Floor Statements

Offered By: Mr. Goodlatte

Amendment No. 229: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

Offered By: Mr. Goodlatte

Amendment No. 230: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

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. 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.

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.

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. Speaker, as a part of the opening remarks, I will explain and I hope answer the question of the gentleman from Washington.

This morning, for the first time in the history of the House of Representatives, we will read aloud the full text of the Constitution of the United States. We hope this will inspire many more Americans to read the Constitution.

The text we are reading today reflects the changes to the document made by the 27 amendments to it. Those portions superseded by amendment will not be read.

In order to ensure fairness for all those interested in participating, we have asked Members to line up on a first-come first- served basis. I will recognize Members based on this guidance.

In order to ensure relative parity and fairness, I may recognize Members out of order to ensure bipartisanship and balance. Two Members, one from each party, will be recognized out of order. Each Member will approach the podium and read the passage laid out for him or her.

The Speaker and two members of the leadership of each party will begin the reading, and then I will recognize Members in order. I thank the Members of both parties in advance for their participation in this historic event.

Parliamentary Inquiries

I thank the gentleman for his question.

We have consulted with the Congressional Research Service of the Library of Congress. The Library of Congress actually maintains a copy of the Constitution which includes those sections that have been superseded by amendment. So we are not reading those sections that have been superseded by amendment. And we have arrived at that determination based upon our consultation with the Congressional Research Service.

I think the gentleman has stated that very well.

I thank the gentleman.

I yield to the gentleman.

I thank the gentleman for his comments, and I take them very much to heart as has our leadership.

In fact, in recognition of the gentleman's concern, I mentioned in my comments that only two Members would be recognized out of order to read sections. One is the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith), the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, who will read the first article of section 3 dealing with the judiciary. The other is the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis), who many regard as the foremost advocate for civil rights in the Congress, he will read the 13th Amendment. In that regard, we hope to address the concern that you raised.

I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

It is an amended document. We are going to read the document as amended.

I thank the members of both parties in advance for their participation in this historic event, and I thank the leadership and Members for providing for this reading in the rules of the House.

It is now my distinct honor to yield to the Speaker of the House to begin the reading.

I now yield to the minority leader, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi).

I now yield to the majority leader, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor).

I now yield to the minority whip, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

I now yield to the gentleman from California, the majority whip, Mr. McCarthy.

I now yield to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Rothman).

I now yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Conaway).

I now yield to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. David Scott).

I now yield to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Walberg).

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

I now yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe).

I now yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner).

I now yield to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Womack).

I now yield to the gentlewoman from Maryland (Ms. Edwards).

I now yield to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Miller).

I now yield to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

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

I now yield to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).

I now yield to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Wilson).

I now yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Al Green).

I now yield to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Gowdy).

I now yield to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Davis).

I now yield to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. LoBiondo).

I now yield to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin).

I now yield to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Lance).

I now yield to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee).

I now yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling).

I now yield to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee).

I now yield to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Duncan).

I now yield to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt).

I now yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Canseco).

I now yield to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).

I now yield to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. West).

I now yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Keating).

I now yield to the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Black).

I now yield to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Perlmutter).

I now yield to the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. McMorris Rodgers).

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

I now yield to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Gardner).

I now yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Loretta Sanchez).

I now yield to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Pompeo).

I now yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel).

I now yield to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Hayworth).

I now yield to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne).

I now yield to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Young).

I now yield to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).

I now yield to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Griffith).

I now yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Richardson).

I now yield to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Latta).

I now yield to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Connolly).

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

I now yield to the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette).

I now yield to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Johnson).

I now yield to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).

I now yield to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot).

I now yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith), the chairman of the Judiciary Committee.

I now yield to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Bishop).

I now yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Farenthold).

I now yield to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Donnelly).

I now yield to the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce).

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

I now yield to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Turner).

I now yield to the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Carney).

I now yield to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Harris).

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

I now yield to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Gibbs).

I now yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).

Section 4: ``The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republic 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 . . .''

I now yield to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Fortenberry).

I now yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui).

I now yield to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett).

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

I now yield to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Lamborn).

I now yield to the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Ms. Hirono).

I now yield to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tipton).

I now recognize the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Carnahan).

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

I now yield to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott).

I now yield to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Yoder).

I now yield to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin).

I now yield to the gentlewoman from Alabama (Mrs. Roby).

I now yield to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Ross).

I now yield to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bonner).

I now yield to the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Ms. Hanabusa).

I now yield to the gentlewoman from Arizona (Ms. Giffords).

I now yield to the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Guinta).

I now yield to gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman).

I now yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert).

I now yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Lynch).

I now yield to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Franks).

I now yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Speier).

I now yield to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Westmoreland).

I now yield to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski).

I now yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Flores).

I now yield to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Walz).

Amendment 10: ``The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.''

I now yield to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline).

I now yield to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Graves).

I now yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel).

I now yield to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Stutzman).

I now yield to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price).

I now yield to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Southerland).

I now yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Chu).

I now yield to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis).

I now yield to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Rigell).

I now yield to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt).

I now yield to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wittman).

I now yield to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Clarke).

I now yield to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Ellmers).

I now yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Israel).

I yield to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gosar).

I now yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Bishop).

I now yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Olson).

I now yield to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Larsen).

I now yield to the gentlewoman from New York, (Ms. Buerkle).

I now yield to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Schwartz).

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

I now yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gene Green).

I now yield to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Hurt).

I now yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I now yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Lankford).

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

I now yield to the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Hartzler).

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

I now yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gibson).

I now yield to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hultgren).

I now yield to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Fincher) who will read the last amendment of the Constitution.

Mr. Speaker, with apology to those few Members who were waiting to read, we have now completed the first reading aloud of the United States Constitution.

Madam Speaker, earlier today, the historic occasion of the first reading of the United States Constitution here on the floor of the House took place, and it was a very good bipartisan occasion where nearly one-third of all the Members of the House of Representatives participated in that reading. Unfortunately, during the reading, one of the Members, while he was reading from the notebook at the podium, turned two of the pages, and two pages of the Constitution were not read.

So I ask unanimous consent that I now read those pages and that they be placed into the reading of the Constitution as it occurred earlier today so that we have a complete reading of the Constitution.

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.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to re-introduce legislation that will amend the United States Constitution to force Congress to rein in spending by balancing the federal budget.

We have a spending addiction in Washington, D.C., and it has proven to be an addiction that Congress cannot control on its own and which is bringing dire consequences. We have gone in a few short years from a deficit of billions of dollars to a deficit of trillions of dollars. We are printing money at an unprecedented pace, which presents serious risks of massive inflation. Our national debt recently surpassed an astonishing $14 trillion and continues to rapidly increase, along with the waste associated with paying the interest on that debt.

Our first Secretary of State, Thomas Jefferson, warned of the consequences of out-of- control debt when he wrote: ``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.'' Unfortunately, it increasingly appears that Congress has chosen the latter path.

Our current Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, issued a similar warning when she recently declared: ``I think that our rising debt levels [sic] poses a national security threat, and it poses a national security threat in two ways. It undermines our capacity to act in our own interest, and it does constrain us where constraint may be undesirable. And it also sends a message of weakness internationally.'' Despite these warnings, Congress has refused to address this crisis.

Congress' spending addiction is not a partisan one. It reaches across the aisle and afflicts both parties, which is why neither party has been able to master it. We need outside help. We need pressure from outside Congress to force us to rein in this out-of-control behavior. We need a balanced budget amendment to our Constitution.

That is why I am introducing this legislation, which is a common sense, 3-part balanced budget Constitutional amendment. This bill would (1) amend the Constitution to require that total spending for any fiscal year not exceed total receipts; (2) require that bills to raise revenues pass each House of Congress by a 3/5 majority; and (3) establish an annual spending cap such that total federal spending could not exceed 1/5 of the economic output of the United States.

The bill would also require a 3/5 majority vote for any increases in the debt limit.

The legislation provides an exception in times of war and during military conflicts that pose imminent and serious military threats to national security.

Our federal government must be lean, efficient and responsible with the dollars that our nation's citizens worked so hard to earn. We must work to both eliminate every cent of waste and squeeze every cent of value out of each dollar our citizens entrust to us. Families all across our nation understand what it means to make tough decisions each day about what they can and cannot afford and government officials should be required to exercise similar restraint when spending the hard-earned dollars of our nation's citizens.

By amending the Constitution to require a balanced budget, establish measurable spending limits, and make it harder to raise taxes, we can force the Congress to control spending, paving the way for a return to surpluses and ultimately paying down the national debt, rather than allow big spenders to lead us further down the road of chronic deficits and in doing so leave our children and grandchildren saddled with debt that is not their own.

49 out of 50 states have a balanced budget requirement, and it is time that the federal government had one too.

Our nation faces many difficult decisions in the coming years, and Congress will face great pressure to spend beyond its means rather than to make the difficult decisions

about spending priorities. Unless Congress is forced to make the decisions necessary to create a balanced budget, it will always have the all-too-tempting option of shirking this responsibility. A Constitutional balanced budget requirement, combined with the spending and tax limitations in this legislation, will set our nation's fiscal policies on the right path. This is a common sense approach to ensure that Congress is bound by the same fiscal principles that guide America's families each day.

I urge support of this important legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to re-introduce legislation that will amend the United States Constitution to force Congress to rein in spending by balancing the federal budget.

We have a spending addiction in Washington, D.C., and it has proven to be an addiction that Congress cannot control on its own and which is bringing dire consequences. We have gone in a few short years from a deficit of billions of dollars to a deficit of trillions of dollars. We are printing money at an unprecedented pace, which presents serious risks of massive inflation. Our national debt recently surpassed an astonishing $14 trillion and continues to rapidly increase, along with the waste associated with paying the interest on that debt.

Our first Secretary of State, Thomas Jefferson, warned of the consequences of out-of- control debt when he wrote: ``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.'' Unfortunately, it increasingly appears that Congress has chosen the latter path.

Our current Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, issued a similar warning when she recently declared: ``I think that our rising debt levels [sic] poses a national security threat, and it poses a national security threat in two ways. It undermines our capacity to act in our own interest, and it does constrain us where constraint may be undesirable. And it also sends a message of weakness internationally.'' Despite these warnings, Congress has refused to address this crisis.

Congress' spending addiction is not a partisan one. It reaches across the aisle and afflicts both parties, which is why neither party has been able to master it. We need outside help. We need pressure from outside Congress to force us to rein in this out-of-control behavior. We need a balanced budget amendment to our Constitution.

That is why I am introducing this legislation, which garnered 179 bipartisan cosponsors in the 111th Congress. This bill would amend the Constitution to require that total spending for any fiscal year not exceed total receipts and require the President to propose budgets to Congress that are balanced each year. It would also provide an exception in times of war and during military conflicts that pose imminent and serious military threats to national security.

Furthermore, the legislation would make it harder to increase taxes by requiring that legislation to increase revenue be passed by a true majority of each chamber and not just a majority of those present and voting. Finally, the bill requires a 3/5 majority vote for any increases in the debt limit.

Our federal government must be lean, efficient and responsible with the dollars that our nation's citizens worked so hard to earn. We must work to both eliminate every cent of waste and squeeze every cent of value out of each dollar our citizens entrust to us. Families all across our nation understand what it means to make tough decisions each day about what they can and cannot afford and government officials should be required to exercise similar restraint when spending the hard-earned dollars of our nation's citizens.

By amending the Constitution to require a balanced budget, we can force the Congress to control spending, paving the way for a return to surpluses and ultimately paying down the national debt, rather than allow big spenders to lead us further down the road of chronic deficits and in doing so leave our children and grandchildren saddled with debt that is not their own.

This concept is not new--49 out of 50 states have a balanced budget requirement.

Our nation faces many difficult decisions in the coming years, and Congress will face great pressure to spend beyond its means rather than to make the difficult decisions about spending priorities. Unless Congress is forced to make the decisions necessary to create a balanced budget, it will always have the all-too-tempting option of shirking this responsibility. The Balanced Budget Constitutional amendment is a common sense approach to ensure that Congress is bound by the same fiscal principles that guide America's families each day.

I urge support of this important legislation.

I thank the gentleman for yielding. I thank the gentleman from California for bringing this legislation forward, and I want to take the opportunity to commend the gentleman from Indiana for his leadership on the Veterans' Affairs Committee for a number of years now and for his service in the Congress. He came here at the same time I did, and I very much appreciate the great contributions he has made in those years.

I rise in support of this legislation which requires a detailed report to Congress on the gravesite discrepancies at Arlington National Cemetery, including information concerning burial operations and errors in burials. It is sad that we are even having to consider such legislation today, but unfortunately, it has become very apparent that it is absolutely necessary.

Recent news reports have revealed multiple instances of misplaced human remains at Arlington National Cemetery. These sickening stories are a national disgrace. Our Nation's veterans, in life and in death, deserve our utmost respect. They have engaged in one of the noblest forms of public service, defending this Nation. It is their tireless work that has made our country great, strong, and most importantly, free. These men and women have helped to liberate victims of oppression, spread democracy across the world, and preserve the freedoms our Nation was built upon. Our fallen heroes deserve our honor, our respect, and our appreciation. This critical legislation will go a long way in ensuring that it is always the case. It is a final ``thank you'' on behalf of a grateful Nation.

Mr. Speaker, it is very important that we get to the bottom of this matter, we correct this problem as quickly as possible and restore the respect that people need to have in such an important facility which carries such historic significance and the sacred remains of great men and women who have served our country.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I rise in strong opposition to this legislation.

I say to my good friend, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, this bill has been around for a long time for good reason. It is a bad bill, having been around for a long time, for this entire Congress, for 2 years, no hearing in the Judiciary Committee, no hearing in the chairman's committee for the entire 2 years, and now here we are within a week of adjourning the Congress, still no hearing. No opportunity for people to come in and testify before the Congress about how this would work, how we will screen out the people who will commit fraud under this, how unfair it is to people who wait for years, who are legally going through the process of becoming immigrants. No opportunity in the committee to improve the bill. No opportunity to offer amendments. Why? Because no markup was held for 2 years.

Now, the indignity of it all is that here in the closing days of the Congress, when this bill has been brought forward in this urgent manner, we are not even given the opportunity, as the minority is always given, to offer a motion to recommit, no opportunity to amend this bill in any way, shape or form, as though this was perfectly drawn and perfectly brought here, and that anybody who was not in the small room where the final version of this, totally without the inspection of the American people, totally without the opportunity for anybody to participate, brought here in some perfect manner; and now, of course, we are going to pass it without even the opportunity for the minority to offer changes to the bill.

The American people have recently demonstrated their strong opposition to amnesty for millions of illegal immigrants, yet the DREAM Act offers amnesty to illegal immigrants who entered the U.S. before they were 16 years old. It grants them permanent residence and then citizenship once they have completed 2 years of college or have served in the armed services, unless the Department of Homeland Security waives these requirements because of hardship, something not defined in the bill, a very, very big loophole.

According to the Migration Policy Institute, the DREAM Act could mean mass amnesty for 2.1 million illegal immigrants. Fraud will likely drive the number much higher as illegal immigrants discovery how easy it is to claim that they arrived in the U.S. before the age of 16.

The same thing occurred after the 1986 amnesty bill, the Immigration Reform and Control Act, was enacted. Everyone said that was going to end illegal immigration. It opened the doors to more. This is going to do exactly the same thing.

The DREAM Act makes it easy for almost any illegal immigrant, even those who do not qualify for this amnesty, to evade the law. Once an alien, no matter who they are, files an application, no matter how spurious, the Federal Government is prohibited from deporting that illegal immigrant. This is ripe for fraud and is unfair and should be opposed.

And once the DREAM Act beneficiaries apply for amnesty, they will be given work authorization. So these individuals who have broken the law will be legitimately competing for jobs with the 9.8 percent of Americans who are currently unemployed.

The DREAM Act subsidizes the college education of illegal immigrants at taxpayer (expense. DREAM Act beneficiaries are eligible for certain higher education assistance programs including subsidized and unsubsidized Federal Stafford student loans. Taxpayers pay the interest on unsubsidized Stafford loans as long as the borrower is in school. And DREAM Act beneficiaries are eligible for Perkins loans, work study and certain other college access and college persistence programs--all of which are funded at least in part by the U.S. taxpayer. In addition, both Stafford and Perkins loans are eligible for loan forgiveness after certain requirements are met. So some illegal immigrants will not even be required to pay back the money they borrowed from U.S. taxpayers. U.S. citizens should be first in line to receive taxpayer subsidies-- not those who are violating Federal law.

Once a DREAM Act beneficiary obtains lawful permanent residence he is automatically exempt from the 5-year wait period specified in section 403 of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1613), to receive means-tested public welfare benefits. The costs of this to American taxpayers could be enormous.

DREAM Act beneficiaries are required to undergo background checks to the ``satisfaction'' of the Secretary of Homeland Security. But there is no way to verify that the person is who they say they are.

The DREAM Act will encourage more illegal immigration since illegal immigrant parents will bring their children with them in the expectation that they will benefit from another DREAM Act. The DREAM Act is a dream for those who have broken the law, but a nightmare for law-abiding and taxpaying Americans.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the 10 courageous men and women whose lives were brutally cut short in Nuristan Province, Afghanistan, on August 5th, 2010. These individuals devoted their lives to helping others, and unfortunately, paid the ultimate price.

In particular, I would like to recognize and honor Brian Carderelli, a constituent of mine from Harrisonburg, Virginia. Mr. Carderelli was a recent graduate from James Madison University and was working to chronicle the work of the aid workers by recording them in photographs and video. Unlike many new college graduates, Mr. Carderelli chose to pursue a career in a challenging foreign environment, where his dedication to improving the lives of others took priority. His work with the International Assistance Mission and the International School of Kabul are a testament to that dedication.

Though the work of Mr. Carderelli and the International Assistance Mission team was certainly valued by those they helped, unfortunately not everyone appreciated their efforts. For several years, the Taliban ruled Afghanistan with brutality and terror. Intolerance for other religions and ignorance of human rights was standard. While the situation for the citizens of Afghanistan has improved since the rule of the Taliban, their presence has not been eliminated, and their brutal tactics persist.

The work of Brian Carderelli and his nine fellow workers is the work that will ultimately erode support for the Taliban and end that chapter in the country's history for good. Their efforts were selfless and humble, and are an inspiration to us all. These dedicated individuals will be missed, but the untold impact that each one of them had on the lives that they touched will certainly not be forgotten.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 5932, the Organized Retail Theft Investigation and Prosecution Act of 2010. This legislation is an important step in combating a growing threat to retailers and consumers.

I am pleased to join my Judiciary Committee colleagues Chairman Conyers, Ranking Member Smith and Chairman Scott as an original sponsor of this legislation, and I thank the gentleman for true bipartisanship in allowing me to catch my breath in order to be able to give these remarks.

Organized retail theft is a huge and growing problem in the United States. According to FBI estimates, organized retail theft rings cost businesses more than $30 billion in losses annually. Organized retail theft groups target anything from everyday household commodities to health products to baby formula that can be easily sold through flea markets, swap meets, shady storefront operations, and through online marketplaces.

Thieves often travel from retail store to retail store, stealing relatively small amounts of goods from each store but cumulatively stealing significant amounts of goods. Once stolen, these products are sold back to fencing operations, which can dilute, alter, repackage the goods, and then resell them, sometimes back to the same stores from which the products were originally stolen. These goods are also sold at flea markets, pawn shops and increasingly on the Internet.

When a product does not travel through the authorized channels of distribution, there is an increased potential that the product has been altered, diluted, reproduced, and/or repackaged. These so-called ``diverted products'' pose significant health risks to the public, especially the diverted medications and food products. Diverted products also cause considerable financial losses for legitimate manufacturers and retailers. Ultimately, the consumers bear the brunt of these losses as retail establishments are forced to raise prices to cover the additional costs of security and theft prevention measures.

Even more troubling is where the money is going. We have seen evidence that organized retail theft is increasingly being used to fund international organized crime and other nefarious activities. At the State level, organized retail theft crimes are normally prosecuted under State shoplifting statutes as mere misdemeanors. As a result, the thieves who participate in organized retail crime rings typically receive the same punishment as common shoplifters. The thieves who are convicted usually see very limited jail time or are placed on probation.

I believe that the punishment does not fit the crime in these situations. Mere slaps on the wrists of these criminals have practically no deterrent effect. In addition, the low-level criminals who are actually stealing these goods from the shelves are easily replaced by the criminal organization's higher level coordinators.

During my 8 years of working on ways to combat organized retail theft, I found that the Federal law enforcement community believed it had adequate Federal laws to prosecute organized retail theft crimes, but that poor communication, lack of coordination among State and local law enforcement and lack of resources were major impediments to effective enforcement.

In order to improve the communications and intelligence-sharing between industry and law enforcement, I offered an amendment to the Department of Justice's reauthorization bill back in 2005, which created a Federal definition of organized retail theft crimes and directed the FBI to contribute to the construction of a national database housed in the private sector where retail establishments, as well as Federal, State and local law enforcement, could compile evidence on specific organized retail theft crimes to aid investigations and prosecutions. This database, which has now become the current LERPnet, has helped to put the pieces together to show the organized and multi-state nature of these crimes as well as to provide important evidence for prosecutions.

I am also pleased to report that the private sector is working together to address this problem. Earlier this year, the National Retail Federation partnered with eBay to develop greater information sharing between eBay and participating retailers. This partnership will hopefully increase the likelihood that more organized retail theft will be detected and prosecuted. H.R. 5932 will build upon the successes of these efforts to provide additional resources to the FBI to investigate organized retail theft.

The bill funds and requires the Attorney General to establish an organized retail theft investigation and prosecution unit within the Department of Justice. This unit will include representatives from the FBI, ICE, U.S. Secret Service, and postal inspectors, as well as prosecutors. The unit will investigate and prosecute large-scale organized retail thefts and will provide assistance to State and local law enforcement agencies. The unit will also work in consultation with retailers and online marketplaces to gather information about and identify trends in organized retail thefts.

In addition, H.R. 5932 instructs the Attorney General to prepare a report to Congress on how retailers and law enforcement agencies can best combat organized retail theft. This legislation is supported by the National Retail Federation, the Retail Industry Leaders Association, the Coalition Against Organized Retail Crime, the Food Marketing Institute, the National Association of Chain Drug Stores, eBay, and the Entertainment Merchants Association.

Again, I wish to thank my colleagues Chairman Conyers, Ranking Member Smith and Chairman Scott for their dedication to this issue and for working with me to draft this bipartisan legislation. I urge my colleagues to support the bill.

I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I rise in opposition to this legislation.

H.R. 1586, the State bailout bill, extends many of the same provisions included in the original stimulus bill by increasing taxes and using questionable offsets. It increases taxes on American businesses, America's job creators, by $9.8 billion over 10 years, and these tax increases will kill jobs,

reduce American competitiveness, discourage investment, and prevent economic recovery. This is a permanent tax increase on job creators in exchange for a temporary fix for the States.

A series of international tax changes in the bill could have far- reaching consequences on the competitiveness of worldwide American businesses. The National Association of Manufacturers states that an estimated 22 million people in the United States, more than 19 percent of the private-sector workforce, and 53 percent of all manufacturing employees are employed by companies with operations overseas.

Manufacturers feel strongly that imposing $9.6 billion tax increases on these companies as proposed in the Senate Amendment to H.R. 1586 will jeopardize the jobs of American manufacturing employees and stifle our fragile economy.

The new spending in the bill is meant to give states money to deal with their current fiscal problems, rewarding states for years of excessive spending in their budgets. It is not the responsibility of the federal government to bail out the states when they have difficulty balancing their budgets--the federal government should balance its own budget instead.

The bill is not really ``fully'' paid for because it spends the entire $26.1 billion in just two years while the ``offsets'' take place over ten years, relying on future Congresses to abide by the offsets-- spending money today that we won't ``pay for'' until years from now. Once again, this Congress kicks the can down the road.

This is a very detrimental tax increase. I urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation.