Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3803 would prevent abortions of unborn children who are more than 20 weeks after fertilization--the age at which scientific evidence shows that they can feel great pain.

This bill will prevent brutal, late term abortion procedures, including one in which unborn children are mutilated and dismembered while they are still alive. Only the most calloused among us can hear the description of these types of procedures and not react with disgust.

I strongly believe that life begins at conception, and that we should protect the lives of innocent unborn children. I wish this bill went even further, but the absolute least we can do is ban abortion when we know the unborn children experience great pain. I urge support of this important legislation.

I would like to thank Chairman Walden for his great work in this area and for his leadership on this issue.

I rise to strongly support House Concurrent Resolution 127.

Mr. Speaker, several hostile countries continue to pursue a U.N. takeover of the Internet through an organization known as the International Telecommunication Union, or ITU, which is an agency within the United Nations. In fact, a push is being made to negotiate international control of the Internet in Dubai this December. The U.N. is the absolute last entity that should have anything to do with managing the functioning of the Internet.

Currently, the private, nonprofit ICANN, which is the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, performs this function. While ICANN is far from perfect, having this responsibility rest with a private entity helps foster market principles and is the most efficient way to administer the Internet's domain name system and root servers.

We must remain vigilant against efforts by foreign governments to consolidate the control of the Internet into a U.N.-centered body, which would lead to free speech and access restrictions and abuses. House Concurrent Resolution 127 will show Congress' unity behind this concept, and I strongly urge my colleagues to support this important resolution.

I thank the gentleman from Minnesota, the chairman of the Education and Workforce Committee, for yielding me this time and for his leadership in combatting this terrible bill in the aftermath of a very disappointing Supreme Court decision, ruling that sometimes what we all thought and were told was a penalty is now a tax, but sometimes it's not a tax, it's a penalty. First time in the history of the United States Supreme Court, in over 200 years of decisions, that a device has been called both a penalty and a tax at the same time. Very disappointing, and here's what it leaves American citizens with. This is your new health care system: more than 150 new government agencies and programs.

I was called by PolitiFact a couple of months ago, and they said, Where do you get that 150 new government agencies and programs? We sent them a list of 158 new government agencies and programs with the page number of the bill and the section number of the statute, and we've never heard back from PolitiFact. I'm disappointed. I thought we were going to see one of those arrows pointing all the way over to the far right saying, ``True.''

And it is true. Not only do we get 150 new agencies and programs, we get 400 new authorities for the Secretary of Health and Human Services and other bureaucrats here in Washington to dictate to families and businesses, large and small, to local governments and State governments, to insurance companies, to health care providers what your insurance policy is going to look like, which means you won't be able to keep the insurance that you like now and that you were promised you could keep by the President once upon a time. No, no, siree.

We already have 12,000 pages of new regulations that have been written, and they haven't even covered about half of those 400 new mandates, new regulatory authorities that they can write regulations on.

It's going to cost $2 trillion over 10 years, a half a trillion dollars in cuts to Medicare, over $800 billion in new taxes, including a quarter of a trillion dollars in taxes on middle-income Americans.

The fact of the matter is this monstrosity needs to be repealed. Vote for this legislation and repeal it today.

Mr. Speaker, When Juliette ``Daisy'' Gordon Low gathered 18 girls together in Savannah, GA, on March 12, 1912, she aimed to offer a hand to the youngsters by helping them to develop physically, mentally, and spiritually. Since that first meeting of what would become known as the Girl Scouts, millions of girls and young women have grown in courage, confidence, and character and made countless contributions to the world.

The Girl Scout leadership program exists to help girls learn more about themselves, their values, and people. Those who have made extraordinary contributions as Girl Scouts receive the Gold Award for making a difference in their communities.

Through leadership in the scouting tradition, Girls Scouts are changing our country and the world. The organization continues to operate on a strong foundation of volunteers who dedicate themselves to offering their time and talents in the interest of guiding tomorrow's leaders. Thanks to them, over 10,000 girls from kindergarten through grade 12 across 36 counties in western Virginia are enjoying the Girl Scouts program. They are among over 3 million girls and volunteers who are active members along with 50 million women in the United States who are Girl Scouts alumnae.

As the Girl Scouts celebrate their centennial with a special event in Roanoke, VA, on June 30, I applaud the organization for its long history of leadership as the voice for its many devoted members, past and present. Let us all commend the special women whose experience in Girl Scouts is influencing our communities. We look forward to today's Girl Scouts becoming our next generation of leaders.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today, along with Representatives Morgan Griffith and Robert Hurt, to honor the memory of a constituent, a World War II veteran, a community

leader, and a friend, John Robert ``Bob'' Slaughter.

On May 29, 2012, southwest Virginia lost one of its great American heroes. A passionate advocate for veterans and a driving force behind the National D-day Memorial in Bedford, it is only fitting that we honor Bob's memory as we mark the 68th anniversary of D-day this week.

Born on February 3, 1925 in Bristol, Tennessee, Bob's family later moved to Roanoke, Virginia. In 1941, at the age of 15, he joined the Virginia Army National Guard, Company D, 116th Infantry, 29th Division. A short time later, the United States was attacked at Pearl Harbor and entered the war. On September 27, 1942, the 29th Division set sail for England.

On D-day, June 6, 1944, Bob waded ashore to battle the foes of democracy at Omaha Beach. He was just 19 years old. His life was forever impacted by the memories of that day.

Mr. Speaker, I have stood on Omaha Beach in Normandy at low tide, which was the circumstances when these brave men landed there on June 6, 1944. The width of that beach, the distance that they had to come out of those landing boats through withering machine gun fire, bombs, and mines, is absolutely a remarkable demonstration of the courage of those men to liberate Europe.

Despite being wounded twice in combat following D-day, Bob remained in the field until the end of the war in 1945. After the war, Bob returned to Roanoke, where he had a long career with the Roanoke Times & World-News. He was dedicated to his family and was also active in the community, coaching a basketball team for local youth.

Bob showed great determination by working to ensure that there was a proper memorial to the countless men who took part in the D-day invasion. On June 6, 1994, the 50th anniversary of D-day, Bob walked Omaha Beach with President Bill Clinton. On June 6, 2001, Bob's dream became a reality when the National D-day Memorial in Bedford was dedicated by President George W. Bush.

Thanks in large part to his efforts, the National D-day Memorial now stands in Bedford, where it serves as a constant reminder of those who paid the ultimate price to protect the freedoms that we hold so dear.

The life of Bob Slaughter is a true testament to the ``Greatest Generation.'' We are honored to have known Bob and pay tribute to this great man's many contributions. We pray for his family--his wife of 65 years, Margaret Leftwich Slaughter; his two sons; two grandchildren; and two great-grandchildren--during this difficult time. We join the entire community in mourning the loss of this American hero.

Madam Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chair, I rise to offer an amendment to H.R. 3523. This amendment is the result of a series of long discussions between Members of the bipartisan coalition supporting this bill and various privacy and civil liberties groups.

As many know, I have long worked with these outside groups and with industry to make sure that where Congress acts with respect to technology, it does so in a way that is thoughtful, intelligent, and shows a strong respect for privacy and civil liberties.

I am a firm believer that Congress can craft legislation that addresses technology issues and allows the private sector to flourish while also protecting the rights of Americans. This amendment seeks to move the legislation further down that path.

To do so, this amendment carefully narrows the definitions of the key terms in the bill--``cyberthreat information,'' ``cyberthreat intelligence,'' ``cybersecurity purposes,'' and ``cybersecurity systems''--and adds in three new definitions from the existing law. Together, these new definitions ensure that companies in the private sector can protect themselves against very real cyberthreats. At the same time, they limit what information the private sector can identify, obtain, and share with others, and they do so in a way that is technology neutral so that the definitions we write into law today do not become obsolete before the ink is dry.

Specifically, these new definitions remove language from prior versions of the bill that could have been interpreted in broad ways. They remove or modify definitions that could have

been thought to cover things that the bill did not intend to cover, like unauthorized access to a system or network that purely involves violations of a terms of service. These revised definitions also rely in part on existing law to cover the appropriate set of threats to networks and systems without being overly broad.

I would note that these definitional changes are important on their own for the narrowing function they serve. In the view of groups like the Center for Democracy and Technology and the Constitution Project, this amendment represents ``important privacy improvement.'' Specifically, the change to the definitions addresses a number of key issues raised by a variety of groups, and many in the Internet user community. As such, these amendments move an already important bill in an even better direction.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, at this time, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the chairman of the Intelligence Committee, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Rogers).

Madam Chairman, I am not aware of any other speakers on this amendment, so I would urge my colleagues to support the amendment. It is, as the chairman indicated and the ranking member indicated, bipartisan legislation that will improve the underlying bill in significant ways and protect the civil liberties of American citizens in a more clear fashion.

I thank all of those in the Chamber and outside who contributed ideas to help us craft this amendment and urge all of my colleagues to support it.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 139, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

I thank the chairman for yielding and for his good work on this budget.

Thomas Jefferson once 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.

In this choice of two futures, unfortunately, Congress has all too often chosen the latter path of out-of-control spending and expansion of government power. There is a spending addiction in Washington, D.C., and it has proven to be an addiction that Congress has not controlled on its own.

The Nation has gone, in a few short years, from a Federal deficit of billions of dollars to a deficit of trillions of dollars. The government is printing money at an unprecedented pace, which presents significant risks of inflation. Our debt is currently an unfathomable $15.5 trillion and mounting rapidly, as is the waste associated with paying the interest on that debt. Yet Congress has done little to address this crisis.

Families all across our Nation understand what it means to make tough decisions each day about what they can and cannot afford. Yet far too often, this fundamental principle has been lost on a Congress that is too busy spending to pay attention to the bottom line. Americans must exercise restraint with their own funds, then government officials must be required to exercise an even higher standard when spending other people's hard-earned money.

While I believe that the House budget we are considering today is a good budget and I support it, it is dependent on fiscally minded Congresses being elected for the next 28 years who will be committed to upholding this budget, as well as a President who will sign fiscally responsible appropriations measures into law. That is why I am also a supporter of the Republican Study Committee budget. While this RSC budget is bold and some say drastic, these measures are needed to solve our Nation's fiscal crisis.

Mr. Chairman, unless each Congress--regardless of party affiliation-- is forced to make the decisions necessary to actually set a budget-- unlike the U.S. Senate--and create a balanced budget, the temptation will always be there for Congress to spend more than it receives in revenues. And that is the advantage of a constitutional balanced budget amendment which would ensure that the principle of fiscal responsibility is forced upon all future Congresses.

The balanced budget amendment is a commonsense approach to ensure that Congress is bound by the same fiscal principles that America's families face each day. I am pleased that the Republican Study Committee proposal seeks to balance the budget in 5 years and puts us on a path to save Medicare.

Finally, I urge this Congress to demonstrate leadership and make the tough but bold decision to stop the government spending spree. We cannot continue to saddle our children and grandchildren with debt that is not their own.

I support the Republican Study Committee budget. I support fiscal responsibility.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Chesapeake Bay Program Reauthorization and Improvement Act with my colleague Tim Holden from Pennsylvania.

The Chesapeake Bay, the largest estuary in the U.S., is an incredibly complex ecosystem that includes important habitats and is a cherished part of our American heritage. The Bay Watershed includes all types of land uses, from intensely urban areas, spread out suburban development and diverse agricultural practices.

I have worked hard during past negotiations on the Farm Bill to ensure that critical resources are in place to help restore the Bay. While the goal from all involved is the same, restoring the health and vitality of the Bay, the path to that health and vitality is being strongly debated. It is a clear choice, overregulation and intrusion into the lives and livelihoods of those who choose to make the Bay watershed their home, or commonsense incentive-based efforts that help restore and protect our natural resources.

Unfortunately, proposals like the Presidential Executive Order and the Environmental Protection Agency's Total Maximum Daily Load, TMDL, forces more mandates and overzealous regulations on all of those who live, work, and farm in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed. The EPA's TMDL is a power grab that sets strict limits on the amount of nutrients discharged into the Chesapeake Bay and each of its tributaries by different types of sources. These limits will dramatically restrict land usages for everyone who lives and works in the Watershed. Although the Clean Water Act requires the EPA to establish a TMDL, the power is currently reserved to the states to determine how to improve water quality, including determining nutrient reduction allocations among different types of point and non-point sources. In the proposed TMDL, the EPA has exceeded its authority in the Clean Water Act by setting specific nutrient reduction allocations by sector, a power currently reserved to the states.

Beyond the fact that the EPA lacks the authority in the Clean Water Act to take the majority of the actions that it is taking, I have serious concerns about this approach to Bay restoration. EPA has increased its federal actions in the Watershed while relying on modeling data that does not adequately include nutrient reductions that have been made in the Watershed to guide its decisions. This raises serious concerns about the ability of the agency to measure and assess restoration efforts. Further, it is clear by reports of the communities and industries affected, that these new regulations will be devastating during our current economic downturn. This will result in many billions of dollars in economic losses to states, cities and towns, farms and other businesses large and small.

This strategy limits economic growth and unfairly over regulates our local economies. Mr. Holden and I recognized that we must form a proposal that does not pit the health of the bay against the strength and vitality of our local communities and that is why we rise today to introduce the Chesapeake Bay Program Reauthorization and Improvement Act

Instead of overregulation and intrusion into the lives and livelihoods of those who choose to make the Bay Watershed their home, our legislation allows states and communities more flexibility in meeting water quality goals so that we can help restore and protect our natural resources. Our bill sets up new programs to give farmers, homebuilders, and localities new ways to meet their water quality goals. This includes preserving current intrastate nutrient trading programs that many Bay states already have in place, while also creating a voluntary interstate nutrient trading program. Additionally, this bill creates a voluntary assurance framework for farmers. The program will deem farmers to be fully in compliance with their water quality requirements as long as they have undertaken appropriate conservation activities to comply with state and federal water quality standards.

Our bill makes sure that the agencies are using common sense when regulating water quality goals for localities. Our legislation requires the regulators to take into account the availability, cost, effectiveness, and appropriateness of practices, techniques, or methods in meeting water quality goals. This will ensure that localities are not being mandated to achieve a reduction in nutrient levels by a prescribed date, when no technology exists to achieve that reduction within that timeline.

Additionally, the bill contains language that reaffirms and preserves the rights of the states to write their own water quality plans. This role has been traditionally reserved to the states but that is being threatened by the Obama Administration's policies. The Obama Administration is seeking to expand their regulatory authority by seizing authority granted to the states and converting the Bay Cleanup efforts to a process that is a top down approach with mandatory regulations. I believe that each state knows best how to manage their water quality goals; not the bureaucrats at the EPA. This legislation would restore the original intent of the Clean Water Act and reaffirm the role of the States to write their own water quality plans.

While our bill does a lot to improve water quality, we also call for more oversight over the Chesapeake Bay Program. For over 3 decades Congress has been working to preserve and protect the Chesapeake Bay. Despite the efforts of the federal, state, and local governments the health of the bay is still in peril. The participants in restoring the Bay include 10 federal agencies, six states and the District of Columbia, over one thousand localities and multiple nongovernmental organizations. This legislation would fully implement two cutting-edge management techniques, crosscut budgeting and adaptive management, to enhance coordination, flexibility and efficiency of restoration efforts. Neither technique is currently required or fully utilized in the Bay restoration efforts, where results have lagged far behind the billions of dollars spent. Further, this bill calls for a review of the EPA's Bay model. We often hear complaints from those who make good faith efforts to restore the Bay that their efforts are not being recognized by EPA's Bay model. EPA's model does not account for any voluntary measures being undertaken on farms to control nitrogen and phosphorous nor does it even account for some of the nitrogen and phosphorous reductions that are being achieved through government programs like USDA's Environmental Quality Incentives Program. Effectively, EPA is ignoring nutrient reductions that have already been achieved. Our legislation requires that an independent evaluator assess and make recommendations to alter EPA's Bay model, so that we can develop a model that will capture all of the nutrient reductions that are happening in the Bay.

Mr. Speaker, the people who call the Bay Watershed home are the ones who are the most concerned about protecting and restoring the Chesapeake Bay. Unfortunately, too often these hardworking individuals are cast as villains and placed in a position where restoring the Bay is pitted against the economic livelihoods of their communities. We can restore the Bay while also maintaining the economic livelihood of these communities. The Chesapeake Bay Program Reauthorization and Improvement Act is the way we can do both. I look forward to working with my colleagues in the Congress, so that we can pass this important legislation and work to restore the Chesapeake Bay.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall Nos. 92, 93, 94, I was unavoidably detained.

Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall Nos. 81 and 80, due to being unavoidably detained, had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

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

Mr. Speaker, private ownership of property is vital to our freedom and our prosperity, and it is one of the most fundamental principles embedded in our Constitution. The Founders realized the importance of property rights when they codified the takings clause of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution, which requires that private property shall not be taken ``for public use without just compensation.''

This clause created two conditions to the government taking private property: that the subsequent use of the property is for the public, and that the government give the property owners just compensation.

However, the Supreme Court's 5 4 decision in Kelo v. City of New London was a step in the opposite direction. This controversial ruling expanded the ability of State and local governments to exercise eminent domain powers to seize property under the guise of ``economic development'' when the public use is as incidental as generating tax revenues or creating jobs, even in situations where the government takes property from one private individual and gives it to another private entity.

By defining ``public use'' so expansively, the court essentially erased any protection for private property as understood by the Founders of our Nation. In the wake of this decision, State and local governments can use eminent domain powers to take the property of any individual for nearly any reason. Cities may now bulldoze private citizens' homes, farms, and small businesses to make way for shopping malls or other developments.

For these reasons, I joined with Chairman Sensenbrenner to introduce H.R. 1433, the Private Property Rights Protection Act.

I am pleased that H.R. 1433 incorporates many provisions from legislation I coauthored in the 109th Congress, the STOPP Act. Specifically H.R. 1433 would prohibit all Federal economic development funds for a period of 2 years for any State or local government that uses economic development as a justification for taking property from one person and giving it to another private entity.

In addition, this legislation would allow State and local governments to cure violations by giving the property back to the original owner. Furthermore, this bill specifically grants adversely affected landowners the right to use appropriate legal remedies to enforce the provisions of the bill.

H.R. 1433 also includes a carefully crafted definition of economic development that protects traditional uses of eminent domain, such as taking land for public uses like roads, while prohibiting abuses of eminent domain powers. No one should have to live in fear of the government snatching up their home, farm or business, and the Private Property Rights Protection Act will help create the incentives to ensure that these abuses do not occur in the future.

I urge my colleagues to support this important piece of legislation.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to say that I urge my colleagues to adopt this bipartisan legislation to restore meaning to the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. As Justice Sandra Day O'Connor noted in her dissent in that opinion, the Kelo decision effectively renders meaningless the protections under this law because, as the interpretation exists, as the Court ruling exists, State and local governments can seize property for almost any reason under the context of calling it for purposes of economic development, and we need to change that.

We need to make sure that private property is what people think it is, and that is something that they have the right to own and not be interfered with by the government except for real purposes of eminent domain, taking land for pure public uses like roads and utilities and schools and other clearly public uses.

I urge my colleagues to support the legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, today I rise in strong support of the Fiscal Responsibility and Retirement Security Act. This important legislation repeals the failed government-run long-term care insurance program, known as the CLASS Act, which was included in the President's Health Care Law, PPACA.

Nearly two years ago, with total disregard for the will of the American people, Congress passed and President Obama signed the health care reform overhaul into law. This law, which I voted against, is defined by federal regulations, mandates, a myriad of new big government programs, and a significant increase in federal spending and debt at a cost to our country too high to bear.

The CLASS program is a prime example of the inherent problems with this new law. In fact, the Obama Administration announced in October that they would halt implementation of the CLASS program, recognizing that the program was unsustainable despite claims that it would save as much as $80 billion over 10 years.

Today the House has an opportunity to pass the Fiscal Responsibility and Retirement Security Act, which is an important piece to dismantling the President's Health Care Law and allows Congress to consider new long-term care reform proposals that work for the American people without busting the federal budget.

Madam Chair, I intend to continue working to repeal and defund 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. While we can all agree that our current health care system needs to be reformed, the new health care law was not the right way to do it. Instead we must focus on a positive, patient-centered strategy that puts patients, families and doctors, not Washington bureaucrats, in control of personal health care decisions.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today along with Representatives Wolf and Ruppersberger to honor the memory of a constituent, an educator, a community leader and most importantly a friend, the late Doctor John Boyd Noftsinger, Jr.

On November 10, 2011, James Madison University (JMU) lost one of their most innovative leaders and passionate advocates with the passing of John Noftsinger. John was the face of JMU on Capitol Hill and dedicated his career to public service through education.

Dr. Noftsinger was born in Roanoke, Virginia. After graduating from William Fleming High School in 1981, he officially started his career at James Madison University when he arrived on campus as a freshman that fall. We're sure when he stepped onto campus for the first time he never could have imagined the profound effect he would have on the University over the course of his life.

John went on to graduate cum laude with a double major in political science and public administration and a minor in business administration. Upon graduation, he entered the Ohio State University where he would later earn his master of arts degree in higher education administration.

In 1989, John once again found himself on the campus of JMU. He would begin a long and distinguished professional career where he would most recently serve as vice provost for research and public service. Additionally, he would serve as executive Director of the Institute for Infrastructure and Information Assurance, professor of integrated science and technology and strategic leadership, and as the president and chair of James Madison Innovations.

In a profile of Dr. Noftsinger on the JMU website he is quoted as saying ``my connections with the community were forged early in my career here and are now embedded in my philosophy of education and my work.'' These words exemplify John Noftsinger.

Dr. Noftsinger's dedication and hard work was not limited to the university he so loved. He was truly committed to his community as a whole and the city of Harrisonburg is better because of his hard work.

Dr. Noftsinger was a founder and served as the first president of the Shenandoah Valley Technology Council. He served as a board member for the Shenandoah Valley Partnership and Shenandoah National Park Trust. He was the past vice president and board member of the Harrisonburg- Rockingham Chamber of Commerce and the former chairman of the board of directors of the Blue Ridge area food bank. He also served as a former board member and president of Big Brothers/Big Sisters of Harrisonburg/ Rockingham County.

Dr. Noftsinger's legacy is one that will not be soon forgotten. We will greatly miss our friend. We pray for his family--his wife Lucinda Bosley Shaheen and his three sons, Joshua, Zachary and Jacob. We join the entire JMU community in mourning this great leader.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2471) to amend section 2710 of title 18, United States Code, to clarify that a videotape service provider may obtain a consumer's informed, written consent on an ongoing basis and that consent may be obtained through the Internet, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on H.R. 2471, as amended.

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

Today I am pleased that we are considering a bipartisan bill to update the Video Privacy Protection Act of 1988. This bill will ensure that a law related to the handling of videotape rental information is updated to reflect the realities of the 21st century.

The VPPA was passed by Congress in the wake of Judge Robert Bork's 1987 Supreme Court nomination battle, during which a local Washington, D.C., newspaper obtained a list of videotapes the Bork family rented from its neighborhood videotape rental store. This disclosure caused bipartisan outrage, which resulted in the enactment of the VPPA.

The commercial video distribution landscape has changed dramatically since 1988. Back then, the primary consumer consumption of commercial video content occurred through the sale or rental of prerecorded videocassette tapes. This required users to travel to their local video rental store to pick a movie. Afterward, consumers had to travel back to the store to return the rented movie. Movies that consumers rented and enjoyed were recommended to friends primarily through face-to-face conversations. With today's technology, consumers can quickly and efficiently access video programming through a variety of platforms, including through Internet protocol-based video services, all without leaving their homes.

This bill updates the VPPA to allow videotape service providers to facilitate the sharing on social media networks of the movies watched or recommended by users. Specifically, it is narrowly crafted to preserve the VPPA's protections for consumers' privacy while modernizing the law to empower consumers to do more with their video consumption preferences, including sharing names of new or favorite TV shows or movies on social media in a simple way. However, it protects the consumer's control over the information by requiring consumer consent before any of this occurs, and it makes clear that a consumer can opt-in to the ongoing sharing of his or her favorite movies or TV shows without having to provide consent each and every time a movie is rented.

It also makes clear that written, affirmative consent can be provided

through the Internet and can be withdrawn at any time.

Finally, thanks to an amendment from the gentleman from New York, the ranking member of the Constitution Subcommittee, Mr. Nadler, the amended bill we are considering today requires that the consent be distinct and separate from any other form setting forth other legal and financial obligations.

This bill is truly pro-consumer and places the decision of whether or not to share video rentals with one's friends squarely in the hands of the consumer. In fact, the cochairs of the Future of Privacy Forum correctly pointed out, in an opinion piece in Roll Call on November 29, that ``the antiquated law on the books is a hindrance to consumers.''

This legislation does not change the scope of who is covered by the VPPA or the definition of ``personally identifiable information.'' In addition, it preserves the requirement that the user provide affirmative, written consent.

It is time that Congress updates the VPPA to keep up with today's technology and the consumer marketplace. This bill does just that. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this important piece of bipartisan legislation.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Michigan, the distinguished ranking member of the committee, for his support for the legislation.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to respond to my good friend from North Carolina. He and I have attempted to work together to resolve his differences. In fact, I believe that the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) does resolve some of the concerns the gentleman had. But obviously, as he has just expressed, not all of them. So I would like to respond to what he has indicated.

Content providers, the Internet community, and consumer advocacy groups

support the bipartisan effort to enact a commonsense modernization of the Video Privacy Protection Act. Hulu, Google, Facebook, IAC, Apple, the Center for Democracy and Technology, and the Future of Privacy Forum are among those who see H.R. 2471 for the simple modernizing amendment that it is.

The VPPA contains a strict standard of privacy: Opt-in consent. The proposed amendment to the VPPA, H.R. 2471, keeps the opt-in standard fully intact. H.R. 2471 enhances the protection provided by the VPPA by ensuring that the opt-in consent required must be separate and distinct from any other end-user agreement. This measure further empowers consumers to make decisions about their information in a manner that is fully informed.

None of the examples provided by Mr. Watt illustrated disagreement between the commenters he highlighted with the consumer empowerment measures that H.R. 2471 provides. H.R. 2471 simply gives consumers the freedom to share what they've watched with their friends if they would like to. It grants consumers the same right to share movies and television shows that they've enjoyed, as is already possible for music, news, and books. He correctly notes that someone can right now go on Facebook or some other social media and say, I watched this movie or that television show, and I like it or don't like it. The difference, however, is that consumers do not understand why they can have an arrangement for the music they listen to to immediately go up online so that their friends can listen to the same music simultaneously, but with regard to movies they have to take additional steps that can, under circumstances, be inconvenient to them. That's why they like this convenience, and that's why consumers should have it. And that's why this bill empowers consumers in ways that they are not empowered today, and why it is a real consumer bill.

H.R. 2471 ensures that the VPPA's high standard of privacy protection remains untouched. Consumers must affirmatively opt in to share with friends the movies and television shows they've watched. A consumer can withdraw his or her consent at any time. And H.R. 2471 is narrowly tailored to update the VPPA, a 1980s law, to make it compatible with consumers' desires, with consumers' communication, with consumers' socializing on the Internet in the 21st century.

The committee has indicated in its report language that there is no intention for this clarification to negate in any way existing laws, regulations, and practices designed to protect and provide the privacy of children on the Internet. As always, however, the first line of defense to protecting a child's privacy while online is the parents.

Social networking Web sites allow users to share personal information about themselves with their friends; but used inappropriately, personal information can be shared beyond a user's friends. Just as parents are responsible for teaching their children not to talk to strangers, the committee expects parents to play an active role in ensuring their children's proper use of social networking or any other Web sites on the Internet.

This legislation in no way changes the privacy protection for children on the Internet. And that law, as the VPPA itself, with regard to its privacy protections and its opt-in requirements, is not changed. This is simply a modern way for people to be able to communicate with their friends in ways that are convenient to them and that they already use and do not understand why, if they can use it with music, with news, with books, with other forms of communication and speech, that they can't do it with regard to their movie and television shows.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

In no way does this legislation in any way undercut the principal purpose of the Video Privacy Protection Act because the power rests with the consumer.

Basically, what this legislation does is it empowers consumers to do things in the 21st century with regard to their movie and television viewing, communications with their friends that they already have with music, they already have with news, they already have with books or magazine articles that they read; and we should have that kind of consistency in the law.

The Video Protection Privacy Act remains strong, and its principal purposes remain there intact; and it has an opt-in requirement, an opt- in requirement that anyone who wants to avail themselves of this convenience has to give informed concept to do so.

I urge my colleagues to support this very bipartisan legislation. It has strong support on both sides of the aisle.

I have no further requests for time, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume just to say to the gentleman from Georgia that I have good news for him. There is absolutely no way that anyone can, under this legislation, find out any of his video-viewing habits unless he consents, with informed consent, with a separate consent to allowing that information to be made known to anybody.

Again, this legislation makes good sense. It's what consumers want in the 21st century. It's how they share their information online. And those who don't want to share their information this way do not have to give this consent. Therefore, this legislation, I think, strikes the right balance.

I urge my colleagues to support the legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.