th Amendment to the Constitution.

Let me just say that, as I mentioned at the outset, because of the vote by the Congress--the House and the Senate--signed into law by the President, we will have a vote in both the House and Senate on a balanced budget amendment before the end of this year, before December 31. And if either body passes a specific balanced budget amendment, the other body has to vote on the same one so that we have the greatest possibility that if we can reach that kind of consensus, we can actually send a balanced budget amendment for the first time to the States for ratification. It would require 38 States to ratify it. But as the gentleman from New Jersey just noted, 49 out of 50 States have a requirement in their constitution that they must balance their budgets.

I believe that with the public supporting this by numbers northward of 80 percent--and it's very bipartisan support. I saw a recent poll that showed that 74 percent of Democrats support this, as do a great many Democrats here in the House. In fact, to pass a constitutional amendment with 290 votes, it has to be bipartisan. So we are working across the aisle to make sure that we build the kind of support that we need to pass the strongest possible amendment to our Constitution requiring that the government lives within its means.

I yield to another great supporter of that concept, another new Member who came here to reform the way things are done here in Washington, DC, and who has joined us in this effort, the gentleman from Illinois, Congressman Randy Hultgren.

I thank the gentleman. I very much appreciate his comments and would note the fact that we have, speaking here tonight, Members from many corners of the country: Indiana, Alabama, Texas, Illinois, Mississippi, Wisconsin, New Jersey, and Virginia.

In fact, Members of Congress from about 46 or 47 States have indicated their support for at least one version of the constitutional amendment. If we can bring all of them together, and they can bring just a few more Members together, we can get to that 290 votes, because this is not a regional issue, this is not a partisan issue.

This is an issue that transcends the country. It's reflected in the fact that this is an issue we can communicate directly with our constituents about, and they understand exactly what we're talking about because they live with the concept that they can't spend more than they take in year after year after year. The businesses that they work for, they can't spend more than they take in year after year after year. Local governments, State governments are all bound by this principle that you cannot live beyond your means. That principle should be enshrined in the United States Constitution.

I yield to another Member who joins us in this effort, another new Member--and it's the new Members who have helped to bring this issue back to the fore, who really want to see a vote on this for the first time in 15 years--Congressman Reid Ribble from Wisconsin.

Welcome.

I thank the gentleman for his comments.

As I indicated earlier, this is an issue that has to have a bipartisan solution. It simply is not possible to pass constitutional amendments that require two-thirds of the House, or 290 Members, and two-thirds of the Senate, 67 Members, without Members reaching across the aisle and working together to come up with language that is agreeable and can be supported on both sides of the aisle.

And quite frankly, the nature of the problem that we are confronted with is one that past Congresses controlled by both parties, Presidents of both parties have contributed to, and the solution is going to have to require also that same kind of bipartisan working it out on a year- to-year basis balancing the budget.

It won't be easy. There will be tremendous differences of opinion about whether we should do this by cutting spending or raising revenues, or doing other things that can grow our economy and cause more revenues to come in. But it cannot get to the first stage of having future Congresses live by this without it being bipartisan. That's why I'm so pleased that so many members of the Democratic Party have signed on to support this effort. They've been led by an outstanding Member who has championed a balanced budget amendment for a long time, and that's Congressman Peter DeFazio from Oregon.

I yield to the gentleman.

I thank the gentleman.

In the next few weeks, as we anticipate a vote coming up quite soon, we have a lot of work to do to make sure that we are giving every Member of this body an opportunity to speak out for fiscal responsibility and not just speak but put their vote on the line and say, yes, we think we should send to the States an amendment to the Constitution to require a balanced budget.

We are also joined by another new Member who has been a very strong advocate for cutting government spending and having government operate more efficiently and believes strongly in requiring that our government do what everyone else in our society has to do, and that is live within its means, balance its budget, and that's Congressman Marlin Stutzman from Indiana.

I yield to the gentleman.

I thank the gentleman.

I have to say that we've seen support from all across the country, from east coast States like New Jersey and Virginia all the way to the west coast to Oregon. We've heard from Members of both parties, we've heard from Members from States along the Canadian border, and Members from States on the gulf coast.

This amendment has broad, broad support in the Congress, but it has a high hill to climb in needing 290 Members to vote for it. We're continuing to work to find that support. It's not a new idea. It's been around for almost as long as our Constitution.

Thomas Jefferson has been cited, and I'll read that again here. He said, ``I wish it were possible to obtain a single amendment to our Constitution. I would be willing to depend on that alone for the reduction of the administration of our government. I mean an additional article taking from the Federal Government the power of borrowing.'' He said that in 1798. That's the only thing he said.

Later in his life he said, ``There does not exist an engine so corruptive of the government and so demoralizing of the Nation as a public debt. It will bring on us more ruin at home than all the enemies from abroad against whom this Army and Navy are to protect us.'' Thomas Jefferson said that in 1821.

And about our future generations, which several Members have commented on here tonight, Thomas Jefferson said in 1789, the year that our Constitution went into effect, ``Then I say, the Earth belongs to each of these generations during its course fully, and in its own right. The second generation receives it clear of the debts and encumbrances of the first, the third of the second, and so on. For if the first could charge it with a debt, then the Earth would belong to the dead and not to the living generation.''

Thomas Jefferson wrote that to James Madison in 1789, and how prescient was that as our new Nation was starting work under a new Constitution that he would observe that we are where we are today where we are passing on to future generations debt that is unsustainable.

How ironic it is that we borrow money today to pay for programs today and put that burden on the backs of our children and grandchildren and those not yet even born with the likelihood that if we do not change from this course, we will find that those very children and grandchildren will not have these programs when they need to depend upon it. They will only have the debt.

This is what Thomas Jefferson meant when he said the Earth would belong to the dead and not to the living.

Finally, let me give you one more quote:

``To preserve the independence of the people, we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. We must make our election between economy and liberty or profusion and servitude.''

Mr. Speaker, that's an excellent note on which to close.

I want to thank the gentleman from Indiana and everyone else who has participated and the other gentleman from Indiana.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 9 a.m. tomorrow.

Mr. Speaker, it is past time for us to have a serious conversation about the federal government's role in supporting ethanol. One of the big drivers of ethanol is an artificial market, created by the federal government. The Renewable Fuel Standard, RFS, mandates that 36 billion gallons of renewable fuels be in our nation's fuel supply. This mandate is being fulfilled by grain ethanol that comes from corn.

The federal government's creation of an artificial market for the ethanol industry has quite frankly created a chain reaction that is hurting consumers. It is expected that this year about 40 percent of the U.S. corn crop will be used for ethanol production. With increasing food and feed stocks being diverted into fuel, we are seeing diminished supplies for livestock and food producers. This year livestock and poultry producers will use 1.1 billion fewer bushels of corn than they used in the 2004/2005 crop year, the last crop year before the RFS. This will be the first year ever that ethanol production has used more of our corn supplies than feeding livestock and poultry in the U.S.

The RFS mandate has created a domino effect. Tightening supplies are driving up the price of corn. The higher cost for corn is passed on to livestock and food producers. In turn, consumers see that price reflected in the price of food on the grocery store shelves. In the debate over ethanol, the government is picking winners and losers and livestock and food producers, and the consumers of livestock and food products are the losers. As we confront the reality of the tightening corn supplies, there are real concerns about having enough corn supplies to satisfy the RFS and the needs of our food producers. We should not be in a position where we are choosing between fuel and food. That is why I am introducing two bills that would alter this artificially created government market.

The first bill, the Renewable Fuel Standard Elimination Act is simple; it would eliminate the RFS and make ethanol compete in a free market. The government should not be creating a market to sustain an entire industry. While I believe that we should completely eliminate the RFS, I recognize that there may not yet be the political will in Congress to completely eliminate this mandate. And while there may not yet be the political will to eliminate this mandate we have to address the reality that we are being confronted with, tightening corn supplies, and our livestock producers, our food manufacturers, and our consumers need relief now.

That is why I have joined with several colleagues in introducing legislation to reform the RFS. This reform will provide relief to our livestock and food producers and consumers of these products. This legislation, the Renewable Fuel Standard Flexibility Act will link the amount of ethanol required for the RFS to the amount of the U.S. corn supplies. This legislation would provide a mechanism that when the USDA reports that U.S. corn supplies are tight, based upon the ratio of corn stocks to expected use, there would be a corresponding reduction of corn ethanol made to the RFS. For example, if this policy was in place now, the legislation would trigger a 25 percent reduction in the RFS. This is a common sense solution to make sure that we have enough corn supplies to meet all of our demands.

I am a strong supporter of renewable fuels, when they compete fairly in the marketplace but the current policy is unfair and is causing unintended and negative consequences for American consumers, livestock farmers, and food manufacturers. Congress created this artificial market that is distorting the food and feed market, and we must provide relief of its

unintended consequences. I urge the Congress to pass this legislation.

Madam Chair, on rollcall No. 748, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Amendment No. 17 Offered by Mrs. Capps

I thank Chairman Kline for yielding me this time and for his leadership in moving this legislation to the floor. I thank Congressman Scott of South Carolina for his leadership in introducing this legislation, and I thank all those who join with me in supporting what I think is an important job-creating bill for this country.

It's important not just in right-to-work States, like South Carolina or Virginia; but it's important in States that don't have protection of workers under right-to-work laws, like Washington State, because businesses both in this country and overseas that are looking to invest are not going to look in places where they can be subsequently restrained from being able to expand their business--and that's what is happening here. They're expanding their business to another State if they locate in a place where that can happen to them.

They are also not going to locate in right-to-work States. No. When they need to expand, they're not going to have any statement about what their intentions are or why they're doing it, as is the case with most companies. They're simply going to locate in China or Taiwan or Thailand or India or in 100 other countries around the world that are very friendly and welcoming to employers who want to grow and expand businesses. Unless the United States changes this law and restrains the National Labor Relations Board from making these kinds of decisions, we're going to suffer greatly in job loss.

So this is a great job-creating bill. I encourage my colleagues to support the Protecting Jobs from Government Interference Act that amends the NLRA to prohibit the NLRB in future and pending cases from ordering an employer to close, relocate, or transfer employment under any circumstances.

This is an important measure. This will not just save 1,000 jobs in South Carolina. This will save hundreds of thousands of jobs across this country. It will ensure that employers have greater freedom to make one of the most basic management decisions: where to locate a business.

Mr. Speaker, March 2, 1995, was a pivotal day in the history of our country. On that day, the United States Senate failed by one vote to send a balanced budget amendment to the States for ratification. The amendment had passed the House by the required two- thirds majority previously, and the Senate vote was the last legislative hurdle before ratification by the States.

If that amendment had passed, then we would not be dealing with the fiscal crisis we now face. If that amendment had passed, then balancing the budget would have been the norm rather than the exception over the past decade and we would have nothing like the annual deficits and skyrocketing debt that we must address today.

The good news is that, like 1995, this Congress is again standing at a crossroads at this very moment. The decisions we make this week could steer the direction of the country for many years to come. We have an opportunity now to take action to ensure that our children will face a much brighter fiscal picture. We must not allow ourselves to miss this opportunity.

And while, yes, we definitely need to deal with the debt limit squarely in front of us and take the opportunity to make significant cuts in government spending, we also must have a long-term solution to this problem. And that long-term solution is a balanced

budget amendment to the United States Constitution. We will, I hope, have the opportunity to vote on such an amendment this week.

Experience has proven time and again that Congress cannot, for any significant length of time, rein in excessive spending. The annual deficits and the resulting debt continue to grow due to political pressures and dependency on government programs. In order for Congress to be able to consistently make the very tough decisions necessary to sustain fiscal responsibility over the long term, Congress must have an external pressure to force it to do so. The most realistic chance we have today to enact this type of institutional reform is through a balanced budget amendment to our Constitution.

Many Members of Congress have introduced balanced budget amendments in this Congress. I introduced two versions on the first day of the 112th Congress. H.J. Res. 2 is the exact text that passed the House in 1995 and failed in the Senate by one vote. This amendment requires that total annual outlays not exceed total annual receipts. It also requires a three-fifths majority to raise the debt limit, and, in addition, this legislation has limited exceptions for times of war.

H.J. Res. 1, which I also introduced, goes much further. In addition to the provisions of H.J. Res. 2, it requires a two-thirds majority to raise taxes and imposes an annual spending cap that prohibits spending from exceeding 18 percent of GDP.

In the United States Senate, 47 Republican Senators have cosponsored a balanced budget amendment, which is a strong sign that the Senate is ready to engage in debate on this subject.

Our extraordinary fiscal crisis demands an extraordinary solution. So we simply cannot afford to succumb to political posturing on this issue at a point in time so critical to our Nation's future. We must rise above that and move forward with a strategy that includes legislation that will get at least 290 bipartisan votes on the House floor.

So as we consider a balanced budget amendment, I encourage the Members of this body on both sides of the aisle to devote our effort to passing this strongest balanced budget amendment that can garner two- thirds of the House of Representatives.

We are at a crossroads in America. We can make the tough choices and control spending paving the way for a return to surpluses and ultimately paying down the national debt, or we can allow big spenders to lead us further down the road of chronic deficits and leave our children and grandchildren saddled with debt that is not our own.

The choice is ours. The stakes are high. Failure is not an option.

I rise in strong support of the Cut, Cap, and Balance legislation. I commend the gentleman from Utah and all the others who have brought this forward, and here's why, right here:

We had a vote here on the floor of this House a few weeks ago about the President of the United States' request: just give me a clean debt limit increase. Every single Republican and nearly a majority of the Democrats voted to do the opposite, to not give him a debt limit increase.

This shows us why we are here today with Cut, Cap, and Balance legislation. This is the track that the Democrats have us on right now. This is the track we would be on if the President had gotten his wish for a debt limit increase without any spending cuts, without any caps on future spending, and without what 80 percent of the American people want, which is a balanced budget amendment to the United States Constitution.

This green line is what we're voting on today. This is what the House budget, already adopted by this institution and that we're operating under right now with our appropriations bills, this is what would put us on a target to not only balance the budget but also to pay off the $14 trillion national debt that we are faced with right now, that our children and grandchildren are faced with, that the future of our economy is faced with right now.

This is the choice that we have here today. Take care of the debt limit. Don't default on our obligations. No one here wants to do that. But also cut spending, cap spending, and pass a balanced budget amendment to the United States Constitution.

In 1995, we came within one vote in the United States Senate, after the House of Representatives cast 300 bipartisan votes for a balanced budget amendment to the United States Constitution, and now we have the opportunity to lay the groundwork to do it again, but this time to succeed; and we have much, much greater reason to do that because of the fact that we are faced with this mountain of red ink that we can turn into a bright future for America.

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Will the gentleman yield?

Will the gentleman yield for a question?

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce bipartisan legislation to strengthen the federal criminal laws punishing identity theft.

Identity theft is a serious and growing threat. The Federal Trade Commission estimates that as many as 9 million Americans have their identities stolen each year.

Identity thieves use identifying information such as a consumer's Social Security number, credit card numbers, or other financial account information in order to conduct such fraud as opening up new credit cards and gaining access to bank accounts. The ramifications can be financially disastrous for citizens and can be extremely difficult to resolve. We must crack down hard on these criminals.

The fear of identity theft is also consistently cited as a reason many Americans are cautious about engaging in more transactions online. This is unfortunate because of the multitude of ways the Internet can help consumers shop, do business and communicate efficiently and at low cost.

The United States has many federal statutes targeting identity theft. However, some of these laws were weakened by a recent Supreme Court case.

18 U.S.C. 1028 and 1028A contain criminal punishments for certain identity theft violations when those violations are in connection with other federal crimes and state felonies. In 2009, the Supreme Court ruled that the language of those federal statutes require not only that the criminal use the identification documents of another person, but also that the criminal knew the documents were those of another actual person.

The context of that case was that an illegal alien had given an employer counterfeit social security and alien registration cards containing his name but the identification numbers of other individuals. He was charged with two immigration offenses as well as aggravated identity theft. The Supreme Court overturned the conviction on the aggravated identity theft count explaining that the language of the relevant statutes required prosecutors to prove not only that the defendant used identity documents that were not his own, but also that the defendant knew the identity documents were those of another actual person.

Identity theft occurs when someone intentionally and unlawfully uses identity documents that are not his own. Our federal statutes should reflect this reality.

Today, I am introducing legislation to amend these federal statutes to make clear that when an identity thief intentionally and unlawfully uses identity documents that are not his own, prosecutors do not need to show that the criminal also knew that the identity documents were those of another actual person.

This clarification will help prosecutors put identity thieves behind bars and will help safeguard American citizens from identity-related crimes. I urge the Members of the House to support this bipartisan legislation.

Offered By: Mr. Goodlatte

Amendment No. 6: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

Mr. Speaker, Article I, section 8, of the Constitution lays the framework for our nation's copyright laws. It grants Congress the power to award inventors and creators for limited amounts of time exclusive rights to their inventions and works. The Founding Fathers realized that such an incentive was crucial to ensure that America would become the world's leader in innovation and creativity. This incentive is still necessary to maintain America's position as the world leader in innovation.

Most industrialized nations provide legal protection for fashion designs. However, in the United States, the world's leader in innovation and creativity, fashion designs are not protected by traditional intellectual property regimes. Copyrights are not granted to apparel because articles of clothing, which are both creative and functional, are considered useful articles, as opposed to works of art. Design patents are intended to protect ornamental designs, but clothing rarely meets the criteria of patentability. Trademarks only protect brand names and logos, not the clothing itself. And the Supreme Court has refused to extend trade dress protection to apparel designs. Thus, a thief violates Federal law when he steals a creator's design, reproduces and sells that article of clothing, and attaches a fake label to the garment for marketing purposes.

But it is perfectly legal for that same thief to steal the design, reproduce the article of clothing, and sell it, provided he does not attach a fake label to the finished product. This loophole allows pirates to cash in on the sweat equity of others and prevents designers in our country from reaping a fair return on their creative investments.

The production lifecycle for fashion designs is very short. Once a design achieves popularity through a fashion show or other event, a designer usually has a limited number of months to produce and market that original design. Further complicating this short-term cycle is the reality that once a design is made public, pirates can immediately offer identical knockoffs on the Internet for distribution.

Again, under current law, this theft is legal unless the thief reproduces a label or trademark. And because these knockoffs are usually of such poor quality, they damage the designer's reputation as well. Common sense dictates that we should inhibit this activity by protecting original fashion works.

Our undertaking is similar to action taken by Congress in 1998 when we wrote Chapter 13 of the Copyright Act, which offers protection for vessel hull designs. The ``Innovative Design Protection and Piracy Prevention Act'' amends this statutory template to include protections for fashion designs. Because the production lifecycle for fashion designs is very short, this legislation similarly provides a shorter period of protection of 3 years that suits the industry.

The bill enjoys support among those in the fashion and apparel industries. While concerns have been expressed about the scope of previous versions of this legislation, my office has engaged in discussions through the years with interested parties to ensure that the bill does not prohibit designs that are simply inspired by other designs; rather, the legislation only targets those designs that are ``substantially identical'' to a protected design. Other provisions, including a ``home-sewing'' exception and a requirement that a designer alleging infringement plead with particularity, ensure that the bill does not encourage harassing or litigious behavior.

I urge the Members of the House to support this legislation, which will grant to American creators similar protections that those in most other industrialized countries enjoy.