Floor Statements

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 985, the Free Flow of Information Act, which will encourage whistleblowers by protecting journalists' confidential sources. This bipartisan bill will bolster the free press as a very important check on government power.

I had concerns with this legislation last year when we considered it in the Judiciary Committee, and I worked with my good friends, Representatives Boucher and Pence, to have many of these items addressed before it reached the House floor.

For example, the bill now requires that in order to receive the protections of the media shield law, a journalist must be engaged in the ``regular'' practice of journalism for ``a substantial portion of the person's livelihood'' or ``for substantial financial gain.'' This will help ensure that an individual who has no journalistic experience cannot attempt to protect himself by creating a blog overnight.

In addition, the bill contains a broader exception that allows compelled disclosure of information when national security is at stake, when there are leaks of classified information, and when the journalist was an eyewitness to a criminal act or tort.

This legislation will enhance the freedom of the press and thus provide for a more informed and engaged citizenry. In addition, the improvements to the bill will help ensure that the interests of justice and national security are protected.

It is for these reasons that I support the Free Flow of Information Act and urge my colleagues to support it as well. I want to thank all those who have worked on this measure on both sides of the issue. I think we have created an improved bill and one that I am very pleased and proud to support.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, I commend Chairman Rahall for addressing this important issue over the last 2 years. The wildfire funding problems for the Forest Service are some of the most challenging issues the agency faces today. Wildfire funding costs have skyrocketed over the last decade and are consuming the Forest Service's budget, which means there is less funding for other Forest Service needs.

We will continue to see high costs and more damage to our forests and communities unless we take steps to reduce fire risk in our Federal forests. We must provide the Forest Service with additional tools to get our Federal forests in a healthy, more fire-resistant condition.

I support the underlying purpose of this legislation. However, the bill does not do enough to address the problem causing the increasing costs of fighting fires; that is, the unhealthy conditions of our forests.

My amendment to the FLAME Act will provide the Forest Service with an additional tool to address these problems that will ultimately leave our forests in a healthier condition and will yield a savings for the taxpayers.

My amendment creates a new contracting tool for the Forest Service to partner with States. This will give the Forest Service permanent authority to contract with States to reduce wildfire risks across boundary lines. This practice is commonly known as ``good neighbor authority,'' and has been tested in States like Colorado and Utah, where it has proven to be effective. Currently, H.R. 1404 contains no such tool for the Forest Service.

The significance of this measure is that it will encourage both Federal and State agencies to work together to address unhealthy conditions in Federal forests. Fires know no boundaries. They can start on Federal land and easily spread to State and private forestland. My amendment provides a more comprehensive approach to preventing dangerous fires and fighting them when they happen.

I'm pleased that my amendment has the support of several forestry groups, including the Society of American Foresters, the Council of State Foresters, the Forest Foundation and other forestry groups. I have also spoken with the Forest Service, and they have told me that they have no objections to this amendment.

Let me be clear. This amendment is meant to protect our forests from catastrophic fire. Like everyone else, I want to see our treasured national forests protected from fires. By allowing Federal and State agencies to work in tandem to reduce hazardous fuels, we are ensuring that our forests are protected for generations to come.

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, at this time I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop).

Mr. Chairman, at this time I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the ranking member, the gentleman from Washington State (Mr. Hastings).

I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I want to, again, encourage my colleagues to support this amendment. I say to the chairman of the committee, I appreciate the concerns that he has raised, but as has been correctly noted, we are having ever-increasing problems with fighting forest fires each season. They do not recognize boundaries.

I think some of the labor concerns that the gentlemen have raised will actually work to the benefit of the groups that have raised these concerns because it is more likely that more work will be done by Federal-contracted employees under Federal rules on private and State lands if this kind of partnership and cooperation is allowed, than the reverse will be taking place.

Nonetheless, we should not wait while we work through all those things and force people to dance on the head of a pin, when we have the opportunity to work cooperatively right now among all those who are affected by forest fires.

We should enable a good neighbor policy to help fight forest fires. It will save the taxpayer dollars. It will make our forest healthier, it will allow us to move forward.

And finally, I'd say to the gentleman that yesterday he conveyed to us his willingness to continue to work on these issues regarding the health of the forest, and I take him at his word, and look forward to continuing to do that. But I think this amendment should be passed.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

I thank the ranking member for yielding to me.

I want to commend him and Chairman Rahall for addressing this important issue over the last 2 years. The wildfire funding problems for the Forest Service are some of the most challenging issues the agency faces today.

Wildfire funding costs have skyrocketed over the last decade and are consuming the Forest Service's budget, which means that there's much less funding for other Forest Service needs. We will continue to see high costs and more damage to our forests and communities unless we take steps to reduce fire risk in our national forests. We must provide the Forest Service with additional tools to get our Federal forests in a healthy, more fire-resistant condition.

This is a bill of great importance to States and communities across the country. The problems of forest management affect not just western States, but those along the eastern seaboard as well. Virginia is one such example. Last year, Virginia had more acres burn than any year since 1963, which shows how the problem of forest management has progressively worsened.

This version of the FLAME Act is an improvement from the one passed by the House in the last Congress. However, the bill does not do enough to address the problem causing the increasing costs of fighting fires-- that is, the unhealthy conditions of our forests.

My amendment to the FLAME Act, which I will offer tomorrow, will provide the Forest Service with an additional tool to address these problems that will ultimately be a cost-saving measure.

My amendment creates a new contracting tool for the Forest Service to partner with States. This will give the Forest Service permanent authority to contract with States to reduce wildfire risks across boundary lines.

This practice is commonly known as ``good neighbor authority'' and has been tested in States like Colorado and Utah, where it has proven to be effective.

Currently, H.R. 1404 contains no such tool for the Forest Service. The significance of this measure is that it will encourage both Federal and State agencies to work together to address unhealthy conditions in Federal forests.

Fires know no boundaries. They can start on Federal land and easily spread to State and private forest land and vice versa. My amendment provides a more comprehensive approach to preventing dangerous fires and fighting them when they happen.

I'm pleased that my amendment has the support of the Society of American Foresters, the Western Council of State Foresters, the Forest Foundation, and other forestry groups.

I have also spoken with the Forest Service and they have told me they have no objections to this amendment. I might also add that we have cleared this amendment in the Ag Committee, which shares jurisdiction with the Resources Committee for forestry issues, and they also have no objection to this amendment.

This is something that the professionals who fight forest fires around our country--the professional fighters--and the societies that are comprised of American foresters want and need in this legislation. So I hope that there will be bipartisan support. I know in the Rules Committee there was bipartisan support for bringing this amendment forward. I certainly hope that that will continue as we try to maintain the type of bipartisan cooperation that has led to the point that we have reached thus far in bringing this legislation forward in a way to significantly enhance it.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express grave concern regarding the budget that the Budget Committee is acting upon this week and which some have proposed be brought to the floor of this House next week.

I would suggest that it is very much in need of dramatic changes and would ask that the leadership of this Congress take that budget back and start over again because a debt of the magnitude that this country is already facing, added to the projected deficit for next year alone, now up to $1.8 trillion, is a staggering sum of money, and it is not something that is sustainable.

We have known this for a long time. In fact, one of the namesakes of the annual dinners that our colleagues on the other side of the aisle hold, the Jefferson-Jackson dinners that are held all across the country, he has been known throughout American history for his strong stand against piling on greater and greater public debt. In fact, late 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.'' And we are, in fact, seeing this statement made long ago coming to haunt us in very severe ways at this time in our history.

You know, we had up until last year a $9 trillion national debt that had been accumulated over more than 200 years of our Nation's history. And yet the projection now is that in the next 10 years, according to this budget--and that is based upon optimistic projections I would say with regard to government spending--the liabilities the government already has for a number of different programs, but the projection already offered by the administration is that that debt will increase by one-and-a-half times in the next 10 years.

That is staggering to consider that we could outstrip all of the spending that has taken place over all of that period of time in such a short period of time, and I want to show you exactly how that works with this chart.

This chart shows the doubling of the debt held by the public in a very short period of time. Projections now are that it will be even greater than this. This one shows that it grows to $16 trillion. We now have a new projection that says $23 trillion will be the national debt in total.

The public portion of the national debt, that portion of the debt that we owe to American citizens and other people around the world, will grow to $16 trillion from less than $6 trillion just last year. That is a stunning figure, but this doesn't even tell the whole story because what this shows is just the public portion of the debt.

Every year, the Congress borrows from the Social Security trust fund, and other trust funds, additional funds, and the government simply puts an IOU in those trust funds, funds so important to our senior citizens and others who are counting on those funds to be there in the future, to make sure that Social Security and other programs are actuarially sound, and yet the money has been borrowed, such that the total amount of our national debt by 2019 will come to $23 trillion.

We have in this budget that has been offered in this Congress too much spending, too much taxation and, what we're focusing on today, too much debt. Let me call the words of President Jefferson to mind again: 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--and that is

truly the crossroads that we have reached today.

Thomas Jefferson recognized that 190-plus years ago and pointed out that with economy comes liberty and freedom. With as he called it profusion, or what we call today big government spending, comes servitude of the people to their government. That is not what our Founding Fathers intended when they created the United States Constitution which, in my opinion, is in need of one change that is vitally needed, and that is a balanced budget amendment to the United States Constitution.

I will have more to say about this in the future, but I urge my colleagues to oppose this budget and support real fiscal reform, which would be to adopt a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution.

Mr. Chairman, at this time, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Mrs. Bachmann).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.

First, I'd like to respond to the gentleman from Vermont who said that Citigroup endorsed this legislation. Well, I must tell you the American Banking Association doesn't support this, nor do the community bankers, the bankers who still have their heads above water all across my congressional district and many other districts across the country that are making mortgage loans day in and day out. They don't support this legislation. But a bank that is receiving already tens of billions of dollars in government assistance supports it. That should convince us that this legislation leads us in the right direction?

Then to the gentleman from Georgia, I would point out that the Congress, a number of years ago, created a special Chapter 12 bankruptcy proceeding for farmers, and that was a temporary change in the law as well, as this one is. The gentleman is correct; it only applies to existing mortgages. But that law, created many, many years ago, still exists because it's been extended and extended, and we are at risk of having the same thing happen here, particularly when the mindset is that we should turn to the advice of banks that are failing to tell us a good way to handle a problem that banks that are succeeding say it is a bad, bad practice.

And I also want to speak against this amendment. Far from making bankruptcy a last resort, this gives homeowners two bites at the apple. Even if they obtain the Obama compliant loan modification from their lenders, i.e., workouts that meet the terms of President Obama's mortgage program, they can still go into bankruptcy. Once there, they can shop for a better deal from the bankruptcy court. Lenders, meanwhile, have to honor the already-cut voluntary deals all the way through bankruptcy.

At the end of the case, the homeowner keeps whichever deal is sweeter. That's not making bankruptcy a last resort. That's guaranteeing abuse of both voluntary modification and bankruptcy. We're going to see a run on the bankruptcy courts if this legislation is adopted.

Meanwhile, what happens to the borrower who rejects an offer meeting President Obama's terms? Nothing. The bankruptcy court can theoretically refuse to confirm a borrower's cramdown plan, but under the terms of the amendment, that will likely happen only when the lender offered a modification without a voluntary cramdown and the borrower has no need for bankruptcy relief anyway.

And what about borrowers who are within 30 days of foreclosure sales? They don't even have to contact their lenders about voluntary modifications. So none of the amendment modifications do not apply.

The new manager's amendment does nothing to change this exception that

swallows the whole bill. As a result, borrowers who may have entered into mortgages that they shouldn't have in the first place, and bankruptcy attorneys can game the system by simply waiting until borrowers are within the 30 days of a foreclosure sale to file for bankruptcy.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.

First, I say to the gentlewoman from California that the largest credit union association in the world, Credit Union National Association, a member-owned collection of credit unions around the United States, strongly opposes this legislation. When we talk about the ``little people'' and the organizations that reach out and help people day-to-day with loans, they know the impact that this will have.

And secondly, to the gentleman from North Carolina, the fact of the matter is cramdowns were entirely prohibited going back to the 1898 law. So for more than 100 years, when they liberalized in other areas, they simply continued in this area. It's not true that they have only prohibited cramdowns since 1978.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).

Mr. Chairman, at this time I am pleased to yield 1\1/ 2\ minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.

Some of the other issues raised in this manager's amendment that need to be pointed out are that the amendment provides an alternative to cramdown of principal, but astoundingly the alternative is free money. If the judge does not want to give a cramdown, he can just rewrite the mortgage as a no-interest loan over the full term of a new 30-year deal. Now, just like there's no such thing as a free lunch, there's no such thing as free money for banks or credit unions to lend to the people who come to them.

So while the gentleman--in fact, several have made the point that this only applies to existing mortgages. The fact of the matter is the money to pay for the modifications that are made here has got to come from someplace. And while I remain concerned that all you would have to do in the future would be to advance the enactment date--everything else in the law would be the same--so you could continue this policy and make it permanent, even if you didn't, money from future borrowers is what's going to be used to fund these changes in current mortgages. It's wrong.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remaining time.

Mr. Chairman, the bottom line, in response to the gentleman from Georgia's argument, is that his case is the strongest one for leaving the bankruptcy laws the way they are because the incentives already exist for them to avoid the cost that he described. So somebody who is struggling right now with their mortgage payments, the incentive exists for them to work with the financial institution and for the financial institution to work with them so they don't face the uncertainties that occur in bankruptcy court.

So, the bottom line is that what this is going to do is it's going to pass along to future people who want to buy homes, whether the law is extended in the future or not, the cost that will be borne by credit unions and community banks and others who are making these mortgages today--they have to cover costs that are unanticipated when they made the mortgages--they're going to have to pass them along in the future. To the extent that they can voluntarily work that out with the existing homeowner, that is the best solution. But that occurs right now and that incentive exists right now under the law. To change the law in the manner that's provided for here, even with the changes in this amendment, simply does not work. And it does not give the assurance to those who said that there needs to be a second chance, a second opportunity to negotiate between the lender and the homeowner voluntarily

because, as I pointed out earlier, any clever bankruptcy attorney will advise his client to simply wait until they're within 30 days of foreclosure, then they don't have to engage in that, they can go straight to the bankruptcy court, bypass exactly what he was calling for happening, and go to the court and see what they can accomplish there under this very, very harmful law from the standpoint of the health of currently healthy banking institutions.

So I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment and to oppose the underlying bill. This is not the way to keep a healthy system by allowing people to continue to borrow and buy homes.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time, and I am pleased to support his amendment, which addresses a serious problem that's in the underlying bill that is not corrected by the manager's amendment, and that is that the cramdown bill will reduce the incentive for many solvent borrowers to keep making payments on their mortgages.

While there are 3 million borrowers who are 60 days or more delinquent on their mortgages, 52 million borrowers remain current in their payments. The cramdown bill gives struggling, but still solvent, borrowers a powerful incentive to stop paying off their mortgages, trigger foreclosure notices and go into bankruptcy to cramdown their mortgage principal and restructure or eliminate all of their other debts.

We will have an outright catastrophe on our hands if most borrowers get the idea that they can successfully game the bankruptcy system in this way. The gentleman's amendment would correct this problem and make sure that we don't have a run on the bankruptcy courts of great magnitude by creating what is currently in the bill now, an incentive to file bankruptcy if the value of your mortgage is greater than the value of your home.

The Four Worst Things About the Mortgage Cramdown Bill (H.R. 200)

No. 1: Back to the Financial Meltdown--The cramdown bill

seriously threatens to send us through a time warp straight

back to the September financial meltdown. Write-downs of

mortgages in bankruptcy will inexorably force downgrades of

mortgage-backed securities based on those mortgages. The

downgrades will in turn force banks and insurance companies

on the hook for the securities to boost their capital

reserves. (For example, if a AAA-rated security is downgraded

to a BB rating, a bank or insurance company will have to hold

10-times the capital reserves.) The resulting hoarding of

capital could total hundreds of billions of dollars, freeze

lending, kill many already wounded banks, and send us

straight back to the brink we faced in September 2008. This

could precipitate another bank bailout to the tune of

hundreds of billions of dollars, and it will undermine

everything we yet have done to stem the financial crisis.

No. 2: Moral Hazard--The cramdown bill will reduce the

incentive for many solvent borrowers to keep making payments

on their mortgages. While 3 million borrowers are 60 days or

more delinquent on their mortgages, 52 million borrowers

remain current in their payments. The cramdown bill gives

struggling but still solvent borrowers a powerful incentive

to stop paying off their mortgages, trigger foreclosure

notices, and go into bankruptcy to cram down their mortgage

principal and restructure or eliminate all of their other

debts. We will have an outright catastrophe on our hands if

most borrowers get the idea that they can successfully game

the bankruptcy system in this way.

No. 3: Higher Interest Rates and Down Payment

Requirements--Including for the Innocent and the Risky

Borrowers Most in Need--The cramdown bill is not the last

step. It is the key step in the Democratic Congress' walk-up

to its long-sought repeal of the primary residence mortgage

exception from the Bankruptcy Code. Once the primary

residence exception is gone, lenders' greatly increased risk

will surely lead to higher interest rates, higher down

payment requirements, and other, tighter terms of principal

residence mortgages. This will especially hurt already risky,

lower-income borrowers, anyone who needs to refinance out of

a challenging mortgage, and everyone who responsibly waited

on the home-buying sidelines until the housing bubble burst.

In fact, once the first, very big step is taken through the

cramdown bill, lenders would be foolish not to begin pricing

in their likely increased risk right away. So what's the

result of the cramdown bill? Nothing more than swapping the

victims.

No. 4: We Still Have Better Options We Can Try--Backers of

the cramdown bill say we've tried everything else to stem the

foreclosure crisis, and nothing else has worked. That's

nonsense. The most recent voluntary programs are working

better, and top-flight academics have proposed a terrific

solution to get at the mortgages we still haven't been able

to reach--mortgages served by third-party servicers that

don't own the loans. These servicers lack sufficient

incentive to seek loan modifications rather than to

foreclose. What is more, if they do modify loans, they can be

sued by mortgage-backed securities investors. Still on the

table is a proposal to fix this problem by giving third-party

servicers a small, per-loan incentive out of TARP funds, and

cutting off litigation risk by overriding problem contract

clauses and affording a litigation safe-harbor. This proposal

appears to be the best possible solution for the critical

mass of the remaining problem loans. It will cost little more

than $10 billion in TARP funds. Why on earth would we risk

the parade of horribles and hundreds of billions of dollars

of downside risk threatened by the cramdown bill, when we

still haven't tried other, better options.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition to the amendment, even though I am not opposed to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

The amendment seeks partially to reinstate a credit counseling requirement for chapter 13 bankruptcy petitioners that H.R. 1106 will strip entirely away. There is no good reason to wipe out the credit counseling requirement for debtors facing foreclosure.

Bankruptcy credit counseling benefits consumers by providing the financial education needed to emerge successfully from bankruptcy. Homeowners facing foreclosure are ideal candidates for credit counseling. This is not always because they can avoid bankruptcy.

It is often so that they can get help to increase their prospects of being successful after bankruptcy. The vast majority of Americans who receive credit counseling believe strongly that it benefits them.

Finally, credit counseling offers one last real opportunity for a homeowner to reach out to a lender and determine whether a loan modification is possible. A majority claims that many borrowers were hoodwinked into obtaining their loans. That's largely why the majority wants homeowners to be able to take their loans into bankruptcy.

But if credit counseling might show homeowners a better option than bankruptcy, why not let them try counseling. The amendment we are considering does not go far enough. It does not fully restore the requirement for counseling that is in current law.

The Rules Committee should have made Mr. Forbes' credit counseling amendment in order. That amendment would fully restore the counseling requirement and ensure that borrowers receive counseling before they file for bankruptcy.

However, because the amendment before us does restore at least a limited requirement for counseling, I support it.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask how much time is remaining on each side?

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert).

Mr. Chairman, may I ask how much time is remaining?

Mr. Chairman, let me take the 30 seconds to say that while I think this is a good amendment and I support it, it doesn't go as far as it should have. We should have had the opportunity to vote today and debate today the amendment offered by Congressman Forbes from Virginia. But nonetheless, that not being the case, I support this amendment.

But I still strongly oppose this underlying legislation, which is going to cause hardships for future homeowners who are going to wind up paying higher mortgage rates and larger down payments for the problems that exist today. That's wrong. We should not pass that and spread that risk to those people, and we should not jeopardize legitimate credit unions and community banks that have been doing so much to help extend credit in this country.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to the Republican Leadership standards on earmarks, I am submitting the following information for publication in the Congressional Record regarding earmarks I received as part of H.R. 1105.

Requesting Member: Congressman Bob Goodlatte

Bill Number: H.R. 1105

Account: USDA, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

Legal Name of Requesting Entity: USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service--Wildlife Service

Address of Requesting Entity: 105 B Ponderosa Drive, Christiansburg,

Mr. Speaker, last night Members on both sides of the aisle rose repeatedly and applauded the remarks of President Obama, who called upon the American people to show their resilience that they have on so many occasions in the past to rise above the difficulties that we face and to lead our country out of this serious economic crisis.

However, today in the light of day, this Congress has taken a very, very different approach to try to solve those problems: the big government approach.

Today, during the debate on the omnibus spending bill, I had planned to offer an amendment. My amendment would have protected the private property rights of citizens and also highlighted the philosophical differences between the Democrat majority and the Republicans. I would note that not a single amendment was made in order as a result of the vote on this nearly $500 billion spending package. Apparently, the majority believes that government knows best and the leadership of their party in this Congress are the only ones who know best how to dole out Americans' hard-earned money and property and they have no qualms about robbing Peter to pay Paul. Despite the lip service the majority gives about the spirit of the American people, the majority's policies clearly demonstrate that they believe something quite different, that the people cannot be trusted to make the best use of their own money and property nor can they be trusted to turn our economy around.

Republicans actually believe in the American people, and they have put their policies where their mouths are. Republicans unabashedly believe that Americans know best how to control their own money and have advocated for targeted tax relief to individuals and small businesses to help the economy by putting money back into the hands of Americans.

In addition, Republicans believe that the right of private property is a fundamental right that the founders of this Nation consciously sought to protect from overly zealous government bureaucrats. The need for private property protections is especially important in trying times like these when politicians get the idea that they know best the uses for Americans' money and property.

I have sponsored legislation to protect private property from aggressive government use of eminent domain powers, and that is what the amendment I offered at the Rules Committee to the omnibus spending measure would have done. My amendment would have prevented funds in this gigantic spending bill from being used to seize private property from one person to give to another. This seems simple enough, but the majority decided to block this amendment, which would have prevented the use of any of the funds in this massive nearly $500 billion spending measure from being used for that purpose, to take people's property for private economic development purposes. But the majority decided to block the amendment and not allow a vote on the House floor. In fact, the vote to stifle debate on this amendment occurred on a purely partisan basis in the Rules Committee.

It seems clear that the majority's solution to the current economic crisis is to spend other people's money. The truth is that we are beginning to see the results that this laboratory of big government spending is producing, and it is no surprise that the results are dismal. The government simply cannot operate as efficiently nor adapt as quickly as individuals and entrepreneurs.

The likely response by the government to its own failure will be more spending, as is evident from the trillion dollar stimulus package that Congress passed 2 weeks ago as well as the nearly half trillion dollar omnibus spending bill we voted on today. There is no end in sight to the unprecedented levels of spending we are witnessing, and that is precisely why we should draw a very clear line now.

House Republicans believe that instead of spending ease, we need a spending freeze. We may now see a budget deficit of $3 trillion this year alone. That's $3 trillion. Divide that by the 300 million people in the United States, and it's nearly $10,000 for each person in the country that the government will spend more than the government will take in, $10,000 per person more that will be spent on all these massive government programs than the government will take in. This is beyond unacceptable. We need reform, and it is clear that Congress must have this reform forced upon it.

That's why over 160 bipartisan cosponsors have joined me in an attempt to force the Federal Government to rein in spending and eliminate the deficit by amending the Constitution to require it. Earlier this year I introduced a balanced budget constitutional amendment, House Joint Resolution 1. This legislation has already garnered over 160 bipartisan cosponsors, and it requires that total Federal outlays cannot exceed total revenues. We'd have 5 years to bring this into line.

It is time we started the process of reforming the way this government spends money.

This is a simple concept but one that is lost on a congress determined to put political considerations above the common good. Simply put, this constitutional amendment would bind the hands of congress by cutting up its credit cards.

The time to act is now, and if President Obama is serious about his call to rein in spending, then he should join in our call for a balanced budget constitutional amendment to force the Federal Government to do so.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the Business Activity Tax Simplification Act. I joined my good friend Rick Boucher of Virginia to introduce this legislation in order to provide a ``bright line'' test to clarify state and local authority to collect business activity taxes from out-of-state entities.

Many states and some local governments levy corporate income, franchise and other taxes on out-of-state companies that conduct business activities within their jurisdictions. While providing revenue for states, these taxes also serve to pay for the privilege of doing business in a state.

However, with the growth of the Internet, companies are increasingly able to conduct transactions without the constraint of geopolitical boundaries. The growth of the high tech industry and interstate business-to-business and business-to-consumer transactions raises questions over where multi-state companies should be required to pay corporate income and other business activity taxes.

Over the past several years, a growing number of jurisdictions have sought to collect business activity taxes from businesses located in other states, even though those businesses receive no appreciable benefits from the taxing jurisdiction and even though the Supreme Court has ruled that the Constitution prohibits a state from imposing taxes on businesses that lack substantial connections to the state. This has led to unfairness and uncertainty, generated contentious, widespread litigation, and hindered business expansion, as businesses shy away from expanding their presence in other states for fear of exposure to unfair tax burdens.

In order for businesses to continue to become more efficient and expand the scope of their goods and services, it is imperative that clear and easily navigable rules be set forth regarding when an out-of- state business is obliged to pay business activity taxes to a state. Otherwise, the confusion surrounding these taxes will have a chilling effect on e-commerce, interstate commerce generally, and the entire economy as tax burdens, compliance costs, litigation, and uncertainty escalate.

Previous actions by the Supreme Court and Congress have laid the groundwork for a clear, concise and modern ``bright line'' rule in this area. In the landmark case of Quill Corp. v. North Dakota, the Supreme Court declared that a state cannot impose a tax on an out-of-state business unless that business has a ``substantial nexus'' with the taxing state. However, the Court did not define what constituted a ``substantial nexus'' for purposes of imposing business activity taxes.

In addition, fifty years ago, Congress passed legislation to prohibit jurisdictions from taxing the income of out-of-state corporations whose in-state presence was nominal. Public Law 86-272 set clear, uniform standards for when states could and could not impose such taxes on out- of-state businesses when the businesses' activities involved the solicitation of orders for sales. However, like the economy of its time, the scope of Public Law 86-272 was limited to tangible personal property. Our nation's economy has changed dramatically over the past fifty years, and this outdated statute needs to be modernized.

The Business Activity Tax Simplification Act of 2008 both modernizes and provides clarity to an outdated and ambiguous tax environment. First, the legislation updates the protections in P.L. 86-272. This legislation reflects the changing nature of our economy by expanding the scope of the protections in P.L. 86-272 from just tangible personal property to include intangible property and services.

In addition, our legislation sets forth clear, specific standards to govern when businesses should be obliged to pay business activity taxes to a state. Specifically, the legislation establishes a ``physical presence'' test such that an out-of-state company must have a physical presence in a state before the state can impose corporate net income taxes and other types of business activity taxes.

In our current, challenging economic times, it is especially important to eliminate artificial, government-imposed barriers to small businesses. Small businesses are crucial to our economy and account for a significant majority of new product ideas and innovation. Small businesses are also central to the American dream of self-improvement and individual achievement, which is why it is so vital that Congress enact legislation that reduces the tax burdens that hinder small businesses and ultimately overall economic growth and job creation.

Unfortunately, small businesses are often the hardest hit when aggressive states and localities impose excessive tax burdens on out- of-state companies. These businesses do not have the resources to hire the teams of lawyers that many large corporations devote to tax compliance, and they are more likely to halt expansion to avoid uncertain tax obligations and litigation expenses.

The clarity that the Business Activity Tax Simplification Act will bring will ensure fairness, minimize litigation, and create the kind of legally certain and stable business climate that frees up funds for small businesses to make investments, expand interstate commerce, grow the economy and create new jobs.

At the same time, this legislation will protect the ability of states to ensure that they are fairly compensated when they provide services to businesses that do have physical presences in the state.

I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I, too, rise and congratulate my colleague from Michigan. The long and distinguished career of Mr. Dingell is to be congratulated by all of us.

But today I rise in strong opposition to what is working its way back to the floor of this House in the form of a so-called ``stimulus package.'' This package will stimulate Big Government. It is not going to stimulate our economy.

And with regard to the comments of the gentleman from Oregon, let me just say that I would invite all of my colleagues and everyone in the country to look at what is in this legislation and they will see that this is all about growing the size of government, not creating jobs to grow our economy.

And I would invite people to look at the Republican alternative, which we have offered, which costs half as much money and is projected to create twice as many jobs. That is what people want. That is what people understand. They want to see the great engine of growth in this country, the small businesses empowered by the kinds of incentives that are contained in our legislation to create the jobs that are needed in this country. Oppose the stimulus. This is not the way to rebuild the American economy.

Mr. Speaker, it has become abundantly clear that the Internal Revenue Code is no longer working in a fair manner for our Nation's citizens. Many Americans look at the dim state of our economy and the billions of their tax dollars that are being given to private businesses, and they want to know why their Tax Code is so unfair. The Tax Code Americans are forced to comply with discourages savings and investment, and it is impossibly complex. It has become all too clear that the current code is broken beyond repair and cannot be fixed, so we must start over. For this reason, I rise today to reintroduce the Tax Code Termination Act.

This bipartisan legislation, which I have introduced with nearly 70 cosponsors, will accomplish two goals: It will abolish the Internal Revenue Code by December 31, 2012, and call on Congress to approve a new Federal tax system by July of that same year.

At a time when Americans devote a total of 7 billion hours each year to comply with the Tax Code, we need tax simplification. A few years ago, Money Magazine asked 50 professional tax preparers to file a return for a fictional family. No one came up with the same tax total, nor did any of the preparers calculate what Money Magazine thought was the correct Federal income tax. Results varied by thousands of dollars.

The need for tax simplification is further highlighted by the tax problems experienced by some of President Obama's cabinet nominees. These are highly educated individuals, some of whom claim specialized knowledge of the Tax Code, and one of whom will actually be in charge of ensuring compliance with the Tax Code, Treasury Secretary Geithner. And even they cannot correctly file their taxes.

In addition, in today's Politico, there was an article detailing the problems that members of the Senate have in filing and complying with the Tax Code. In fact, the title is, ``For Senators, Tax Questions Are Taxing.''

If it is this hard for government officials, including those who write and enforce the Tax Code, to comply with the code, then imagine what it is like for the average American family to comply with it. All Americans find the Tax Code, well, taxing.

While almost every Member would recognize 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 4 more years, at which time it would expire and be replaced by 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 a widespread consensus that the current system is broken, and keeping it is not in America's best interest. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and end the broken tax system that exists today.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for yielding me this time and for his leadership on this very important issue. And I rise in strong opposition to this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, February 17, 2009, I bet if we took a poll we would find that 90 percent of the American people know the date that's been set for the digital transition. February 17, as has already been noted, the television stations of the country have spent $1 billion in advertising, the government has spent huge sums of money promoting transfer, and 98 or 99 percent--depending on who you talk to--the American people are ready.

If you're connected to a cable system, you're ready. If you're connected to satellite, you're ready. If you have a digital-ready television set, you're ready. Or if you're like a million of the people who listened to this message, went out and got the converter box, you're ready to make the transition now.

There is a much simpler solution to the problem of those who do not have the coupons today. We could fix it today. We could fix it right in this room today by simply saying, ``Go buy the converter box. Save your receipt. When you get the coupon, return it with the receipt and you will get your $40 back.''

There are plenty of ways of solving this problem without a 4-month delay, and look at the consequences of that delay.

First of all, we have television stations today that are having to maintain two systems that are having to pay for the electricity of two systems. It's estimated that the 1,758 U.S. TV stations may face up to $141 million in additional electric bills because of the delay.

Imagine the amount of CO2 gas emissions that are occurring because we're going to extend this for 4 months and require most of those stations to continue to broadcast in both of these services.

Secondly, we have to reeducate the voters. Who knows what date it is in June that this is being extended until? The people don't know the answer to that question. And we shouldn't have to reeducate them and expend any more dollars reminding them that that deadline is coming up.

We have a problem with the fact that billions of dollars have been invested in this country in new equipment to take advantage of this spectrum by emergency responders--police, fire, emergency rescue organizations--all of which will have to delay the use of that equipment by 4 months because they don't have the ability to use this spectrum.

And then we have the companies that have bid billions of dollars to buy other portions of the spectrum to bring generation 3 and generation 4 wireless technology.

We're talking about a stimulus package. We're trying to stimulate the economy and create jobs. This is an anti-stimulus bill that would delay the efficiency and growth in our economy that comes about when you go ahead and stick to the date that this Congress voted for a long time ago.

It is time to move ahead, and I hope that my colleagues will join me in opposing this bad idea.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Speaker, I want to welcome my good friend and neighbor back to the House and offer my condolences as well regarding the passing of his mother, who I never had the opportunity to meet, but who I heard much about from my good friend, who is rightfully proud of her record as an attorney and a public office holder in his hometown of Abingdon, Virginia.

I rise, however, in opposition to the legislation that is offered today. This is of great concern to me and to the television broadcasters and emergency services personnel and others in my district. Since the decision to switch from analog to digital television, there has been a massive public awareness campaign that has been very successful in identifying February 17 as the day of transition.

This legislation, S. 328, will delay the switch, would undermine this transition and require another massive public outreach campaign to make the public aware. The American public has had almost 3 years to prepare for this transition for which entire industries have had to adapt, and the American public is ready. Forcing them to do so for what will essentially prove to be an arbitrary deadline will set a dangerous precedent that could easily lead to more delays and would likely result in an onslaught of lawsuits.

Delaying access to the 700 megahertz spectrum will unfairly prevent those entities that have been awarded access to this bandwidth from having immediate access, again, something that has been planned for several years. This is particularly troubling when considering our first responders, the very individuals that we sought to aid with this initiative in response to the communications blunder that occurred during the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.

Some claim that this delay will not prevent first responders from accessing this bandwidth, but that is simply not true. Television stations will have to stop broadcasting on channels that are sought for communications.

I would simply ask that the remainder of my statement be made a part of the Record and urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation.

Since the decision to switch from analog to digital television, there has been a massive public awareness campaign that has been very successful in identifying February 17 as the day of transition. This legislation, S. 328 will delay the switch, would undermine this recognition and require another massive outreach campaign to make the public aware.

The American public has had almost 3 years to prepare for this transition, for which entire industries have had to adapt. Forcing them to do so for what will essentially prove to be an arbitrary deadline will set a dangerous precedent that could easily lead to more delays, and will likely result in an onslaught of lawsuits.

Delaying access to the 700 MHz spectrum will unfairly prevent those entities that have been awarded access to this bandwidth from having immediate access--again something that has been planned for several years. This is particularly troubling when considering our first responders, the very individuals that we sought to aid with this initiative in response to the communications blunder that occurred during the terrorist attacks of September 11,

2001. Some claim that this delay will not prevent first responders from accessing this bandwidth, but that is simply not true. Television stations will have to stop broadcasting on channels that are sought for communications and neighboring channels will also have to be cleared to avoid interference.

Delaying the transition will also hinder the deployment of broadband, something that has also been planned for years, and will unfairly limit the companies and consumers that plan on utilizing this type of broadband access.

Furthermore, this proposed delay is being used to justify $650 million in new spending in the proposed new economic stimulus bill. In a time of economic distress and budgetary disarray, increasing the debt to American taxpayers by hundreds of millions of dollars hardly seems prudent. In fact, this legislation will work against any effort to stimulate the economy because the economic activity and growth that comes with deploying new broadband technology and new emergency communication will be delayed.

There are some reports that nearly 93 percent of households affected by this switch are already prepared, deeming this legislation excessive and overly burdensome.

I urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation.

Madam 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.

It is common sense to American families that they cannot spend more than they have--yet far too frequently, this fundamental principle has been lost on a Congress that is too busy spending to pay attention to the bottom line.

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.

Congress took a dramatic step forward during the 109th Congress when it passed the Deficit Reduction Act. This law found savings of approximately $40 billion over five years by eliminating wasteful spending and programs. This legislation was an important first step, but it was just that--a first step. Furthermore, the legislation was passed by the Senate by a margin of just one vote and was passed by the House by a margin of two votes, which shows exactly how difficult the task of balancing the budget is--and how important it is to force Congress to do so. This is exactly why I am re-introducing this legislation today.

My legislation, which garnered 163 bipartisan cosponsors in the 110th Congress, 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.

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

It has become clear that it is extremely difficult for Congress to agree on a budget that is fiscally responsible. By amending the Constitution to require a balanced budget, we can force 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.

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 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 America's families face each day.

I urge support of this important legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I was here in 1994 when the Republicans gained the majority in the Congress for the first time in 40 years, and remember the reforms that we put into place, term limits on committee chairmen where before chairmen who could barely walk into this Chamber were serving as Chairs of committees simply because of seniority. Well, we've thrown that out today. I guess that's change, but it's really change back.

I was here in 1994, January of 1995, when we changed the rules on motions to recommit to make it easier for the minority to offer motions to recommit. Well, I guess we've changed that because now you've made it more difficult to offer real improvements to legislation by rolling back the motion to recommit.

Yes, we have change in the air, but that change is simply going back. This is not progress for this Congress, and I very much regret that the Democratic leadership has chosen to curtail the rights of the minority and to not bring forward the kind of progress that comes from having term limits on committee chairmen.

The new criteria for determining emergency situations that allow them to waive their own PAYGO rules are laughable. The rule appears to be that spending can be designated as emergency spending if it is necessary, unforeseen, or temporary in nature. I would suspect that the majority believes that all of their spending priorities are necessary.

These rule changes are an abomination, and every taxpayer should be up in arms over these changes and the attitudes they represent. It is common sense to American families that they cannot spend more than they have, and it is unfortunate that common sense seems to elude Congress.

It is clear that Congress must be forced to address its spending addiction. The way to accomplish this is through an amendment to the Constitution to require a balanced budget, which I just introduced a few minutes ago here today, with more than 115 bipartisan cosponsors.

These rules are not reforms.

Madam Speaker, it was 100 years ago in 1908 that Joseph Nielsen and his successors began their work complimenting Virginia's majestic landscape with quality buildings in which to worship, learn, complete commerce and live.

The history of Nielsen Construction represents the very fabric of America. Mr. Joseph Nielsen immigrated to the United States at the beginning of the twentieth century; a time of tremendous growth and innovation. That young immigrant dedicated himself to hard work and perseverance. The qualities identified as uniquely American in the golden age of industry and expansion and his vision brought him to the growing, but still largely rural, western part of Virginia.

The next phase of Nielsen's success came through the acquisition of the existing W.M. Bucher & Son, a prominent builder in the Shenandoah Valley. This intertwined the futures of a young immigrant and his dream and the growth and development of the Shenandoah Valley.

Today, Nielsen Builders represents the best of American industry. It represents the highest quality in design and build construction. It provides the structure and security to thousands of church goers, students, businesses and families through its homes, churches, schools and businesses.

I wish Nielsen Builders success as it embarks on opening its second century of business and continuing the legacy of commitment, excellence and tradition.

I extend a hearty congratulations to the management and employees of Nielsen Builders of Harrisonburg, Virginia as they celebrate this tremendous milestone.