Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, this incredibly expensive $1 trillion health care bill will hurt many individuals that currently have insurance. The bill will hurt veterans because it does not accept TRICARE as a qualified medical plan. It will hurt seniors by cutting Medicare advantage to fund these new government programs. Mr. Stupak, no lawyer, will argue that an Executive order is law. So the Senate bill starts us on a path of government-sanctioned abortion-on-demand paid for by taxpayers. The U.S. has a $1.5 trillion deficit, and now we are adding $1.2 trillion over 10 years.

The President pledged no family making under $250,000 would face tax increases, yet there are 12 new tax increases violating that pledge, and 46 percent of families making less than $66,000 will be forced to pay the individual mandate.

The bill will expand the IRS by 17,000 auditors to enforce these new taxes. It will hurt businesses, create health care rationing, and move the United States of America to further fiscal instability.

I thank the distinguished chairman. The bottom line-- this is the bottom line--the Senate language in the health care bill does not protect VA and Department of Defense health care systems from interference by other Federal agencies, such as Health and Human Services. We need to have the Buyer-McKeon bill part of this package, or you're going to leave out a whole segment of veterans who are under TRICARE, not to mention survivors and dependents who are covered under the CHAMPVA.

This is extremely important to American veterans, so I urge you, Democrats who are in the majority, to reconsider Mr. Buyer's simple request to make part of your bill today, immediately, as much as possible, to amend it so that we include the Buyer language which is H.R. 4894. It's not a major thing to do here. We can do that.

Mr. Skelton here earlier said that he's against the health care bill. He emphatically said he's going to vote ``no.'' I understand that. He feels that the Democrat health care bill is not something he can support. He's chairman of the Armed Services Committee. He understands that passage of this rule that we're going to talk about later will deem passage of the entire health care bill in America. But then here we are, trying in desperation because this is a farce, this health care bill, because it strips TRICARE from the military veterans. It hurts survivors and dependents.

Now in a charade here of a farce, they're trying to amend a bill that has never passed. Think of that. This bill that we're going to vote on, the Skelton bill, is amending a bill that has not even passed. So I even question the constitutionality and the procedures here. The health care bill is not going to protect Department of Defense military people under TRICARE and veterans.

Now why is this occurring? I think we realize it is because the Democrats moved too quickly, and they're penalizing our veterans. So the chairman of the Armed Services Committee is against it. More importantly, he's here with this bill, and I think all of us should understand that without passage of the Buyer-McKeon bill, which is H.R. 4894--the bill has been dropped--to amend the patient protection and affordable care to ensure appropriate treatment of Department of Veterans Affairs and Department of Defense health programs--this is a simple statement, but it has huge implications.

So Mr. Levin, I urge you to reconsider and to make sure that part of this McKeon bill has the language of the Buyer-McKeon. Again, I will just close by saying that the reason why we're here today is because the bill was put together improperly, and it's just an affront to our veterans, to our military retirees that they are going to be affected by this health care bill.

Announcement by the Speaker pro tempore

Mr. Speaker, there is something else that is going on here, too. Okay, so the Skelton bill passes without the Buyer-McKeon. Okay, then the health care bill comes tomorrow. We vote on it tomorrow night, and it

passes. But still, the veterans will still be without care because this bill that is passing here has to go to the Senate. The Senate could make some changes and then it comes back to the House. So you will have a health care bill out there standing by itself that has passed, gone to the President, signed into law that does not protect veterans on TRICARE. You should be very concerned about that, and I think the American people should be concerned that our veterans, who are in two wars today, are not going to be protected because you are delaying the enforcement of the rigorous understanding of what this bill is about.

So just simply passing this today under suspension will not mean that the veterans are protected. It still has to go to the Senate and comes back to the House before it is signed by the President.

I thank the distinguished ranking member, and I have to say I like his term ``hully gully.'' That is probably a good description of what has happened here. I am sure a lot of Members don't even know about this extension. So I think it is a credit to the majority that they brought this up, because I think all of us want to see this important medical correction for doctors.

Under the current SGR formula, doctors face a 21 percent cut in their Medicare reimbursement. This fix would delay those cuts until April 30. Because the majority has not properly addressed real Medicare reform, we continue in the House to apply these short-term patches rather than provide doctors with a permanent solution to the reimbursement formula. We have known about this for a long time. There is no reason we have to bring this up, as the ranking member says, hully gully.

Although this correction, fix, extension is important, also important in this bill is the Satellite Home Viewers Act, which is extended through April 30. I am glad that this extension is included, but I am hoping we can move the 5-year extension that passed this body overwhelmingly, bipartisan support, by a large margin, but now my colleagues have bogged down in the United States Senate. This temporary extension that we are voting on today includes the section 119 licenses which actually govern the transmission of distant and local television signals by cable and satellite television operators as well as provisions of the Communications Act of 1934 concerning the retransmission of broadcast station signals. As you can see, this is very important to get this full 5-year extension.

My colleagues, in December 2009 the House passed the Satellite Home Viewer Reauthorization Act by 394-11. And yet here we are, we can't seem to shake the bill loose in the Senate, although the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation and the Senate Judiciary Committees have all reported this measure out of their committees.

I am glad we are extending this important law temporarily, but I am hopeful it will move forward on a permanent basis, a 5-year extension. And obviously, I am very glad the current SGR formula is being fixed, corrected today, and at least we have a 30- day hiatus.

Madam Speaker, to protect Members from voting on the Senate health care bill, Democrats are using a self-enacting rule to deem that bill passed by the House.

As Speaker Pelosi said, ``It's more insider and process-oriented than most people want to know. But I like it because people don't have to vote on the Senate bill.''

Huh?

This is the same Speaker who stated, ``We have to pass the bill so you can see what's in it.'' So that you can see what's in it.

Huh?

They are distorting the Rules Committee procedures and the reconciliation process to ram through a health care bill. Where is the transparency that Speaker Pelosi talked about?

Huh?

Last year, the House was passing bills without reading them. This year, they are passing bills without voting on them.

The Democrats desire passage of a health care bill in the darkness of a self-enacting rule. It's an affront to the constitutional powers of Congress and every voter in this country.

Madam Speaker, in 1974, Congress passed the Congressional Budget Act. This law created an optional procedure we know as the budget reconciliation process. The chief purpose of the reconciliation process was to enhance Congress' ability to change current law in order to bring

revenue and spending levels into alignment with the budget resolution. That is a definition of a reconciliation bill, to control government spending; not to enact new policies.

The last reconciliation bill passed by Congress was in the year 2007. This process was first used in 1980, and in 1985, Senator Robert Byrd had the Senate adopt a temporary rule to curb the practice of using reconciliation as a vehicle to move extraneous materials outside of the budget process. This rule is known today as the Byrd Rule. The Byrd Rule has been extended and modified over the years and in 1990 was made permanent when Congress amended the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.

Now, under the Byrd Rule, a senator who is opposed to the inclusion of extraneous material in the reconciliation bill may offer an amendment or a point of order to strike that provision. The Byrd Rule defines six provisions of what constitutes extraneous matter. The three most important provisions are, one, the bill language must produce a change in outlays or revenues; two, the bill cannot increase the deficit for fiscal years beyond the budget window; three, the provision is a nonbudgetary component that has a fiscal effect outside of the Treasury.

So today, Madam Speaker, the House Budget Committee will be meeting to markup a Budget Reconciliation Bill. Despite the House not having done a budget for the fiscal year 2011, the Budget Committee is going forward with reconciliation authority from last year's budget. The reconciliation process is being used to pass a Senate-passed health care bill in the House and to get the Senate to amend the reconciliation bill or law without fear of a filibuster.

Now, the press is reporting that the Rules Committee will report a rule that will deem the Senate health care bill as passed with the adoption of the rule and we only have a chance to debate and vote on the budget reconciliation. This is outrageous and absurd. The majority will claim that they will only be voting on the rule, when in fact they will be voting on accepting the Senate bill. Last year, the House was passing bills without reading them. This year, they're passing bills without voting on them.

This 2,309-page document makes a mockery of the entire budget reconciliation process. This monstrosity will be used to force a Senate health care bill reform on the American people who have spoken up loudly and spoken up to reject its backroom deals and special interest giveaways. Yet the Democratic leadership will ask its members to vote for the rule which will self-enact the Senate bill, the entire health care bill, in the hope that the Senate Democrats will vote later for reconciliation that the Senate parliamentarians will uphold the provisions inside the reconciliation bill which includes a self- enacting rule vis-a-vis health care bill.

Now, this is my understanding. There is no precedent for what the Democrats are doing with this deception. There has never been a reconciliation process as corrupt as what is happening this week. We have never written a reconciliation bill to amend a law that does not exist. We have never had a reconciliation bill with so far a reaching scope. This bill would seek to alter one-sixth of our economy permanently.

Thomas Jefferson, the Founding Father and author of the first Senate rules, states, ``The minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression.'' The Democrats are violating the minority rules by this procedure. If the Byrd Rule applied to the House, we would never be able to pass the budget reconciliation.

This bill, these tactics being used, goes way too far. It undermines the process of creating laws, the right to offer amendments, and the right to vote on a bill. It may not be politically safe for the majority, but we should have a proper vote, up-and-down, on this health care bill and an ability to amend the Senate bill. As legislators, we were sent here by our constituents to vote, not to hide. The proposed rule and the Budget Reconciliation Bill undermine our rights enumerated within the Constitution.

So I urge the Democrat majority to rethink the whole procedure for bringing up the Senate health care bill. Enacting a rule which includes health care will mean that once it passes the House it will go directly to the President. It will not return to the Senate. The President will sign it and it will become law. This is what they intend contrary to the transparency they promised.

I thank my distinguished colleague.

My colleagues, this debate is reminiscent of a debate we had 3 years ago, almost to the day, on February 14, 15, and 16.

You will remember, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich), that the debate was that you tried to force us to pull out of Iraq before the job was done. I hope you remember that.

From the moment we got there, many of the folks wanted us to leave. Most remarkable is that these same folks wanted us to leave just before we stabilized Iraq. They were not in favor of the surge. Yet the surge worked. Now they want us to leave Afghanistan in 30 days without giving this new strategy a chance to succeed.

The President of the United States has indicated he wants to stay there for 18 months. Why won't his opponents just allow the President to have the opportunity to fulfill his own commitment which he has made publicly? Are they so up in arms that they would undermine the President, especially in light of the fact they were wrong in Iraq?

We have an opportunity to let General McChrystal apply the successes in Iraq to Afghanistan, which, I might add, are successes my friends on the other side of the aisle opposed, and to possibly win there and to possibly stabilize the country. We need to let the strategy work and achieve the successes like we had in Iraq.

It is ironic that Iraq recently held parliamentary elections. Without the success of the surge and the United States' presence for this short amount of time, Iraq would not have had these elections. Imagine what Iraq would look like if we had listened to the naysayers a few years ago.

Is it possible that this resolution means all the work and sacrifice that occurred would be for naught because these people today want to pull out within 30 days? They opposed our successful strategy in Iraq and oppose it in Afghanistan.

There is no logic in that they want to undercut their President and undercut the troops. They have provided no justification. While no proposal guarantees success, a precipitous withdrawal of U.S. support would guarantee failure.

Mr. Speaker, during the last week in December, I had the opportunity to travel to Afghanistan and see firsthand the situation on the ground. It goes without saying that I was most impressed with the hard work and courage displayed by our troops who are stationed over there. I am always in awe of our men women in the Armed Forces. Their bravery and professionalism is something that all Americans should be proud of.

One aspect of our mission there that does not receive much attention compared to other parts of the mission is the effort to build an Afghan air force. The work of the Combined Air Power Transition Force (CAPTF) Partnership and the Afghan National Army Air Corps (ANAAC) deserves to be commended. During our trip we had the opportunity to meet with and be briefed by CAPTF Commanding General, United States Air Force Brigadier General Michael Boera. General Boera and his people run an impressive operation.

The Combined Air Power Transition Force has a mission to set the conditions for a professional, fully independent and operationally capable Afghan air force that meets the security requirements of Afghanistan today and tomorrow. Furthermore, the Afghan National Army Air Corps provides trained and ready airmen and soliders to execute critical tasks from the air in support of the Afghan National Army, and when directed by the Ministry of Defense, to support by air the civil authorities of Afghanistan at all levels.

CAPTF air advisors have oversight responsibilities for both the Ministry of Defense Afghan National Army Air Corps and the Ministry of Interior aviation assets used for Counternarcotics and General Support. In short, their goal is to ensure that the Afghan people will be able to protect their own airspace.

As an embedded partnership, CAPTF operates along four lines of operation to accomplish their mission. The first line of operation is build the Afghan Air Corps aircraft capacity. Second, CAPTF works to build Afghan airmen's capacity and capability. The third step is to build ANAAC's infrastructure to support their force, and fourth, to perform operations in the current counterinsurgency effort.

Transcending all four of those lines of operation is CAPTF's effort for institutional development such as improving their command and control capability, improving their air base management capability, and building up their ``Air University'' educational capability so critical to the foundation to a professional force.

The Afghan Air Corps currently has 46 aircraft and close to 3,000 personnel building to about 150 aircraft and over 8,000 personnel by 2016. Their mission sets include Presidential and other types of airlift, battlefield mobility, to include medical evacuation and casualty evacuation, and close air support.

The primary airframes flown by the Air Corps are Mi-17 and Mi-35 helicopters and C-27s, which is the first modern western aircraft introduced to the Afghans. CAPTF hopes to introduce additional aircraft into the Afghan inventory as they continue to grow in capability.

The ANAAC's Air Corps headquarters is in Kabul and they currently have two Air Wings, one at Kabul and one at Kandahar. A third is being built at Shindand airfield out to the west that will also be the home of their Training Center where the CAPTF will partner with them initially to train their pilots.

The Afghans also have Air Detachments at critical locations around the country to support the Afghan ground forces. It's important to note, the Afghan airmen are in the fight now even as we help them build capacity and capability. It's like flying the airplane while building it.

Much work remains, but General Boera and all the hardworking people of the Combined Air Power Transition Force are certainly moving in the right direction. All Americans should be proud!

I rise today in the hopes of appealing to the common sense of my colleagues in the United States Senate. In a few days, they will vote on whether or not Ben Bernanke will serve a second term as Federal Reserve Chairman. For the good of American taxpayers and the greater economy, his nomination should be rejected.

As Chairman of the Federal Reserve, Mr. Bernanke has intervened in the financial marketplace in an unprecedented way. He has instituted un-American policies that have distorted our free market economy, such as picking winners and losers, and the creation of ``too big to fail.'' Both Republicans and Democrats alike have argued that the Fed itself was a significant factor in creating the worst economic and financial crisis our Nation has faced in a generation.

Where is the justification in reconfirming Ben Bernanke? Under him, interest rates were kept too low for too

long, as the Fed simultaneously increased the money supply and economic bubbles were created. In 2006, financial experts throughout the Nation pointed out that the housing bubble was collapsing, yet the Fed took no action until it was too late, and tens of thousands of families found themselves in foreclosure.

Another major factor in the economic meltdown was the questionable financial transactions by the holding companies of the largest banks and Wall Street firms, which are regulated by the Federal Reserve. It is clear now that the Fed abdicated its role as a regulator of these entities. Just last month, Mr. Bernanke admitted in front of the Senate Banking Committee that, ``In the area where we had responsibility, the bank holding companies, we should have done more.''

The irony of his comments are that the Fed has plenty of power and authority to deal with the kinds of abuses we have seen in the financial industry and within the housing market, but they refused to act. Under the leadership of Mr. Bernanke, the Fed chose to ignore the abuses going on in the mortgage industry, particularly with subprime loans.

The Fed also chose to ignore Wall Street's risky off-balance-sheet transactions that created a domino effect that rippled through our economy. Bloomberg reported that the Fed itself entered into trillions in off-balance-sheet transactions last year, but the Fed's own Inspector General has not even attempted to audit or to investigate these transactions. Astoundingly, Mr. Bernanke is now advocating that Congress grant the Fed even greater regulatory power. We need to audit the Federal Reserve now.

In discussing Mr. Bernanke's failings as Fed Chairman, it is important to point out that he served on the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve from 2002 to 2005 before becoming Chairman. He is no novice, yet he ignored distress calls about our imminent financial meltdown.

And Mr. Bernanke has not been forthcoming in explaining to Congress and the American people who in the private sector the Fed has chosen to subsidize with American taxpayers' dollars and for what reason and for what amounts. Mr. Bernanke has also been unable to fully explain and account for the $500 billion the Fed has lent to central banks in Europe. Instead, he continues to hide behind the longstanding premise that monetary policy should be free from political pressure, coupled with the convenience of the Fed not being a public agency and, thus, not being obligated to publicly account for its actions.

Mr. Speaker, it is not his money. It belongs to the American taxpayers. Under Mr. Bernanke's leadership, the Fed even strove to keep the details of AIG's overpayments to its counterparties secret, as recently revealed by a newly disclosed e-mail from a New York Fed official. The e-mail clearly demonstrates the kind of culture that Bernanke oversaw at the Fed, one of secrecy and willingness to stifle important public disclosure pertaining to the financial crisis. But again, it is not his money.

After the difficult financial year we have had, common sense dictates a change in leadership at the Federal Reserve. Reconfirming Mr. Bernanke to a second term is like putting a stamp of approval on the health of our unstable economy while guaranteeing more of the same failed policies. More of the same is not the solution to our economic downturn and crisis in the financial markets. We need a complete departure from the failed policies of the past.

Mr. Bernanke steered our financial system directly onto the rocks. Should we really put him at the helm again? No.

Madam Speaker, let me say to my colleague from Massachusetts that he and I came in together. Back in 1988, we were both elected, and he and I served in the same class together. As I recollect, he was mayor of Springfield.

You balanced your budget as mayor. You had to balance your budget. Now, we've been up here trying to balance the budget, you and I, for almost 21 years. It has not been successful. I supported a balanced budget--both a constitutional amendment as well as a legislative balanced budget. I don't believe you or your colleagues did. I say this because, frankly, we have been talking about deficit as long as you and I have been in Congress. We can blame Republicans. We can blame Democrats, but let's just look at the record for a second.

When you and I came in under Bush I, do you remember those deficits? They talked about $250 billion, and we just lamented about it and lamented about it, and we complained about it. Well, you know, that's what happened. It has exploded. So now we're looking at deficits that are a lot larger, as my colleague mentioned, $1.4 trillion.

When you look at Bush II, George W. Bush, he had deficits of $600 billion. I remember the folks on that side were complaining about how terrible that was at $600 billion.

Well, the problem is now we're talking almost two, three times that amount of money. Actually, when you go back and look at when Ronald Reagan was President, critics called great criticism to him. They said the deficit was out of control in this country. The deficits were about $250 billion. So the point I am trying to make is that the deficit under Republican Presidents and even under Republican control of the House and the Senate and the White House was small, very small, to what we have today.

You can say that there is good reason for this vote today because you support our troops and our wars, and you also support veterans. I think that's true. Yet there has been no effort by your side to hold the appropriations bill.

I have been on the House floor, and I say to my colleague, your appropriations bills are 13 percent larger than last year's. Almost every one of them was 13, 18--One was almost 20 percent. How in the world can you justify appropriations bills that are so large?

So in the end, Democrats are not trying to reduce costs nor balance the budget. In fact, they are recklessly encouraging more government spending. That is why they need to increase the debt ceiling.

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

This bill, H.R. 1804, the Commercial Advertisement Loudness Mitigation Act, or the CALM Act, is a bill whose time has come and perhaps because the transition to digital has created the perfect opportunity for industry to take care of this. But they did not take care of this for some 40 years. The bill would require the Federal Communications Commission to issue regulations, based on industry standards, for loud commercial advertisements within 1 year of enactment. The regulation would take effect 1 year after adopted by the

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

Let me just perhaps move a little further. The gentlelady from California mentioned that a lot of people had said, well, why does Congress have to get involved? That has been brought before me before. And I would say--and this is a compliment to the lady from California-- what she did with her bill.

Her bill originally directed the FCC to write its own rules, but she reached out to industry and engaged them, which is a commendation for her, and asked them, Well, how can we solve this? So for those people who say, Why can't industry solve it?, she was an impetus to do this, and her bill is furthermore an impetus to do this, because now industry developed a subgroup, the subgroup came up with the technology to be able to solve the problem, and now she's saying basically, let industry solve the problem and let the FCC adopt what they've come up with.

Another thing that I think came through the process which is also, I think, a compliment to her was that she was willing to realize that some in the industry, some of the smaller companies, might have a financial problem with this, so she was willing to change the bill to allow this, I'll call it a safety valve, for those small companies that can't make it, that petition the SEC to get a delay so that they have 1 year and possibly another year.

So I think what this bill shows to those people who say why can't we just let the industry solve it, I think the simple fact that she went out and engaged them, they developed a subgroup working with the industry, as she did, works it in a way that industry is solving their own problem, but they also realize, after all these years, going back to the 1960s, and these complaints, something's got to be done. And I think many of us, in the last weekend watching football games, can remember that time we had to get up with the remote and turn it off. And you can say, well, that's fine; just turn it off. But it's constantly an irritant when you have to do it. And we've got all the new bowl games coming up.

So I think the aspect about that we all should realize is that Ms. Eshoo also was willing to change the bill and reach out and work with industry to get this done, and to also provide the safety valve. So I think that's an important aspect to bring to the attention of my colleagues, how this bill works I think in a way to help industry.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers, so I yield back the balance of our time.

Mr. Speaker, our current financial crisis, which is now global in scope, was triggered by the bursting of the U.S. housing bubble and particularly by the deteriorating quality of subprime mortgages that were bundled into toxic securities and sold all over the country and around the world. It was the housing crisis and mortgage meltdown that led us to the worst financial crisis our country has faced since the Great Depression.

In examining the root causes of the housing crisis, particularly the policies that led to the creation of the housing bubble that would inevitably burst at the seams, it is important to focus on the facts instead of the partisan blame game that often ensues here on our House floor.

To be fair, blame can be placed on both Democrats and Republicans for either supporting or simply going along with some of the bad housing policies that led to the implosion of government sponsored enterprises, GSEs, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and the subsequent collapse of our housing market. Democrats blame 8 years of inaction and deregulation by the Bush Administration, and Republicans blame the vigorous enforcement of the Community Reinvestment Act and the affordable housing mandate placed on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac by Democrats.

However, one of the most ardent critics of the Bush Administration and Republican policies in general is the Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, Representative Barney Frank. Mr. Frank has spent two days this week on the House floor blaming Republicans and President Bush for the recession and for every problem our economy is currently facing, including the mortgage meltdown.

However, in examining the causes of the mortgage meltdown and ensuing financial crisis, it is worthwhile to take a look at the facts and what has actually been said and advocated by certain members of this House. Given Representative Frank's leading role in harshly criticizing Republican policies, we must do our due diligence and recall Mr. Frank's role as a member and Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee and an advocate and supporter of failed GSEs Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Mr. Speaker, here are some interesting facts.

In 2000, Representative Frank stated that Republican concerns about the stability of government sponsored enterprises Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were ``overblown'' and that there was ``no federal liability there whatsoever.''

Two years later, Mr. Frank went even further stating, ``I do not regard Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as problems. I regard them as great assets.''

Looking back, these statements are nothing short of ironic. In 2007, Mr. Frank became Chairman of Financial Services and he apparently changed his rhetoric, arguing that he had long been in favor of reforming Fannie and Freddie and blamed the lack of reform on Republicans and President George W. Bush.

This isn't a fair argument, Mr. Speaker.

Democrats in general have been longstanding and ardent defenders of out-of-control GSEs Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, whose liberal mortgage lending policies and flawed structure of privatized gains and socialized losses greatly contributed to our current housing crisis and subsequent economic crisis.

Last year, American taxpayers were forced to bailout Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to the tune of almost $200 billion and are on the hook for the GSEs $5.4 trillion in debt and other liabilities. Let us recall that it was Chairman Frank who encouraged Fannie and Freddie to guarantee more ``affordable'' mortgages, which we all now know led to the mortgage market being inundated with dangerous subprime and Alt-A loans.

The Democrats also pushed for an increase in the conforming-loan limits in order to allow Fannie and Freddie to guarantee and securitize larger mortgages, and Democrats pressured regulators to ease up on their more stringent requirements for capital. All of these factors contributed to the bursting of the housing bubble.

The Democrats also played an additional role in pushing the risky housing policies that led to the housing crisis. The Federal Housing Enterprises Financial Safety and Soundness Act of 1992, also known as the GSE Act, contained an ``affordable housing'' requirement which is what ultimately led Fannie and Freddie to acquiring over $5 trillion in home loans over a 16-year period. Let's recall that in 1992, Democrats were in control of both the House and Senate, and the GSE Act was a Democratic priority.

Aggressive enforcement of the Community Reinvestment Act, CRA, of 1977, created under a Democrat Congress and President, was also a major contributing factor of the mortgage meltdown and ensuing financial crisis. From 1977 to 1991, the CRA was responsible for $9 billion in local lending commitments, and following the implementation of the Democrat's ``affordable housing'' mandate, CRA lending skyrocketed. In 2001, the director

of the federal Office of Thrift Supervision candidly said, ``Our record home ownership rate, I'm convinced, would not have been reached without CRA and its close relative, the Fannie/Freddie requirements.''

So Mr. Speaker, it is clear that aggressive enforcement of Community Reinvestment Act as long advocated by the Democrats, coupled with the Democrat's affordable housing mandate on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac certainly played a major role in fueling the housing bubble. These are facts.

Additionally, between 1993 and 2007, just before the near collapse of Fannie and Freddie, the government-backed GSEs acquired $1.2 trillion of loans from banks and other lenders, and from 1997 to 2007, Fannie and Freddie acquired $2.2 trillion in subprime loans and securities backed by toxic subprime loans. Altogether, 50 percent of the GSEs high-risk loans are estimated to be Community Reinvestment Act loans.

The Democratic Party has been the torchbearer of the Community Reinvestment Act and the affordable housing mandate on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which led to our housing crisis.

Today, the House of Representatives will take a vote on a broad financial regulatory reform bill sponsored by Chairman Barney Frank. This bill seeks to change almost every aspect of our economy and financial markets, and yet ironically it does nothing to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which were placed into government conservatorship last year and are being propped up by American taxpayer dollars.

Unfortunately, the Frank financial regulatory reform bill perpetuates the failed policies of the past and fundamentally restructures the Nation's free market system, placing it firmly in the hands of big government. This legislation will expose taxpayers to further exploitation by making permanent the policies used to bailout politically connected firms like Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and AIG, while restricting access to credit and increasing the costs of credit products used by small businesses on main street.

The Frank legislation expands the powers of the very agencies that failed to catch the problems that created the financial crisis and rewards a Federal Reserve that pursued irresponsible credit policies and that ineffectively conducted its regulatory supervision. This bill also blunts market discipline through government guarantees that protect creditors against loss and authorizes the taxation of business without the approval of Congress.

The Republican Substitute to Mr. Frank's bill phases out taxpayer subsidies of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac over a number of years and ends the current model of privatized profits and socialized losses. I have long advocated winding down and privatizing Fannie and Freddie, and I am proud to support these reforms.

Additionally, the Republican Financial Regulatory Reform Plan puts an end to the TARP program and prevents future bailouts of financial institutions by creating a new chapter in the bankruptcy code for non- bank financial institutions. This protects taxpayers from covering the greed and excesses of failing firms. The Republican alternative also increases civil and criminal penalties for fraud, establishes a council to issue uniformed consumer protection rules, and reforms the over- the-counter derivatives markets.

Given Mr. Frank's harsh and constant criticism of Republican policies and his eagerness to blame the Bush Administration for the financial and housing crises, I find it shocking that his financial regulatory reform bill contains no reform of GSEs Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac--the entities that are at the epicenter of the Nation's financial crisis.

While Barney Frank and the Democrats regard Fannie and Freddie as great assets, Republicans regard them as great liabilities, and today we are on record supporting much needed reforms to these troubled government entities while also supporting commonsense reforms to our financial system.

Mr. Speaker, facts always speak louder than a partisan blame game. I wanted to share these comments with my colleagues in reply to those critics who want to shift the blame for political reasons.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2221, the Data Accountability and Trust Act, and I am very pleased and gratified that we're considering this bill today. I've taken an active part and interest in data privacy, and I am happy that the House Members will now finally have an opportunity to vote on this important legislation which, frankly, I introduced in its original form in the 109th Congress.

As former chairman of the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection, CTCP, of the Energy and Commerce Committee, I held two hearings in 2005 on identity theft and security breaches involving personal information. These hearings led me to introduce the Data Accountability and Trust Act, which would require any entity that experiences a simple breach of security, such as a business, to notify all those folks in the United States whose information was acquired by an unauthorized person as a result of this breach. My bill was reported out of the Energy and Commerce Committee by a unanimous vote, but, unfortunately, it never made its way to the House floor for a final vote.

But today we're considering legislation that is almost identical to the bill I sponsored when I was chairman of the CTCP Subcommittee. So I would like to commend Chairman Bobby Rush for his leadership in introducing this bill, and I'm proud to be the original cosponsor of the bill.

My colleagues, importantly, this bill requires an audit of a data broker's security practices following a breach of security. The legislation also directs the Federal Trade Commission to create rules requiring persons in interstate commerce that own or possess data to simply establish and implement security policies and procedures that protect this data from unauthorized use and requires data brokers to establish reasonable procedures to verify the accuracy of their data and also to allow consumers access to such information while also including important protections to prevent fraudsters from accessing this same information.

The DATA bill also directs the Federal Trade Commission, the FTC, to post data breaches on its Web site, making important data breach information readily available to the public.

The CTCP Subcommittee worked in a bipartisan manner to address a few concerns that were raised about the broad scope of this bill, such as worries about duplicative regulations; but our staff committee worked in a bipartisan manner to solve these problems. So they have been mitigated.

Importantly, H.R. 2221 does not impose duplicative, inconsistent, or overlapping regulations. The bill ensures that any person who is in compliance with a similar data security law will then be deemed to be in compliance with H.R. 2221. Additionally, with respect to concerns that were raised about the access and dispute resolution requirements for information brokers, the DATA bill provides that if an information broker is in compliance with similar relevant laws, then the information broker will also be deemed to be in compliance with respect to that information.

Members should also note that the Data Accountability and Trust Act only applies to those entities that are subject to Federal Trade Commission jurisdiction. Banks, savings and loan institutions, thrifts, and the business of insurance are not subject to the requirements of this bill.

Consideration of this bill today is timely, as data security, data privacy problems continue to affect countless Americans each year. In fact, according to Privacy Rights Clearinghouse, almost 340 million records containing ``sensitive personal information'' have been ``involved in security breaches since 2005.''

One of the largest known breaches in our country actually occurred in January of this year at Heartland Payment Systems. In this case over 180 million personal records were compromised. Furthermore, universities across this Nation have had names, photos, phone numbers, and addresses of their students and their staff compromised or stolen. Sensitive technology companies such as SAIC, Science Application International Corporation, and large financial institutions such as Bank of America have also experienced these breaches. Hundreds of hospitals have had the personal information of their patients in their hospitals compromised.

Earlier this year, hackers broke into a Virginia State Web site used by pharmacists to track prescription drug abuse. They successfully deleted records of more than 8 million patients and replaced the site's home page with a ransom note demanding $10 million for the return of these records.

Breaches have also occurred in the Department of Motor Vehicles; the IRS; the Federal Trade Commission itself; the FDIC, which is the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation; the State Department; the Department of Veterans Affairs; the Department of Justice. Of course, the list goes on and on.

Oftentimes, these data security breaches can lead to credit card fraud and even identity theft, which can require time and a whole lot of money and energy from consumers to simply repair their good name and to restore their credit history.

Consideration of this bill, the Data Accountability and Trust Act, is timely and necessary to give the record number of data breaches that are occurring across this country their due and protection. So I urge my colleagues at this time to support the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I also rise in support of H.R. 1319, the Informed P2P User Act of 2009.

For the second consecutive Congress, Mrs. Bono Mack has introduced this legislation because too many American consumers are having their personal information stolen and their lives wrecked by the careless distribution of file-sharing software which more often than not is used to distribute copyright-infringing content and child pornography. These file-sharing software distributors can no longer be trusted to do the right thing.

The problem of inadvertent file sharing caused by peer-to-peer programs has been felt by thousands of consumers and widely reported by the press. Recent high profile cases, like Marine One schematics being found on a network in Iran, the public availability of United States Supreme Court Justice Breyer's financial records, and the compromising of our own House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct's network security only serve to underscore the dangers associated with file- sharing software and the importance of providing American consumers with the tools and information they need to make wise decisions online.

As a believer in the power of the free market, I am willing to afford commercial interest the opportunity to simply self-regulate; however, the distributors of file-sharing software have proven they are either unable or unwilling to handle their affairs without intervention. This bill is the logical consequence.

In the House of Representatives alone, inadvertent file sharing has been the subject of at least five congressional hearings in three separate committees. In each hearing, distributors of file-sharing software have come forth with a list of voluntary best practices or a commitment to correct the problem, but in each instance they have failed to deliver.

The Informed P2P User Act improves upon existing law because its substantive requirements very narrowly target the critical problem of inadvertent sharing. Unfortunately, many users of the software-- particularly preteens or teenage children and their parents--are unaware of the potential dangers of file-sharing software. Today, by passing the Informed P2P User Act, we will move that much closer to arming American consumers with the information they need to protect their personal information.

Now, I thought I would go into what the bill includes:

One, it will create a system where users of file-sharing programs are provided with conspicuous notice and forced to give consent prior to installation and activation of a file-sharing program. And two, requires entities that develop file-sharing programs to make it reasonably simple to block or remove these programs once they are installed.

Additionally, this act will require an easy-to-understand notice and consent rule for file-sharing software. It is my belief that when the consumer is provided with this information, he or she will make a more informed choice.

Finally, my colleagues, the Informed P2P User Act ensures a narrow scope by exempting technologies like e-mail, instant messaging, real- time audio or video communications, and real-time voice communications.

This bill has broad bipartisan support, including 36 cosponsors, written endorsement of 41 State Attorneys General, and the full backing of child safety groups such as Stop Child Predators.

I would like to commend Congresswoman Bono Mack for all the work she has done here; the ranking member on our committee, Mr. Barton; obviously Mr. Rush for being on the floor; and Congressman Barrow for his leadership on this issue. I encourage the passage of this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn).

Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers.

I would just conclude by saying, oftentimes when we come to the floor, we have very controversial bills. We've had two consecutive bills here that had

bipartisan support. So it's important, I think, the American people realize that Congress can get things done, and these two bills are the best example of it. And so I urge all my colleagues to support this act.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

The gentleman from Tennessee is a scholar and perspicuous individual, very talented, but Shakespeare said, ``To err is human,'' and in this case, the gentleman from Tennessee has erred particularly in this bill. So I stand here not in support of his grand bill.

I think many in Congress are perhaps frustrated that we're not focusing on domestic nuclear waste disposal issues that obviously need to be resolved if we're ever to revitalize our nuclear energy. Instead, we're talking about this bill. In fact, this bill is going to hurt businesses that are trying to create jobs and promote economic growth. It will actually discourage it.

The administration has irresponsibly turned its back on the Yucca Mountain waste repository site, leaving us with no clear plan to dispose of high-level radioactive waste and spent nuclear fuel and leaving taxpayers liable for potentially billions of dollars in damages.

Now this bill, Mr. Speaker, does not focus on high-level radioactive waste, but rather it focuses on what is known as a Class A radioactive waste. Now, my colleagues, this is the lowest of lowest levels of radioactive waste. Now, supporters of this bill will say that we lack sufficient capacity in the United States for this waste. Let's talk about what the GAO says.

They have testified the Class A waste disposal capacity is simply not a problem in the short term or the long term. GAO had some real concerns about disposal capacity for what is known as Class B and C waste, but not Class A waste.

Now, what does this legislation do to deal with spent nuclear fuel or the impending Class B and C waste disposal crisis? Nothing. Nothing is done. Instead, it would prevent U.S. companies from competing in the global marketplace by restraining trade in this very low-level waste.

Now, a lot of us will hear the word ``radioactive'' and this is perhaps a word that is radioactive to lawmakers, but it should not frighten us once we understand this is the same kind of waste that you find in a home smoke detector. I think everybody in this Chamber, as well as everybody in the House, probably has a smoke detector in their home. So that is the type of low-level waste we're talking about.

I want American companies and American workers to participate fully in the international nuclear renaissance. You know, it's happening in China certainly, including the handling of low-level waste. This is an anti-jobs and anti-trade bill. It would simply ban Americans from the marketplace. And so that's why, reluctantly, many on this side of the aisle oppose this legislation and voted against it when it was before the full Energy and Commerce committee.

I am also concerned that this bill may have negative unintended consequences on top of the intended ones. In addition to restricting the ability of U.S. companies to bid on secure foreign contracts, this bill may prevent U.S. companies in the future from working cooperatively with foreign companies on other nuclear projects. The bill would prohibit the importation of low-level waste into the United States unless it is being sent to a Federal Government or military facility or other limited exceptions.

So I do not believe that the importation of limited amounts of common, very low-level waste raises disposal capacity issues. The GAO didn't think so either. At the same time, I do not believe that if U.S. nuclear companies are to participate in the global nuclear services market and compete effectively with foreign-owned companies, they must simply be able to manage and dispose of the low-level waste incidental to their work and subject to NRC's already strict regulations and requirement. So think about that. We already have in place through the NRC the necessary regulations and requirements. This is going to overlap on that.

So, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to create jobs. We cannot pass new trade barriers that put our own employers and workers at a competitive disadvantage, which I think simply this bill would do.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I ask how much time I have left.

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

I think if you try to look at this issue in a broad sence, around the world a lot of countries are actually building nuclear power plants and there's also countries that are decommissioning them. There are currently 436 nuclear reactors worldwide with 53 under construction. China currently has 16 reactors under construction. So this renaissance is occurring. It's global.

So I think if you're going to have companies that are involved with the construction and decommission of nuclear power plants and they want to say, Okay, I want to bid, these countries will accept the bid from the United States; but if the United States is limiting them in how they're getting rid of low level radioactive waste, it's going to make it more difficult for that company to compete.

Again, this is not a serious problem. As far as I know, there has not been any indirect harm to individuals because of this. I obviously view this bill--the authors have crafted as a safety measure, and I respect that. But low level radioactive waste, as I mentioned, is in smoke detectors as well as exit signs.

So the implementation of this bill is going to be more regulatory, and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is already doing this. So why would we need this bill?

And I think, as pointed out earlier in my statement, we have so many other Class B and Class C waste capacity problems that we should really be concentrating on and not this form of class, which is a very low radioactive class.

So I think, Mr. Speaker, that this is not a serious problem. I respect the authors and what they are trying to do; but, I think there's not a need for this kind of regulatory overlay with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which has already done a wonderful job for decades.

So with that, Mr. Speaker, I would urge my colleagues not to support and vote ``no'' on the bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time because I think the gentleman from Tennessee has additional speakers.

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

I noticed that the advocates for the opponent all have these people from

Utah. I just wonder if that is a coincidence. I see the gentleman from Tennessee has no one except people from Utah. But I am going to reveal a secret to him that perhaps he didn't know and the people from Utah didn't know that fortunately on this side we had the clairvoyance to find out. In checking with the Utah facility, we found that they do, indeed, have the capacity to take this low-level waste, not just for another year, but for decades and decades.

So I know the people on that side say this is not true, but the information we are getting back, which is probably news to the gentleman from Tennessee, is that the facility is capable of taking this type of waste. So I would just indicate that our main concern is that those companies who are trying to do business in this renaissance for nuclear construction are going to be hampered because of this bill.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Roe) such time as he may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to add that the gentleman had a very balanced approach to it in his statement. Also, he is from the great State of Tennessee so we have a balanced opinion from one side to the other from the great State of Tennessee.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Would the gentleman yield?

I would consider that proposal. Will you withdraw this bill?

During the process we are waiting to get sited in Florida, will you just put this bill onto a back burner?

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute to attempt to reply to my colleagues.

As I understand it, this appeal process went through, and it is still in court, and so the final judgment has not been made. I think the gentleman from Utah sort of illustrates what I think is true: the company says they have the capacity to handle this.

But the overall position, I think, of many of us is that this legislation is going to hurt U.S. companies who are trying to compete with other global nuclear services in the marketplace. And as I pointed out, this is a global and highly technical and competitive industry, and it is growing, and we should not handicap companies who wish to compete in it.

Class A radioactive waste is very minimal. We have been able to take care of it. For decades and decades, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has been able to take care of it. They have testified that it is not a problem. It is not a problem for the long term or short term.

I have no further speakers, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Would the gentleman yield?

I thank the gentleman.

To you folks, when you hold up that glass, there is another glass in Texas that is willing to take this low-level radioactive waste. You should know that. We are not just talking about the plant in Utah.

I think it is in the process of being certified. And there are other States that are willing to do the same thing.

If you don't mind, your colleague from Tennessee has a question for you.

I thank my colleague for allowing me the time to speak.

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

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

My colleagues, this bill is about a hundred pages, and the Judiciary Committee had probably the majority of this bill. We start at page 74 in title II, and the preponderance is in the Judiciary. But the bill is critical in the sense that this act itself is going to expire at the end of this month and we need to make sure that this passes.

This has been a great display of bipartisanship. You had two committees. The Judiciary Committee and the Energy and Commerce Committee had separate bills just like they have in the Senate. The Senate has a separate bill in their Commerce Committee and also in the Judiciary. But we've come together, and it's a tribute to Mr. Boucher and Mr. Waxman as well as Mr. Barton that we came together here in the House of Representatives with a bipartisan bill, and we now have it on the floor. And we're hopeful that the Senate will do the same thing, because at this point, they haven't, and we might have to have an extension. I hope not. But I think it's been outlined pretty much, some of the aspects about it, so I'm going to concentrate in the areas that deal with telecommunications, a committee I serve as the ranking member.

The Communications Act provisions make clerical and substantive changes to reflect the end of analog broadcasting. That's a statement in itself with the new digital spectrum.

They also require an FCC report on whether the signal strength and antenna standards for distant signal eligibility should be modified in light of the DTV transition. They implement the deal DISH has struck with broadcasters to regain authority to provide distant signals if they offer local-into-local service in all 210 markets. They clarify that nothing in this act affects must-carry rights. They clarify that if a subscriber starts receiving from their satellite operator the network programming from a local station's multicast stream, the subscriber shall no longer receive a distant signal carrying that network's programming. They include language clarifying that restrictions on use of compulsory licenses do not limit private deals negotiated without compulsory licenses, such as to provide in-State programming to orphan counties. It requires an FCC report analyzing, one, the number of households that receive out-of-State signals; two, the extent to which consumers have access to in-State programming; and, three, whether there are alternatives to use of the existing Nielsen- defined markets.

Earlier, Lamar Smith, the gentleman from Texas, mentioned there are some things that have to be ironed out, and I think that's true.

While it still contains, in this bill, a provision we opposed in the committee during the markup that tries to twist DISH's arm into carrying public broadcasting stations in high-definition format, and I was the one that spoke against this, the additional views in the committee report reflect our concerns, and there is a chance that provision will become moot since, obviously, the parties are in negotiation, and we're hoping for a favorable negotiation so that will work itself out.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton), the distinguished ranking member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

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

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield as much time as she may consume to the gentlelady from Tennessee, Marsha Blackburn.

Madam Speaker, how much time do I have left?

I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlelady from Wyoming (Mrs. Lummis).

(Mrs. Lummis asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Madam Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.