Floor Statements

I thank my distinguished colleague.

My colleagues, recently the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee of Energy and Commerce held a hearing, and I chair this subcommittee. It was one of the first hearings on the rapid pace of regulations that are coming from the Obama administration. We made clear to the witness, regulation czar Cass Sunstein, that we objected to the fact that the administration is considering and issuing regulations with regard not to jobs and the economy, but is simply using as a standard such ridiculously amorphous terms as equity, human dignity, fairness, and distributive impacts. I asked him what this meant and he said, well, basically distribution of income. What? The administration is making a decision on regulation on the basis of distribution of income? I thought the market was supposed to decide that, not a government czar.

In fiscal year 2010, Federal agencies promulgated 43 major rules that impose costs that are estimated to cost industry $28 billion, the highest annual level since 1981. Along with all these major rules come daunting levels of red tape, the cost of which cannot easily be counted. The Obama administration's regulatory agenda released this past fall identifies 4,225 rules under development.

Now, the EPA alone has finalized almost 1,000 new regulations since the start of the administration and has also proposed a number of expensive and complex new rules affecting our energy system, our industrial and manufacturing infrastructure, and even the electric power we rely upon every day.

Now, with this Nation suffering from 21 straight months of unemployment at 9 percent or higher unemployment, our focus should be on jobs. Unnecessary and burdensome regulations act as a de facto tax on every American family and small business in this country; yet there's no end in sight for all the regulations that are coming from the Obama administration. From our health to our wealth to the freedom to live our lives the way we want, the Federal regulatory state continues to grow and grow and intrudes.

It's time for Congress to reduce this burden and get our economy growing again.

Mr. Speaker, this past weekend, America came together to honor the 100th birthday of President Ronald Reagan.

President Reagan believed that personal accountability and hard work are the cornerstones of the American Dream. He understood America's greatness and its exceptionalism. No American will ever forget how he touted America as a shining city on a hill and ``built on rocks stronger than oceans, wind-swept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace.''

In these troubling economic times, we would be wise to follow Reagan's lessons that limited government, low taxes, and free enterprise foster economic growth and job creation.

Reagan knew that freedom was America's greatest export to the world, whether it was promoting freedom overseas against a Communist threat or at home through free markets.

President Reagan left an unparalleled legacy to his country, and we honor his extraordinary life on what would have been his 100th birthday.

Mr. Speaker, let me give you some important reasons why we need to repeal this law.

Yes, you will create jobs--but in an ever-expanding Federal bureaucracy. The Joint Economic Committee reported this bill creates over 150 new Federal offices. With that, of course, small businesses must comply, are mandated to comply, with all the new and many regulations.

Now, if this bill is so good, why is the Obama administration giving a pass to over 220 organizations and corporations that have received exemptions from this law, including many, many unions?

With the proposed $500 billion cut in Medicare and the increase in taxes that is already occurring, this law is simply not credible. With record unemployment, this law will hurt small businesses and prevent job creation, adding burdensome taxes, and it will not increase growth in this country.

Republicans will replace this bill with a health care law based upon choice, competition, and the traditional American exceptional value system, which is compassion--but compassion with accountability. We need to repeal this law.

I thank my colleague.

Mr. Speaker, perhaps the gentleman from New Jersey didn't listen to me when I just spoke.

It's creating 150 new government agencies, and these are all government jobs. So, if you're talking about increasing jobs, they're government jobs.

It also includes $500 billion in taxes, burdensome 1099 paperwork requirements, according to a study by the Nation's largest small business association, the NFIB. I would like you to talk about that 1099.

These employer mandates that are in the health care bill are terrible, and it is estimated they will wipe out 1.6 million jobs over just 5 years.

So I caution the gentleman from New Jersey to listen carefully to my speech.

I thank my distinguished colleague; and on behalf of myself and my constituents from the Sixth Constitution District in north-central Florida, we offer our thoughts and prayers to our colleague Gabrielle Giffords and her family.

I also join the American people in extending our condolences to the other victims of this terrible event. This is a heartbreaking loss.

But I'm encouraged by the positive news from her doctors. And I commend those medical professionals in Tucson for their dedication and outstanding work. Obviously, we look forward to Gabby coming back to the House floor. We miss her warm demeanor and her courageous qualities.

In paying our respects to her and the others harmed and killed in this senseless act of violence, we must make it clear that we will not be deterred from meeting with the American people. The act of this deranged individual should not alter the routine duties of our office. I've had 560 town meetings in my district. I understand what it must be to remain accessible to my constituents. An attack on any single Member is an assault on this institution, and we must carry on in our commitment to an open and representative government.

So I extend my best wishes to my colleague for a satisfactory and swift recovery. I also share my deepest sympathies with the families of the victims who were injured and killed in this incomprehensible act.

Let me close with two Bible quotes, from Psalm 46:1, ``God is our refuge and strength, an ever-present help in trouble''; and 1 Peter 3:14, ``But even if you should suffer for what is right, you are blessed. Do not fear what they fear. Do not be frightened.''

Madam Speaker, my friend, David Cavicke, Chief of Staff for the Republicans on the Committee on Energy and Commerce, is leaving the Committee in January after nearly 16 years of service. I and other Members of the Committee have benefited from David's sound counsel, tireless advocacy, policy entrepreneurship and relentless optimism. Like Ronald Reagan, Cavicke believes that you can accomplish anything if you don't worry about who gets the credit.

David was invaluable to the Committee during our investigations of financial fraud at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. He was early to identify that fraudulent accounting masked balance sheets with such volumes of toxic assets that the firms were likely to be insolvent. As a result of this work, David led the development of ideas to improve accounting and auditing standards in the Committee.

David also worked extensively on privacy and telecommunications issues during my tenure as Chairman of the Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection subcommittee and my term as Ranking Member on the Telecommunications subcommittee. He is a principled conservative. He also believes that facts and data should drive policy. He has worked with Democrats and Republicans at the FCC to promote the growth of broadband, more extensive deployment of spectrum and greater efficiencies in the universal service program. He has been an advocate for protecting consumers' privacy in the online world. He has been sensitive to the enormous technical difficulties of using statutes to micro-manage internet commerce.

He is a gentlemen, a wise lawyer, an expert in the formal and informal procedures of Congress and scrupulously fair to persons of both parties. He has been a Chief of Staff in the best tradition of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained and missed rollcall votes 657 and 658. If I had been present, I would have voted ``no'' on rollcall 657 and ``yes'' on rollcall 658.

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

Mr. Speaker, good morning. I rise in opposition to Senate bill 3874 that was introduced by Barbara Boxer of California, the Reduction of Lead in Drinking Water Act, and urge my colleagues to do likewise.

I want to be clear that simply by opposing this bill, I do not support lead in drinking water, obviously. Let's clear the air on that. Rather, I am opposed to the manner in which this bill tackles the problem and, simply, Mr. Speaker, the unintended consequences that could result. So bear with me.

This legislation lowers the Federal limit for lead allowed in the manufacturing of certain plumbing fixtures that come into contact with water that Americans drink. However, reports in The Washington Post and testimony before Congress suggest that lead service lines are the biggest culprits of leeched lead. People should not mistake this bill as a panacea when other actions like corrosion protection and other treatments, including some lead line replacement, have just as much, if not more, impact on what this legislation purports to do.

Second, we need an education component to this bill. I urge my colleagues to vote against this bill so we can get an education component part of it. I am concerned that do-it-yourselfers, much like me, are going to see this legislation pass, think that their existing faucets are toxic fountains, go to their hardware store to get a new faucet, cut their home piping, thereby releasing lead shavings into their home's pipes, and wind up with water streaming from their faucets with even more lead than had they just left the faucet alone.

And, third, I know many of this bill's supporters believe we need this bill in order to prevent disparate standards among the States and that much of the industry is either meeting the most stringent State standards or is ready to make the move to do so. But, Mr. Speaker, I am not convinced, though, that this bill will provide the kind of preemption that prevents States from enacting different laws after this bill's enactment. The 50 States could do that. If the major producers of faucets in this country are already making the kinds of changes that the bill seeks, and the bill does not solve this preemption problem, then why do we have to pass a Federal bill in the first place?

And, finally, my colleagues and, importantly, the Congressional Budget Office estimate for identical provisions in a House bill projected the cost of the mandate in this bill, introduced by Barbara Boxer, would be the additional costs to manufacturers, importers, or users associated with producing or acquiring compliant products.

So based on information from industry sources, CBO wrote on July 27, 2010, to expect that some manufacturers would already be in compliance with the new standard because of existing

standards in some States, for example, California, Maryland, and Vermont: ``However, information from those sources suggest that the incremental cost of manufacturing or importing such products would total hundreds of millions of dollars to the private sector in at least some of the first 5 years the mandate is in effect.'' Some of those costs could be passed through to end users, including public entities.

While the additional cost to State, local, and tribal entities could be significant, CBO estimates that those costs would total less than the annual threshold established in the Unfunded Mandate Reform Act in 1995 for intergovernmental mandates.

Now what does that mean? Let me just explain. Just because it doesn't create unfunded mandates on the United States Government doesn't mean it is not going to create a huge amount of unfunded mandates on the private sector. In fact, this would be a large cost for the private sector, even though the advocates for this bill will say there is no unfunded mandates on the government.

To be fair, the industry has challenged these figures that the proponents of this bill have suggested, and most companies will just simply pass their costs along in a highly competitive market. When you look at this bill, the industry is saying that at a maximum the best guess would be almost a 3 percent increase to consumers if and when they need a new faucet valve or fitting. This is not the kind of disparity that we need. We should be able to reconcile these numbers before American jobs are challenged by this bill.

So, Mr. Speaker, there are probably some very worthy reasons to pass this bill, including perhaps stopping bad products produced overseas from entering the stream of U.S. commerce, and we know counterfeit products will be provided. However, and unfortunately, the issues that I have mentioned outweigh the good intentions of this bill that was introduced by Barbara Boxer in California, and I would urge my colleagues to oppose its passage.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

The gentleman will realize, of course, that oftentimes a bill has a wonderful-sounding name on it. And bills sometimes pass here by unanimous consent; and lo and behold, we go back and find there are unintended consequences. I submit to the gentleman that when the Senate passed this, they might have done that under the same auspices. And I suspect if they looked at it carefully, particularly some of the folks over there that I know, they would not have been in unanimous support of this.

Also when you talk about the Plumbing Manufacturers Institute, as you know, lots of times when people are quoted down here, there are sometimes, and I'm not saying this is always true, but sometimes there is vested interest in an issue. We see sometimes on the floor some people are proponents of an issue, and lo and behold there is some perhaps indirect, discrete, perhaps some vested interest. I have not seen the Plumbing Manufacturers Institute letters, I am not familiar with that, but I suspect I could find a letter on this side that would refute the Plumbing Manufacturers Institute. In fact, we have many people who have pointed out to us that this is going to increase cost.

So your other argument that people will not react, I have seen people react, particularly young families who perhaps think that there might be lead in the water with their infants, and they might overreact. And what happens when new detection levels are achieved?

So I would say to my friend that we have here a clear case of a difference of opinion. Here we are in 2010 before the Christmas holidays, and we are still talking about something that I think for the most part even you admitted it, a lot of the States are complying and are underneath the requirement. So if that is true, why do we need the bill? You are even making my argument of why do we need this bill that would have unintended consequences when you admit yourself that the States now are underneath the requirement.

I think all of us do not want to have lead in our water. All of us believe that there is some reason for Congress to get involved and to make sure that States comply to Federal preemption and that we also continue to monitor this and see what the latest detection levels are.

But I submit I have been in Congress a number of years, just as you have, and we have specified again and again requirements to not have lead in our water. So I think at this point this bill is probably an overstep, an overreach. And taking your own comment that a lot of the States are underneath the requirement, I'm not sure that we need the bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Let me first of all say, when you are quoting conservatives, the former chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, Ranking Member Joe Barton, is against this bill. So when you talk about who is the spokesman in the House, Joe Barton on Energy and Commerce is the spokesman. You serve on Energy and Commerce, so you obviously would respect his opinion.

Also, I would say to my colleague, we are not a subcommittee of the Senate. We are an independent body. So as much as I respect your voicing accommodation to the Senate frequently here, I submit that the House of Representatives is a totally different body and represents closer to the people, the people who go to Lowe's, the people who go to the hardware stores, and the people who don't want to have over- regulation and are trying to create jobs in this economy.

You keep mentioning how the Senate overwhelmingly supports this bill. I would say rhetorically to you: Did you support the tax cuts last night? Did you support the tax cut extension? A lot of people on the majority did not; yet in the Senate, it was overwhelmingly supported. So oftentimes there is a different approach in the Senate than in the House.

And I suspect if you get elected every 6 years as opposed to every 2 years, you are going to have a little more close relationship with your constituents. You will do town meetings. You will do telephone town meetings. Whereas if you are a U.S. Senator, perhaps you have a large State, you will be doing it through the media. But if you are there in a town meeting when somebody comes up to you face to face and says, Stearns, why are you going to put this new requirement in? I thought we had the proper levels already in place, and why are you stipulating more regulation?

And so I go back again to your statement that basically this is a case where the States are underneath the requirement. Going by your own statement, I think you have summed up my argument that the bill is not needed.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

At that point, that was not the bill that Barbara Boxer introduced in the Senate. That was a bill that was instituted and created in the House.

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

This debate has probably gone on too long for this. I will wrap up and just say to my colleagues that at the point that Mr. Barton had an understanding with Mr. Waxman, it was under different understandings for the funding of the bill, the science of the bill, and the labor provisions. These things have since changed.

As you know, if it was the same bill, it would come back under a House bill number, but it is coming back as a Senate bill that was introduced by Barbara Boxer. So, as you would realize, this is not the same bill; otherwise, what Mr. Barton agreed upon with Mr. Waxman, that would be the bill that we would be voting on. As you know, this is not the bill. This is a different bill.

I urge my colleagues, with that, to vote against the bill, and I yield back the balance of my time so we can move on to other important bills.

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

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

I think the gentleman did an excellent job. I obviously support this bill. We support it on this side. I think the gentleman said everything, but we are going to also hear from the principal cosponsor, Lee Terry from Nebraska, who has worked with you. I am told you folks have worked together for almost 8 years. So this is a very significant accomplishment.

I would defend the National Association of Broadcasters because during this process they did have some very technical concerns. I understand now they are supporting it. The new concessions that they brought out I think were helpful, although I am sorry it took so long to bring it together.

It permits any citizen to complain to the FCC that a low power radio station is causing interference to any full power radio station and requires the FCC to shut down the station within 1 business day.

It requires a low power FM station to seek a waiver from the FCC to use the most modern and efficient engineering methods to find spectrum for their station.

It mandates that a full power station that wants to relocate will be able to knock a low power radio station off the air, but permits the FCC to use waivers and other means to find spectrum for displaced low power FM stations.

I say that only because there are businesses that have in place broadcast spectrum that are operating, have operated for many years, and their concern was that the churches, the community centers, the schools and universities and their low power stations might interfere. I think that that was a legitimate concern. I am glad that the National Association of Broadcasters has now conceded these and worked them out.

Obviously, I think any of us in this body would agree that it is a very important part of democracy to have some of these, shall we say, eclectic type of stations that offer, as you say, church music and church services and hip-hop music. They are tailored in a special way, plus they are available for emergency services. So I commend you and Mr. Lee Terry, who is going to speak shortly, on this.

Basically the legislation expands the opportunity for, as we say, all of these groups to the 116 million Americans in the top 50 radio markets in the country who thus far have been excluded. It accomplishes this by returning the authority to the FCC for licensing decisions related to low power FM stations.

Major features of the bill, which is very similar to the bill that passed the House last year, are that it fully protects full power stations from interference by new low power radio stations. It responds to the concerns of the NPR and the NAB and protects reading for the blind services. The Senate bill added a requirement that the FCC conduct a study on the economic impact of low power FM stations. So this is all part of the process.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am going to yield to the distinguished gentleman from Nebraska, who also has been the principal author of this bill and worked again tirelessly for 8 years. I would say to my friend on the other side, AKOZ, is that the station that I should listen to for this?

With that, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Terry).

Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers. I think the gentleman has pointed out this is a bipartisan bill. It took awhile. The National Association of Broadcasters are now supporting this, it doesn't cost any money, so I urge its adoption.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

I rise in support of S. 30, the Truth in Caller ID Act of 2009, which addresses an issue that Mr. Barton and Mr. Engel and the Energy and Commerce Committee have been working on since the 109th Congress. In fact, back in April of this year, the House passed our version, H.R. 1258. The legislation protects consumers by prohibiting the deceptive practice of manipulating caller ID information, a practice known as caller ID spoofing.

Everyone is now familiar with the caller ID product that provides to a consumer the name and number of who is placing an incoming call. Madam Speaker, unfortunately, caller ID spoofing is yet another tool available to criminals to hijack the identity of consumers.

As with other scams, the Internet is making caller ID spoofing even easier today. There are Web sites that offer subscribers, for a nominal fee, a simple Web interface to caller ID spoofing systems that lets them appear to be calling from any number they so choose. Some of these Web services have boasted that they do not maintain logs and fail to provide any contact information. Some even offer voice scrambling services to further the deception of the consumer.

The FCC has investigated this spoofing problem, but currently there is no prohibition against manipulating caller ID information with the intent to harm others. Today's bill remedies this problem.

This bill specifically prohibits knowingly sending misleading or inaccurate caller ID information with the intent to defraud, cause harm, or wrongfully obtain anything of value. Deception with intent is our target. We drafted and amended the language carefully to ensure that we only prohibit those practices intending to do harm.

There are sometimes legitimate reasons why someone may need to manipulate caller ID. For example, domestic violence shelters often alter their caller ID information to simply protect the safety of victims of violence. Furthermore, a wide array of legitimate uses of caller ID management technologies exists today, and this bill protects those legitimate business practices.

For example, caller ID management services provide a local presence for teleservices and collection companies. These calling services companies are regulated by the Federal Trade Commission and Federal Communications Commission, which require commercial callers to project a caller ID that can be called back. This bill is not intended to target lawful practices protecting people from harm or serving a legitimate business interest.

My colleagues, this is a good piece of bipartisan consumer protection legislation. And while I normally hesitate to take the Senate's work product without some kind of amendment on our side, I want to thank my friends on both sides of the Capitol, on both sides of the aisle here in the House of Representatives, including the many chairmen over the years, including Mr. Barton, Mr. Dingell, Mr. Waxman, Mr. Markey, and Mr. Boucher, as well as Mr. Upton, who was also chairman of this subcommittee. I also want to thank this Congress' lead sponsor and hardworking member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, my good friend, Eliot Engel from New York.

I support this legislation.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Tim Murphy), the distinguished Member who also has been active in this, in fact has had a separate bill, so he was sort of a forerunner on this issue.

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, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I just would echo the comments of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) about Mr. Boucher. Having worked with Mr. Boucher, he and I have cosponsored many bills across the spectrum. Recently, obviously, we worked on privacy together. And also, we tried to hammer out some kind of compromise on net neutrality. Net neutrality was difficult because the FCC was attempting to move it to title II. We finally got them to stop that. In fact, the court stopped them. Again, Mr. Boucher and I met with the stakeholders across the board to try and see if there was some compromise. We both agreed it should be under the jurisdiction of the Congress and not the FCC acting unilaterally, as it appears they are going to do on December 21 when they vote for net neutrality, which I am against. But I have to admire Mr. Boucher's perseverance, his stick-to-it-ness, whether it is trying to reach compromise on legislation, or his reach-out to stakeholders. For example, on the privacy, he had a comment period on his privacy bill that I cosponsored, which is unusual around here. A lot of times we say we don't have an opportunity to even read the bills before they are voted on, but in fact, under Mr. Boucher's leadership as chairman of the Telecommunications Subcommittee, he took his bill and offered it as a draft to get stakeholders' comments. That is a credit to his leadership.

As Mr. Barton pointed out, we are going to miss him. He provides strong, competent leadership, and we wish him well and thank him for his service.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, the Treasury Department announced the end of the TARP on October 3, 2010. Now, it may have marked the end of the Treasury Department's authority to initiate new investments under the Troubled Asset Relief Program, but in reality, TARP is not dead. American taxpayers still face a daunting economic recovery, with the Federal Reserve now downgrading their economic outlook for the United States economy and predicting over 9 percent unemployment through the end of next year as it simultaneously engages in a dangerous quantitative easing plan--a monetary policy used to increase the money supply by simply buying up government securities--that could further damage our financial recovery.

Mr. Speaker, let's start with the troubling news about the TARP program. According to Neil Barofsky, the Special Inspector General of the TARP, which is called SIGTARP, the taxpayer-funded bailout program ``remains very much alive.'' In fact, Mr. Barofsky's report states, ``As of October 3, $178.4 billion in TARP funds were still outstanding, and although no new TARP obligations can be made, money already obligated to existing programs may still be expended.''

Furthermore, $211.3 million in Capital Purchase Program dividends remain outstanding and unpaid. This is money that is owed to the taxpayers.

SIGTARP's November report also criticized Treasury's TARP program for failing to save homeowners from foreclosure. Out of the 1.7 million American homes that have been foreclosed on since January 2009, TARP has only supported a little over 200,000 permanent--now that's less than 12 percent--mortgage modifications.

Disturbingly, SIGTARP's latest report also indicates that Treasury concealed $40 billion in taxpayer losses on the AIG bailout by changing its valuation methods. Our United States Treasury is now saying taxpayers will only lose $5 billion on AIG, when it previously stated taxpayers would lose $45 billion.

Mr. Speaker, the Treasury Department seems inclined to paint an artificial picture of taxpayers' losses and clearly shows the Obama administration isn't being straightforward about the true cost of the taxpayer-funded TARP program.

The monetary policies coming out of the Fed are also troublesome. On November 3, the Fed announced that it will purchase $600 billion in government debt (treasuries), over the next 8 months, initiating a second round of quantitative easing. You may recall that in 2008 the Fed engaged in this same kind of quantitative easing, spending around $1.7 trillion to take bonds off the hands of banks.

Quantitative easing is a dangerous gamble, and in many ways is akin to the creation of simply another TARP program, but without congressional approval and without transparency for American taxpayers. With this QE2, this second round of quantitative easing, our Nation's central bank will become the largest holder of the national debt in the entire world. The Fed already holds $834 billion of treasuries, and is on pace to have over $1 trillion in treasuries by August 2011. That's more than China, Japan, or any other foreign creditor.

The printing of new money as a way to deal with our economic issues is just as worrisome and misguided as the creation of the TARP program. The Fed's QE2 plan could weaken the dollar further and lead to trade disputes with other countries. It could lead bond traders to believe that inflation will run wild. And they could then themselves derail the Fed's efforts by pushing rates even higher. It could also create bubbles as hedge funds and other speculators borrow cheaply and make even bigger bets on stocks and commodities.

The true costs of TARP are incalculable, as are the dangerous monetary policies the Fed is pursuing. Even in the improbable event that the TARP program will recover all of its funds, American taxpayers will continue to bear the costs of the Federal Government's demonstration that certain financial institutions are just ``too big to fail''. And likewise, the costs to the economy of the Fed's second round of quantitative easing will be unknown, as the Fed continues to operate behind a veil of secrecy. The American taxpayers are only now just finding out the Fed spent over $3.3 trillion in ``emergency programs'', propping up banks and financial institutions all over the world.

Mr. Speaker, the incoming new Republican majority, which the American people resoundingly voted in on November 2, is poised to take control of our disastrous economic situation by dramatically reducing Federal spending and creating jobs through the elimination of this economic uncertainty that exists today and by implementing pro-business policies. We are committed to reducing the costs of government and the proliferation of burdensome regulations, and we will usher in an era of growth that benefits all Americans.

Mr. Speaker, we are 8 months into the passage of the more than 2,000-page health care bill, and already we are beginning to see some of the problems that the new health care law brings with it.

When Congress passed the massive health care bill, I said that it would lead to millions of Americans losing their current health care plan. I was so concerned about this happening that I offered an amendment to the bill in the Energy and Commerce Committee markup and at the Rules Committee to protect people's health care plans. It was a very simple amendment. It stated, ``Nothing in this act shall be construed to prevent or limit individuals from keeping their current health coverage.'' This amendment was voted down in committee, and the Rules Committee prevented it from being offered on the House floor during debate on the health care bill.

Fast forward now 6 months, and the Department of Health and Human Services has just issued the rules that govern grandfathered health care plans. These are health plans that existed before the passage of the ObamaCare and could continue to operate as they have without all the new costly mandates and regulation that the health czar will impose.

Unfortunately, the rule governing grandfathered health plans is so restrictive that most of the current health plans will not qualify. Businesses will be forced to buy new health plans under the control of the Federal health czar.

How many will lose their current health plan? Up to 80 percent of small businesses will be forced to buy new ObamaCare-approved health care plans. Up to 64 percent of large businesses health plans will be forced to buy the new ObamaCare approved health plans.

Now, you may wonder, where do I get these numbers? It's in the regulations. HHS' regulation on grandfathered health plans clearly states that up to 80 percent of small businesses and up to 64 percent of large businesses will simply lose their current plans. They admit that it will force people out of their current health plans.

Health care reform should be about giving consumers more options, more choices, not forcing them out of the plans they currently enjoy.

Yet despite hurting small businesses for having health plans that do meet the high standards set by HHS, just this month the Obama administration recently gave waivers to organization health plans that do not meet the requirements of the health care plan law. These plans failed to meet the law's definition of minimal coverage.

However, the Obama administration provided waivers to up to over 100 organizations, many of them unions, who offered limited benefits health care plans that do not comply with the law. If the law is good, why do you need to provide exemptions from it?

Another problem with ObamaCare is it will require all business-to- business transactions over $600 annually to file a 1099 IRS form. This is a massive burden on small businesses. They will be forced--this will force millions of small businesses to track all their expenditures by vendors and require small businesses to obtain taxpayer information numbers from everyone they do business with.

So, has Congress tried to fix this problem? No. In fact, Democrats have taken it a step further. The recently passed Small Business Act included a provision that would expand the 1099 reporting requirement even further to included expenditures on your rental property. This means that if you spend more than $600 over the course of a year with a handyman for repairs or improvement, you'll need to file a 1099 form.

Imagine, if you work as a general contractor and regularly buy building materials from a hardware store, you'll need to issue the store a 1099 form. If you are a trucker and regularly buy gasoline from the same gas station, you'll need to issue that gas station a 1099 form.

It is simply wrong to require additional burdens on small businesses. Small businesses represent 99 percent of all employment firms. Small businesses employ just over half of all private sector employees and 44 percent of total U.S. private sector payroll. Small businesses have generated 64 percent of the new net jobs over the past 15 years.

Yet despite a massive recession and double digit unemployment, the administration is finding new ways to hurt small businesses and prevent job growth.

Mr. Speaker, the new Republican majority will work to create jobs and not add more regulations and burdensome paperwork and, in fact, rescind these mandates.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to commemorate Exactech's 25th anniversary. I also want to recognize Exactech for being a leader in the business community and for its commitment to improving the lives of individuals by helping them to maintain their activity and independence.

Exactech develops, manufactures and distributes orthopedic implants, related surgical instrumentation and biologic services to hospitals and physicians for use in the repair of bone and joints that have been damaged due to injury or disease, such as arthritis.

Today, more than 46 million Americans are living with some type of arthritis. For a quarter of a century, orthopedic surgeons have counted on Exactech, for innovations that allow them to make their patients more mobile.

With its headquarters in Gainesville, Florida, in my congressional district, Exactech is one of Florida's fastest-growing companies with more than 500 employees and distributing products throughout the U.S. and in more than 35 countries around the world. Its products meet the most stringent quality requirements and have demonstrated excellent long-term clinical results.

Exactech attributes its success to a strong corporate culture, where the values of integrity, compassion, teamwork, excellence and innovation guide each employee's daily decisions. After 25 years of company development, the dedication to patient quality care remains unchanged.

Please join me in honoring Exactech on their silver anniversary and hoping for another 25 strong years.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor a great Floridian, an internationally recognized leader in the equestrian world, founder of the Florida Carriage Museum, and the president of the Equine Heritage Institute--Ms. Gloria Austin of Weirsdale, Florida.

Ms. Austin has been justifiably credited with being responsible for educating, celebrating and preserving the history of the horse and its role in shaping world civilization and changing lives through the creation of the Florida Carriage Museum and Equine Heritage Institute.

Ms. Austin brings to her passion for all things equine an astute understanding of how beneficial involvement with horses can be to those who have development and/or physical disabilities. She has a long and storied history of actively advocating for this needy population with both financial and therapeutic support.

She has recently expanded her support into the area of providing assistance to include helping physically and mentally challenged service veterans. Her willingness to give back to those who have given so much has been justifiably lauded by numerous veterans groups as commendable.

I would be remiss if I did not acknowledge that Ms. Austin has been involved with the equine world for almost 7 decades. I have stated many of her outstanding accomplishments, but perhaps her greatest legacy to equestrian society will through her establishment of meaningful educational programs offered in the partnership with leading collegiate educational institutions, and the creation of the highly acclaimed Florida Carriage Museum. These attributes will have a lasting impact well beyond the lifespan of Ms. Austin.

Madam Speaker, please join me in honoring this outstanding leader and benefactor for her humanitarian accomplishments in the equestrian world.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished ranking member, and I also thank Chairman Filner for allowing this bill to come to the floor.

My colleagues, today unemployment continues to be record high, particularly in my congressional district. In

my hometown, it is 14.5 percent, and the unemployment rate in the veterans community is even higher. It is higher than I think many of us can ever remember.

So my bill, H.R. 3685, would simply require the Department of Veterans Affairs to have a drop-down menu entitled ``Veterans Employment'' on its home page. This drop menu would have links to VetSuccess, USA Jobs, Job Central and other appropriate employment Web sites. It also would require the Secretary of VA to advertise and promote the VetSuccess Web site and require direct outreach to veterans of Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom.

This bill comes out of many discussions I have had with the VA over the past couple of years. And while the VA has addressed some of my concerns, they continue to miss what I believe is the underlying reason for the bill--consumer service and usability.

The VA should have a clear link that will take veterans to a listing of jobs based simply on zip code. Today, if you're a veteran and you're looking for a job, whether it is in the private sector or within the United States Government, it can be a daunting task. The VA should not make it harder to use their job searching services to help find a job, but make it easier.

For example, when you go to the VA home page under quick links, under ``Federal Jobs for Veterans,'' this is close to what I want, but private sector jobs are not listed since it only lists Federal jobs and completely omits private sector jobs. To find private sector jobs on this site, you have to click on the Veteran Service drop-down menu and navigate 28 possible links and somehow know that VetSuccess is the proper link while you're doing all these 28 links. There's no simple link for Veteran Employment or Veteran Jobs. Instead, you need to know that the VetSuccess program is what you're looking for.

If you're unfamiliar with veterans programs, you may not know that VetSuccess is the web portal for private sector jobs. The title, VetSuccess, isn't even clear in this title. VetSuccess might be the link for successful navigation of the Veterans Affairs bureaucracy. The title should clearly mention jobs or employment to make it easier for our veterans.

Then, my colleagues, once you get to the VetSuccess web page, you must register to look up jobs. You can't just type in your zip code and get a list of jobs. My office had to fill out an excessively long form and then monitor our spam filter to catch the authentication e-mail verifying that we signed up. And then we waited for a follow-up e-mail to get our password to finally access the VetSuccess job portal. Can you imagine the frustration that must occur?

This is too high a hurdle for something so simple as a job listing for veterans. You should be able to simply go to this one site, type your zip code in, and simply get a list of the job listings. When I was finally able to type in my zip code and found jobs in my hometown of Ocala, Florida, I got a list of about 60 jobs, mostly menial jobs driving as a chauffeur and lawn care jobs. But when I went to Monster.com, the private side, I don't need to register to do a quick lookup for the 240 jobs that were listed within 20 miles of my hometown. VetSuccess needs to be more like Monster.com--immediate access to job listings by zip code without hiding behind vague titles and a crowded drop menu with excessive registration requirement.

The purpose of my bill, my colleagues, is to get the VA thinking about how they should properly address the need for veterans, provide good customer service, and lower the barriers to get this information. This type of employment information should be easily accessible in plain, simple language on the VA's home page and the VetSuccess program should provide these job listings without making veterans jump through so many hoops.

So, with that in mind, Mr. Buyer, I want to thank you and thank Mr. Filner, the chairman, for allowing this bill to come forward. I hope my colleagues will vote in the affirmative.

Today, unemployment continues to be a record high. In the State of Florida the unemployment rate is over 10 percent. In my hometown of Ocala, it is over 14 percent. It can be a daunting task finding a job for a civilian. It can be even harder to find a job if you are a Guard or Reservist returning from deployment or a veteran just exiting the service. The unemployment rate in the veteran's community is higher than at any time that I remember.

The VA has created a job portal to help veterans develop their resume and hunt for jobs. Unfortunately, like many government run programs, they built a program without thinking about the customer, our veterans.

My bill, HR 3685, would require that the Department of Veterans Affairs would have a drop-down menu titled ``Veterans Employment'' on its homepage. This drop menu would have links to VetSuccess, USA Jobs, Job Central and other appropriate employment websites. It would also require the Secretary of VA to advertise and promote the VetSuccess website and require direct outreach to veterans of Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom.

This bill comes out of discussions I had with the VA over the past couple of years and while the VA has addressed some of my concerns, they continue to miss the underlying reason for my bill: customer service and usability. The VA should have a clear link that will take veterans to a listing of jobs based on zip code.

Today, if you are a veteran and are looking for a job, whether it is in the private sector or within the government, it can be a difficult task. The VA should not make it harder to use their job searching services to help find a job.

For example, when you go to the VA homepage under quick links there is ``Federal Jobs for Veterans.'' This is close to what I want, but private sector jobs are not listed since it only lists federal jobs. To find private sector jobs, you have to click on the Veteran Service dropdown menu and navigate 28 possible links and somehow know that VetSuccess is the proper link.

There is no simple link for Veteran Employment or Veteran Jobs. Instead you need to know that the VetSuccess program is what you're looking for. If you're unfamiliar with veteran programs, you may not know that VetSuccess is the web portal for private sector jobs. The title, VetSuccess, isn't clear. VetSuccess might be the link for successful navigation of the VA bureaucracy. The title should clearly mention jobs or employment.

Then, once you get to the VetSuccess webpage you must register to look up jobs. You can't just type in your zip code and get a list of jobs. My office had to fill out an excessively long form, and then monitor our spam filter to catch the authentication e-mail verifying that we signed up and then we waited for a follow up e-mail to get our password to finally access the VetSuccess job portal.

This is too high a hurdle for something so simple as a job listing for veterans. You should be able to go to this site, type your zip code and get the job listings. When I was finally able to type in my zip code and found jobs in my hometown of Ocala, I got a list of 64 jobs, mostly menial, Driving and Lawncare jobs.

When I go to Monster.com, I don't need to register to do a quick lookup for the 237 jobs listed within 20 miles of Ocala. VetSuccess needs to be more like Monster: immediate access to job listings by zip code without hiding behind vague titles in a crowded drop menu with excessive registration requirements.

The purpose of my bill is to get the VA thinking about how they should properly address the needs of Veterans, provide good customer service and lower the barriers to information. This type of employment information should be easily accessible in plan language on the VA's homepage and the VetSuccess program should provide these job listings without making veterans jump through more hoops.

A March 13, 2010 Washington Post article stated that 21.1 percent of veterans age 18-24 are unemployed in this nation. These numbers are far above the standard unemployment rate for the nation or for individuals of similar ages. Many of these veterans are members of the National Guard and reserves who have deployed multiple times. In 2008, the unemployment rate among veterans in that age group was 14 percent, lower than today's veteran unemployment but still above the national average.

According to the Bureau of Labor & Statistics March 2010 report, the average unemployment rate for veterans over all eras is 8.1 percent. The unemployment rate for all veterans in 2009 was 10.2 percent.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Louisiana for yielding me this time.

Obviously as a cosponsor in working with Mr. Markey, this is a very important bill. Mr. Speaker, this is bipartisanship in its essence. We have seen a lot of complaints both in the press and from the public about Members of Congress not getting together. Here you have a gentleman from Massachusetts and a gentleman from Florida working to cosponsor and to pass this bill. It has overwhelming support by Members here in the House. I look forward to its passage, and I commend the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) for what he is doing. We are cochairs and cofounders. We cofounded the Cystic Fibrosis Caucus some time ago. We are working, doing the Lord's work here.

Mr. Speaker, a lot of what has been said is also in my speech, and I don't necessarily want to reiterate it again. Simply put, this bill improves access to clinical trials. It will allow people with rare diseases like cystic fibrosis to participate in clinical trials that provide nominal compensation without, and this is the key part, without the risk of losing their health coverage. Senator Wyden sponsored the bill S. 1674, and Mr. Markey and I sponsored H.R. 2866.

I think all of us realize clinical trials are an essential part of the process as researchers develop new treatments for diseases. When testing treatments for rare diseases in particular, researchers need a significant percent of the patient population for each disease to participate in the various trials. Because of this, they often struggle to recruit patients. They just can't find enough.

For example, let's go to the University of Alabama at Birmingham. It houses one of the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation's largest CF care centers with over 450 patients. The University of Alabama at Birmingham conducts numerous clinical trials on promising new treatments for CF patients. But when they began looking for CF patients to participate in trials for a new drug that some believe would be a game changer in the treatment of CF, they were only able to find four patients who met the trial protocol criteria. With these small numbers, the integrity of the study can be compromised if patients are not enrolled promptly. Enrollment becomes further compromised when patients choose to not participate because their Medicaid and SSI eligibility becomes at stake.

We have come a long way in treating CF. In the 1950s, children with CF usually didn't last past the age of kindergarten. Now, with all of the advances in medical research, we can proudly say that CF patients live much longer and have more productive lives, with the median age of 37. This is thanks in part to clinical trials which have brought effective new drug therapies to those with cystic fibrosis.

So in the next 2 to 3 years, we will need more than 7,000 CF patients to participate in clinical drug trials. Three thousand CF patients participated in trials last year. The bill we have here on the floor will help new therapies move quickly from the laboratory into the hands of the patients who need them and will reduce the administrative cost of disenrolling a beneficiary from SSI and Medicaid one month and reenrolling the beneficiary the very next month.

Importantly, the Congressional Budget Office has determined that this bill has very low real cost to the Federal Government, if none. So I ask my colleagues to join me in passage of this bill. As pointed out, we have over 120 cosponsors. The Association of Clinical Research Organizations has endorsed it, the Biotechnology Industry Organization, Cystic Fibrosis Foundation, Genetic Alliance, National Health Council, the National Organization of Rare Disorders, PhRMA, and Research!America.

Passage of this bill is a long time in coming. It will improve Americans' lives. As pointed out, it has no real cost. It is a simple fix to a current law that will save lives today. I urge its passage.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of S. 1674--the Improving Access to Clinical Trials Act, or the I-ACT.

As the lead Republican sponsor of the original House version of this bill, H.R. 2866, I am so pleased we are taking up the companion to our bill that has already passed the Senate under unanimous consent. Passage of this bill in the House today will allow this important clinical trials legislation to be signed into law.

I am a proud co-chair and founder of the Congressional Cystic Fibrosis Caucus, along with my friend and colleague from Massachusetts, Mr. Ed Markey. Through our work with the CF Caucus and the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation, we discovered that low income patients with rare diseases, such as cystic fibrosis, face a serious barrier to taking part in potentially lifesaving clinical trials, as the modest fee they receive for participating in a trial counts toward their eligibility for public health benefits such as Supplemental Security Income, SSI, and Medicaid. This actually forces patients to choose between receiving essential health benefits and the chance to participate in a clinical trial that could improve their condition. This is cruel choice no one should have to make.

Today there are approximately 30,000 people living in the U.S. with cystic fibrosis, and unfortunately almost half of the CF population receives public benefits, such as SSI and Medicaid. However, there are also over 30 new drug therapies and treatments for CF in the pipeline, more than in the entire history of CF research, that can improve the health and lives of CF patients and potentially lead us to a cure. Unfortunately, however, because CF is a rare disease, there just aren't enough CF patients who can participate in clinical trials because they are afraid of losing their public health benefits.

Our bill, the Improving Access to Clinical Trials Act, S.1674/H.R. 2866, will simply allow people with rare diseases like cystic fibrosis to participate in clinical trials that provide nominal compensation without the risk of losing their health care coverage.

Mr. Speaker, clinical trials are an essential part of the process as researchers develop treatments for diseases. When testing treatments for rare diseases in particular, researchers need a significant percent of the patient population for each disease to participate in these trials. And because of this, they often struggle to recruit enough participants.

For example, the University of Alabama at Birmingham houses one of the Cystic Fibrosis

Foundation's largest CF care centers with over 450 patients. UAB conducts numerous clinical trials on promising new treatments for CF patients, but when they began looking for CF patients to participate in a clinical trial for a new drug that some believe could be a game changer in the treatment of CF, they were only able to find 4 patients who met the trial protocol criteria. With these small numbers, the integrity of the study can be compromised if patients are not enrolled promptly. Enrollment becomes further compromised when patients choose to not participate because their SSI and Medicaid eligibility is at stake.

Mr. Speaker, we have come a long in treating CF. In the 1950's, children with CF usually didn't live past the age of kindergarten. Now, with all the advances in medical research, we can proudly say that CF patients live much longer and more productive lives, with a median age of 37. This is thanks in part to clinical trials that have brought effective new drug therapies to those with cystic fibrosis.

In the next 2-3 years, we will need more than 7,000 CF patients to participate in clinical drug trials. Three thousand CF patients participated in trials last year.

The I-ACT will help new therapies move quickly from the laboratory into the hands of the patients who need them and will also actually reduce the administrative costs of disenrolling a beneficiary from SSI and Medicaid one month and re-enrolling the beneficiary the next month. Importantly, the Congressional Budget Office has also determined that S. 1674 has no real costs to the Federal Government.

I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting S.1674--the Improving Access to Clinical Trials Act. The House version of this legislation enjoys strong bipartisan support, with 141 bipartisan cosponsors. And the Senate bill passed under unanimous consent on August 5, 2010.

Our bill has also been endorsed by over 120 organizations including: the Association of Clinical Research Organizations, the Biotechnology Industry Organization, the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation, Genetic Alliance, National Health Council, the National Organization of Rare Disorders, NORD, PhRMA, and Research!America.

Passage of this bill today will go a long way toward improving the lives of Americans with rare diseases, and to bringing us even closer to a cure for rare diseases. This legislation also has no real costs to the Federal Government. It's a simple fix to current law that will save lives, and I am proud to support this bill and be its lead Republican sponsor in the House.