Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the remarkable life of Wes Skiles. Wes was a world-renowned photojournalist and underwater photographer. His work appeared in numerous publications, most notably, National Geographic.

Wes, who was a resident of a resident of High Springs, Florida in my congressional district, died July 21 off the east coast of Florida. He was 52 years old. Wes died doing what he loved most; exploring the ocean and providing vivid pictures of unusual places. At the time of his death he was filming a project on the behavior of high-speed fish near the Boynton Beach Inlet.

Wes's love of the ocean was a constant throughout his life. As a child growing up in Jacksonville, Wes would often skip school to go surfing and became a certified scuba diver at age 13. He began taking photographs of his underwater explorations off the north Florida coast to share with friends and family. He was hooked and soon his hobby became his profession. He became a hands-on expert on underwater caves and was known as Florida's Jacques Cousteau.

Wes spent 27 years as a photojournalist and was among the first people to set foot on the largest iceberg in Antarctica. He loved adventure. According to a media report, one time, off the coast of South Africa, a shark jammed itself into Wes's protective cage. Wes beat the creature back with his heavy, waterproof camera, taking pictures throughout the episode, and had close-up photos of the great white's jagged teeth as a token of his survival.

Wes founded Karst Productions, a photography and cinematography company that filmed, produced and directed dozens of programs for television, including segments for PBS, Imax and the Discovery Channel.

Wes Skiles lived a passionate life full of adventure and excitement. Although he was taken from us too soon, his work will carry on for many years to come. Our thoughts go out to his wife of 29 years, Terri, and their two children, Nathan and Tessa.

Let me say to my friends on this side of the aisle and to the people from New York City and from New York: Can anyone come down to this House floor and question this spending without being attacked on their character?

Mr. Speaker, there is no strategy or tactics we've developed here. We are just saying it's the CBO. The CBO has scored this at $11 billion. They said it's a template for future types of programs. They used the word ``entitlement.'' It creates another mandatory program. This is not the Republicans talking. This is the CBO. For you to come down here and question anybody who questions spending in this country of taxpayers' money and then to disparage our character is wrong.

It is ironic that the President has created a fiscal commission to look at debt spending and entitlements. Yet Congress is pushing ahead with yet another spending program. We can talk about this intelligently without your emotionalizing this issue. But Mr. Speaker, we don't need to create this entitlement. We should do a 5-year program with the standard reauthorization and appropriation process.

Why do you object to the standard appropriation process? It is a proper method for fiscal discipline. If we are to pay for this entitlement, it should also come by reducing the waste and fraud in this country. We are on your side. Show us how to eliminate waste and fraud, and we will pay for it through that.

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

Let me also, at this point, thank Mr. Markey for his eloquent remarks. But also, he is steadfast in pushing this bill. He has been working on this bill for almost 4 years.

Oftentimes, when you come to the floor on a suspension like this, many Members do not realize the amount of work that goes into a bill like this. And I know the ranking member before Mr. Markey had talked to us about the possibility of this 2 years ago, 3 years ago, 4 years ago, so I'm glad it's culminated as it is today, 20 years after the anniversary of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

And obviously, I'd also like to compliment the gentleman from Rhode Island for being in the chair. It's altogether appropriate, historic and important.

I think many of us have come out of the House floor and walked into the halls of Congress and saw veterans in wheelchairs. We've seen men and women without legs. We've seen men and women without arms, hands, some of them practically blind. Shouldn't they have the opportunity to come back from Afghanistan and Iraq and have the full benefits of the electronic media? Before this bill passed, they might not have had the complete opportunity, but now, with this bill they will.

So I rise in strong support of H.R. 3101, the Twenty-First Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act. We know there's all kinds of new devices coming on. Mr. Markey mentioned the iPad.

And as I mentioned, it's important that people with disabilities are not left behind, have access and are afforded the opportunity to enjoy this wide variety of technology. And in many cases, through the Internet it's going to be life saving, through tele-medicine and from other ways that we can help the handicapped, the people that are at home through emergency calls, and, ultimately, the D spectrum, when we have that kind of spectrum set aside just for safety and security.

Whenever you do a bill like this, it gets complicated, because lots of people want to use a lot of mandates for the United States Government to mandate through the FCC. But I think, as Mr. Markey pointed out with the iPad, oftentimes industry can come to the front and voluntarily do it.

We, in the United States Congress, if we mandate certain technologies, we attempt to pick winners or losers. The best approach to ensuring accessibility is to establish accessibility goals, but not dictate how to accomplish them. We need to encourage innovation to flourish and, my colleagues, this bill does that.

Now, obviously, all legislation we bring up here is not perfect, and this bill, obviously, needs some additional improvements. Perhaps the FCC can do that. Nevertheless, I think, as Mr. Markey pointed out, through the bipartisan process we have had here, Republicans and Democrats, we achieved a consensus, which is not altogether an everyday occurrence here in Congress.

So I think, in many ways, we can compliment ourselves, both as Democrats and Republicans, that we came together on a very important issue which affects a huge number of manufacturing companies in this United States and throughout the world. We came together in a consensus.

And, of course, I would like to thank Chairman Waxman for doing this, Subcommittee Chairman Boucher from Virginia, Joe Barton, the ranking member from Texas, and my staff, particularly Neil, who worked with the Democrat staff to bring this consensus together. A collaboration of this kind doesn't often happen in such a short amount of time.

My main concern was that the legislation was extremely broad in its original scope, and included unnecessary mandates. Changes that were adopted at the committee markup addressed many of my concerns. Language was added that explicitly states that the relevant section shall not be construed to require every feature and every function of every device or service to be accessible for every disability.

So that the record is clear regarding the intentions that underlie this bill, I want to offer some guidance to the FCC regarding the way it should view several key provisions in this legislation.

First, my colleagues, the bill creates a new achievable standard to guide manufacturers' and service providers' efforts to provide accessibility to the disabled. Under section 255 of the Communications Act, telecommunications services and equipment must be accessible if the provision of accessibility is ``readily achievable.''

As introduced, H.R. 3101 proposed moving to a significantly higher standard under which accessibility would be required unless it imposed an ``undue burden.'' The ``achievable'' standard we adopt today is a compromise, a very simple compromise, very important compromise, between these two positions.

The committee also recognized that it is not necessary for a manufacturer or service provider to make every piece of equipment or service accessible, if it offers or directs such person to functionally equivalent accessible alternatives to the equipment or service in question. This was a source of concern and confusion by many Members, and contention, early in the legislative process. And I'm pleased that this bill we are considering today resolves this issue by adopting clarifying language that makes this point in a clear and unambiguous manner.

Finally, my colleagues, the bill before us also recognizes that advanced communication services and applications may be offered by third parties, and that manufacturers and network operators should not be held responsible for ensuring these third party advanced communication services comply with the act.

Thus, section 2 makes clear that no person is liable for a violation of this Act to the extent that such person transmits, routes or provides intermediate or transient storage for content or communications, or provides an information location tool used to obtain access to content or information. These are the details that make for a sound bill.

As I said previously, this legislation is not perfect, but it is much, much improved due to the hard work of industry and the disability community who came together, and the staff on both sides of the aisle. This legislation, Mr. Speaker, goes a long, long way to ensuring that people with disabilities can utilize all the new and exciting products, services and applications in the years ahead. I urge its passage.

And for those veterans coming home, this will ensure that you have access to those new financial programs, those new video devices, those new devices that are going to make your life a lot easier.

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

Mr. Speaker, I just want to speak briefly and sort of follow up with the gentleman from Massachusetts when he displayed in his hand the iPad.

I think it's a good example of what Apple has done with the iPad and how they voluntarily went about to help the people who are impaired by sight and hearing. They took the necessary steps to make certain that their product and their applications are acceptable to all people.

For example, when you look at the iPad, all of us think it's sort of, in a way, revolutionary. It gives you, at a touch of the fingers, an opportunity to go through and look at newspapers and magazines, to go on the Internet, to check your email effortlessly. It's sort of using technology that's breakthrough.

Is it possible that this breakthrough technology could help people who are disabled? Absolutely.

For example, Mr. Speaker, the iPad comes with a screen reader, support for playback of the closed caption content, and other innovative universal access features. This was done right out of the box. Apple did this voluntarily. These features make iPad easier to use for people who have vision impairment, are deaf or hard of hearing, or if they have a physical or learning disability. In addition, the iPad includes VoiceOver, a gesture-based screen reader for the blind. Instead of memorizing keyboard commands or pressing tiny arrow keys, you can simply touch the screen to hear a description of the item under your finger, then double-tap, drag, or flip to control the iPad.

VoiceOver speaks 21 languages and works with all of the applications built into the iPad. Let me repeat that. The VoiceOver speaks 21 languages and works with all the applications built into the iPad--a phenomenon. Apple also enables software developers to create applications for iPad that work with VoiceOver.

Furthermore, every iPad can display subtitles and closed captioning for the deaf and hard of hearing when playing movies and podcasts that support it. Movies and podcasts with closed captioning are available on the iTunes Store, and can be downloaded directly to iPad or synced to the iPad using iTunes.

It is important for my colleagues to remember that a company like Apple included these features without any government mandate. This suggests that the broader market could be providing better access to people with disabilities than it does today. This bill will go a long way towards doing that.

The FCC should remember, when they come asking for comments, when they have responses, and they have an advisory committee that's all involved with this, the key for the FCC is for them to be flexible in their response so that industry, like Apple did with the iPad, has the flexibility to develop the most sound and comprehensive ways to help our disabled today.

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

In conclusion, I think, as has been pointed out by Mr. Markey, this is a historic day. Twenty years ago, the Americans with Disabilities Act passed. I voted for it, I supported it. I think many people in my district and many of my friends have children who have disabilities. It's important that these individuals do not feel left out.

I think the eloquent arguments that we had 20 years ago are no less important today, particularly in light of the fact that the veterans that are coming home from Iraq and Afghanistan are coming home with disabilities that will impair them. And they're in their twenties. These are young men and women that want to work. And for many of them, they'd like to go back to their team, but they can't. They must find employment. They must, in many ways, adjust and transition.

How much better will it be if they can use the Internet, if they can use the wireless devices that we have? And not to mention the myriad of new devices that are coming out. How important is this for them? Very important. So, today, I join with Mr. Markey and others to commend him for his hard work here and his effort, and I urge all my colleagues to support this bill.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, when Congress passes a 2,000 plus-page bill, it's not all that surprising to find objectionable items tucked away in the pages. Such is the case with the Dodd-Frank financial reform legislation. This bill creates many new financial regulatory offices for the very same Federal regulators who failed to foresee the financial collapse in 2008.

With this bill, Congress is giving the American people the gift of more bureaucracy with: an Office of Financial Research, a Financial Stability Oversight Council, 20 Offices of Minority and Women Inclusion, a Federal Insurance Office, an Office of Fair Lending and Equal Opportunity, an Office of Investor Advocate and Ombudsman, and a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. It goes on and on with new czars.

Note that the problems with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are not even addressed. Yet these agencies were the cause of this economic crisis. So this bill is nothing more than a stimulus for more government.

Good morning, Mr. Speaker.

With the United States unemployment rate steadily hovering around 10 percent, Americans are continuing to ask, ``Where are the jobs?'' The response to this jobless crisis from congressional Democrats and the Obama administration seems to be focused on higher taxes, increased government spending, and more government mandates and regulation. All of this has led to great uncertainty in the business community, especially among small businesses which employ over half of all private sector employees.

In a recently released letter, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce explains how the current policies of the administration and congressional Democrats are not working. The high spending and high tax agenda has created an atmosphere of uncertainty. As the Chamber's letter correctly states, ``Uncertainty is the enemy of growth, investment, and job creation. Through their legislative and regulatory proposals--some passed, some pending, and others simply talked about--the congressional majority and the administration have injected tremendous uncertainty into the economic decision-making process and business planning. This is why banks are reluctant to lend and why American corporations are sitting on well over a trillion dollars. It is why America's small businesses and entrepreneurs, the engines of innovation and job creation, are starving for capital and are either struggling to survive or simply unable to expand. In the process, we are also eroding our competitive position globally, as other nations take steps to cut taxes, reduce regulations, and restrain the appetites of big government. For all of these reasons, the known and unknown costs that come with expanding operations and adding to payrolls in the United States are simply perceived to be too high.''

As the Chamber's letter highlights, the continued expansion of the Federal Government into all areas of our economy is stunting economic growth and prohibiting private sector job creation. The Democrats' congressional agenda includes one piece of job-killing legislation after another. The new health care law includes thousands of expensive and burdensome mandates and hundreds of billions of dollars in business taxes and penalties. It contains thousands of pages of new regulations to be followed by individuals, employers, health care providers and States.

The House passed climate change bill, the cap and trade bill, would create nearly 1,500 new regulations and mandates and carry a price tag of well over a trillion dollars, according to the Chamber. Furthermore, the Environmental Protection Agency is engaging in an unprecedented level of regulatory action by moving forward with 29 major economic rules and 173 major policy rules.

The list keeps going. The recently passed financial regulatory reform legislation creates 243 new formal rule-makings by 11 different Federal agencies, 47 studies and 74 reports. It is really no wonder American businesses are hesitant to expand and hire.

In addition to the regulatory uncertainty, the Federal Government's appetite for spending needs to be controlled. American families and small businesses are simply making tough choices in this economic climate but Federal spending continues to soar. The Federal Government is spending $31,000 per household, the highest ever, and running up a $1.5 trillion deficit in 2010, the largest deficit since the end of World War II.

Recent yearly budget deficits have reached unprecedented levels, accounting for 11 percent of the GDP. By comparison, the historical average budget deficit is only 2.9 percent of the GDP. In 2008, publicly held debt as a percentage of the GDP was about 21 percent, nearly five points below the post-war average. Under President Obama's budget, this figure would more than double to 90 percent of the GDP by the year 2020. This continued structural debt poses serious economic risks to this country. As the Chamber's letter notes, ``By crowding out available capital for business expansion and eventually triggering increases in interest rates and inflation, rising deficits and debt add to uncertainty, inhibit growth, and smother job creation.''

The way out of this recession and toward job creation is to get Federal spending under control and enact policies that free up capital and encourage businesses to grow. We need to reduce uncertainty and restore confidence in our economy. We cannot do this if the administration and congressional Democrats continue to impose more and more burdensome mandates and increase taxes on job creators. It's time to reduce the unnecessary meddling of the Federal Government and let the American entrepreneurial spirit flourish.

Mr. Speaker, with the U.S. unemployment rate steadily hovering around 10 percent, Americans continue to ask, ``Where are the jobs?'' The answer to this crisis from congressional Democrats and the Obama administration is, higher taxes, increased government spending, and more government regulation.

The passage of ObamaCare, cap-and-trade in the House, and financial regulation has created an atmosphere of tremendous uncertainty, especially among small businesses, which employ over half of all the private sector employees. Uncertainty, as we all know, is the enemy of growth, investment and job creation.

The way out of this recession and towards job creation is enact policies that free up capital, reduce uncertainty, and restore confidence in our economy. We cannot do this if the administration and Congressional Democrats continue to impose costly regulations, higher taxes on job creators, and create uncertainty in the marketplace.

Mr. Speaker, as the owner of the New York Yankees, George Steinbrenner was known for his bravado. But to the people of my district, he was known as a gentleman horse farm owner and community leader. He had a tremendous impact on north central Florida. In 1969, he bought the 850-acre Kinsman Stud Horse Farm in Ocala. He was an active horse breeder and a successful local businessman. He also owned the Pinstripes Ramada Inn in Ocala. In addition, Mr. Speaker, he became one of the largest benefactors in the University of Florida's history. He built the George Steinbrenner Band Hall, and he helped found the large animal and equine programs at the University of Florida veterinary school.

While most of the tributes to George Steinbrenner rightfully focus on his ownership of the New York Yankees, the people of north central Florida feel we have lost a great friend and a good neighbor.

Madam Speaker, I submit the following letter from my good friend Gene Jewett, who shares his thoughts on the phenomena of talent and the recent visit from Paul McCartney who received the Gershwin Award from the Library of Congress.

Dear Friends,

Recently, Sir Paul McCartney visited Washington where he

exhibited his musical prowess for the politically powerful,

initially at the Library of Congress and then at the White

House. In the course of his performance on the first night,

he revealed the process by which he had written one of his

most famous tunes, one where the melody had come to him in a

dream, a refrain that he was fortunate enough to recall. For

days, he

hummed the tune (randomly entitled ``scrambled eggs'') to his

band mates and everyone else in his greater circle of

musicians, all in an attempt to determine whether it was a

product of his own musical software or a reflection of a tune

he had previously heard for which he was serving as a mere

psychic conduit. When he finally accepted the song as his

own, he re-dubbed it ``Yesterday'' and the rest is history.

Over 3000 singers have recorded the song, a number which

marks it as a continuing star in the firmament of pop music.

His story caused me to reflect on the phenomena of talent,

particularly as alluded to by Malcolm Gladwell in his book,

``Outliers.'' In this book, there's a central premise that

suggests that great achievement is derived from spending at

least 10,000 hours honing one's craft. Specifically, it uses

as an example Paul McCartney and the Beatles playing in the

clubs of Hamburg where they purportedly refined their songs.

Notwithstanding the fact that the ``Hamburg'' Beatles played

cover songs which could have encouraged them to write their

original tunes, the more simple truth points to what

McCartney observes in himself as some mystical talent with

which he has been gifted, something for which he has no

explanation. The difference between the Beatles and thousands

of other bands can be found in these ``gifts'' of unusual

talent.

Not to be too grand, but the book ``the 100: A Ranking of

the 100 Most Influential People in History'' by M.H. Hart is

a primer for the study of people with extraordinary talent

and abilities. For example, Genghis Khan was a late bloomer

and certainly had no training as a military leader, but no

one else in military history save perhaps Alexander shows

anything close to his record of achievements. And how many in

the realm of physics approach the works of Newton, Maxwell

and Einstein? I realize this is a leap from Sir Paul, but

pure talent, while it surely needs to be developed, is really

a gift that defies description. It seems that some things

just ``are'' and that's the name of that tune. And upon such

random distributions of talent and ability the upward curve

of the course of history will continue to remain reliant.

Sir Paul, author of over 300 popular songs, also played

``Blackbird,'' a very pleasing and interesting composition.

But I was hoping he'd do, ``Fixing a Hole'' as a nod to BP

who could certainly use a little mystical talent about now,

no?

Madam Speaker, I would like to submit a letter from my good friend Gene Jewett, who shares his thoughts on the phenomena of talent and the recent visit from Paul McCartney who received the Gershwin Award from the Library of Congress.

Dear Friends,

Recently, Sir Paul McCartney visited Washington where he

exhibited his musical prowess for the politically powerful,

initially at the Library of Congress and then at the White

House. In the course of his performance on the first night,

he revealed the process by which he had written one of his

most famous tunes, one where the melody had come to him in a

dream, a refrain that he was fortunate enough to recall. For

days, he hummed the tune (randomly entitled ``scrambled

eggs'') to his band mates and everyone else in his greater

circle of musicians, all in an attempt to determine whether

it was a product of his own musical software or a reflection

of a tune he had previously heard for which he was serving as

a mere psychic conduit. When he finally accepted the song as

his own, he re-dubbed it ``Yesterday'' and the rest is

history. Over 3,000 singers have recorded the song, a number

which marks it as a continuing star in the firmament of pop

music.

His story caused me to reflect on the phenomena of talent,

particularly as alluded to by Malcolm Gladwell in his book,

``Outliers.'' In this book, there's a central premise that

suggests that great achievement is derived from spending at

least 10,000 hours honing ones craft. Specifically, it uses

as an example Paul McCartney and the Beatles playing in the

clubs of Hamburg where they purportedly refined their songs.

Notwithstanding the fact that the ``Hamburg'' Beatles played

cover songs which could have encourage them to write their

original tunes, the more simple truth points to what

McCartney observes in himself as some mystical talent with

which he has been gifted, something for which he has no

explanation. The difference between the Beatles and thousands

of other bands can be found in these ``gifts'' of unusual

talent.

Not to be too grand, but the book ``The 100: A Ranking of

the 100 Most Influential People in History'' by M.H. Hart is

a primer for the study of people with extraordinary talent

and abilities. For example, Genghis Kahn was a late bloomer

and certainly had no training as a military leader, but no

one else in military history, save perhaps Alexander, shows

anything close to his record of achievements. And how many in

the realm of physics approach the works of Newton, Maxwell

and Einstein? I realize this is a leap from Sir Paul, but

pure talent, while it surely needs to be developed, is really

a gift that defies description. It seems that some things

just ``are'' and that's the name of that tune. And upon such

random distributions of talent and ability the upward curve

of the course of history will continue to remain reliant.

Sir Paul, author of over 300 popular songs, also played

``Blackbird,'' a very pleasing and interesting composition.

But I was hoping he'd do, ``Fixing a Hole'' as a nod to BP

who could certainly use a little mystical talent about now,

no?

Madam Speaker, today, I am introducing the ``Access to Appropriate Immunizations for Veterans Act of 2010'' which I believe would help advance the goal we all share of promoting lifelong health for the men and women who fought for our freedom.

While the Department of Veterans Affairs, VA, health care system is doing an admirable job of caring for those who bore the burden of combat, continual reform is needed to ensure the care veterans receive represents the most up-to-date practices and procedures.

According to statistics from the Centers for Disease Control, CDC, each year approximately 70,000 adult Americans die from vaccine- preventable diseases. Influenza alone is responsible for over one million ambulatory care visits, 200,000 hospitalizations and 30,000 deaths.

Many of our veterans who are in the ``high-risk'' category of contracting vaccine-preventable diseases--including those with HIV, Hepatitis C, and substance use disorder--are enrolled in the VA health care system and could particularly benefit from receiving vaccinations.

Commendably, the VA has protocols in place that recommend vaccines as protection against deadly viruses. However, VA only has established performance measures for two vaccines making it unclear if protocols are being routinely enforced for all CDC recommended vaccines.

The tremendous value performance measures have regarding the increased utilization and effectiveness of vaccination distribution is evidenced by VA's own application of performance measures for the influenza and pneumococcal vaccinations. When these performance measures were initially applied, VA saw vaccination rates rise respectively from 27 percent and 26 percent to 77 percent and 80 percent. It also resulted in a 50 percent decline in pneumonia hospitalization rates.

The legislation I am introducing today would expand VA performance measures to cover all vaccinations recommended by the VA and CDC and ensure that veterans receive appropriate immunizations at the time suggested by the CDC. It would also require VA to report to Congress on their progress in supporting vaccinations in the veteran population.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join with me in cosponsoring the Access to Appropriate Immunizations for Veterans Act of 2010. This legislation would ensure that our veterans are receiving timely and suitable access to vaccines and prevent those under the care of the VA from being unnecessarily exposed to vaccine preventable diseases.

Mr. Speaker, recently, Speaker Pelosi sent a letter to her committee chairmen asking all of them to chip away at Federal budgetary spending. In addition, Majority Leader Hoyer recently wrote an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal urging for shared sacrifice to address the budget crisis this country is facing. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, their rhetoric does not match up to reality.

Budget Chairman John Spratt even said, ``If you can't budget, you can't govern.'' Let me repeat that. This is what the Chairman of the Budget Committee said: ``If you can't budget, you can't govern.'' I could not agree more.

It is becoming increasingly clear, Mr. Speaker, however, that House Democrats cannot budget. American families and small businesses are making tough choices in this economic climate. But Democrats continue to spend and to spend.

The Federal Government is spending more per household than ever before and running up a $1.5 trillion deficit in 2010, the largest deficit since the end of World War II.

Now, how much is $1 trillion? If you started at day one, at 1 A.D., and spent $1 million every day, you still would not have spent $1 trillion.

Despite deficits and debts as far as the eye can see, Democrat leaders do not plan to even pass a budget resolution. Since 1974, when the modern budget process was created, the House has never failed to pass a budget resolution. Speaker Pelosi and Leader Hoyer can send all the letters and publish all the op-eds they want, but it does not change the fact there is no significant or legitimate plan to rein in Federal spending or reduce the deficit by them.

The Federal Government now spends over $31,000 per household, the highest ever. Recent budget deficits have reached unprecedented levels, accounting for 11 percent of the GDP. By comparison, the historical budget deficits, a yearly debt deficit, is only 2.9 percent of the GDP in the past.

Publicly held debt is expected to climb to $15 trillion by 2020, and when combined with rising interest rates in a post-recovery economic environment, the interest payments on government debt also will skyrocket. CBO projects that the government's annual spending on net interest will more than triple between 2010 and 2020 from $207 billion to $723 billion; just the interest. These deficits are appalling and all more shocking since CBO based these calculations on the complete expiration of the Bush tax cuts, that the alternative minimum tax will never be patched, and that future appropriations would be indexed to inflation. This is something Congress never will do.

Since Democrats have taken over Congress in January 2007, the national debt has increased 42.4 percent. While the Democrat leadership talks a good game about addressing spending, we have yet to see any real action by them.

The first step is to pass a budget to provide us with a blueprint, a simple road map for deficit reduction. The Balanced Budget Act of 1985 set the target date for a budget for April 15, the same day as Tax Day for most Americans. Unfortunately, the April 15 deadline for enacting a budget resolution has long since passed, and we still have no sign of a budget resolution. The Senate has not passed a budget, and the House has not even begun the simple process.

Without a budget, there are no controls in place to rein in spending. It's a sign that Congress lacks the leadership and the willingness to set a framework to limit spending or control entitlement growth. Not passing a budget resolution sends a message to the American taxpayers that Congress is really not serious about addressing the fiscal crisis here, and is unable to meet the challenges of uncontrolled spending and runaway deficits.

This entire situation, obviously, is getting out of control. When someone goes for debt counseling, the first step is to cut up the credit cards and live within your means. Congress needs to rein in Federal spending and to start living within its means. The answers are not higher taxes on out-of-work Americans, such as a Value Added Tax. That's why I've joined with my colleagues to send a letter to the National

Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform to not increase taxes through a VAT tax as a means of balancing the budget.

High taxes aren't the solution, less spending is. We must reduce the spending of this Federal Government if we are to exercise fiscal responsibility.

Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, the Democrat leadership continues to talk a good game, but has not yet shown a willingness to act in any significant measure to get our fiscal house in order.

Mr. Speaker, let me just reiterate what my good friend from Virginia said. The Budget chairman here in the U.S. House of Representatives said, ``If you can't budget, you can't govern.'' Let's take him at his word. I think everybody on this side of the aisle believes that that is very true.

It's becoming increasingly clear, however, that House Democrats cannot come up with a budget. American families come up with a budget, but continually Democrats sidestep it and show no progress towards trying to even attempt to create a budget.

This Congress has set upon an agenda where it's the first time since 1974 where there will be no budget passed in the House of Representatives. Without a budget, there are no controls in place to rein in this spending. It's a sign that Congress lacks the leadership to set a framework to limit spending or control entitlement growth.

Not passing a budget resolution sends a message to the American taxpayers that Congress is not serious about addressing the fiscal crisis we have here and they are unable to meet the challenges of uncontrolled spending. While the Democrat leadership talks a good game, we have yet to see any action.

Mr. Chair, on rollcall No. 262 I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Hall of Texas

Madam Speaker, a recent announcement by FCC Chairman Genachowski to impose new, burdensome regulation on the Internet and on Internet transmission appears to me to be a political maneuver to regulate the Internet. Several weeks ago, he indicated he was not going to push for net regulation. Now he is. There is no economic or legal justification for this move and the result will be a freeze in the investment and innovation we have seen over the past 20 years. The Internet is the most powerful platform for innovation ever created and, by his actions, Chairman Genachowski is endangering the Internet's deployment and ultimately its innovation.

Our current free-market, pro-investment policies have served us well. In fact, according to the FCC's own National Broadband Plan, 95 percent of all Americans have access to broadband and approximately 200 million subscribers have broadband at home today, up from 8 million just 10 years ago. By comparison, it took 90 years to go from 8 million voice subscribers to 200 million under the old Title II Common Carrier Regulations. Ironically, the chairman's laudable goal of maximizing broadband deployment and adoption will be most harmed by his announcement.

Will Rogers once said that, ``Things in our country run in spite of the government, not by the aid of it.'' He was not, of course, talking about the Internet, but his words still ring true today. The rise of the Internet itself is a truly great deregulatory story. What started as a government-run network for sharing research has now exploded into a force for mass communication, entertainment, and commerce, when we turned it over to the private sector and lifted restrictions on its use by commercial entities and the public. The unregulated Internet is now starting to help spur a new technological revolution in this country. Where there were once separate phone, cable, wireless, and other industries providing distinct and separate services, we're now seeing a confluence and a blur of providers all competing against each other for consumers, offering broadband, voice, video services, and much more.

The Apple iPod is a perfect example of the confluence of the Internet, the TV, and the computer, which will then be followed by other exciting products. Lines of technology are being blurred all the time. In fact, a few years ago, you had to have separate platforms for each additional individual TV technology. Now, your computer becomes your TV, your TV doubles for your computer, and your wireless device becomes your TV, your computer, your phone, and camera. We will see more of this convergence in the years to come if we remain on the current deregulatory path. However, the FCC appears to want to change course. In response to the FCC's announcement, I introduced a bill today, H.R. 5257--the Internet Investment, Innovation, and Competition Preservation Act--that would prevent the FCC from regulating the Internet or Internet transmission, absent a market failure.

My bill would require the FCC to conduct a rigorous market analysis before mandating new network regulations. The FCC would need to prove that regulations are, indeed, necessary. Chairman Genachowski has said on numerous occasions that he wants to make sure that the FCC is the most data-driven agency. Well, let's see the data. Let's see the data showing there's a need for regulation before you do it, Mr. Chairman.

With our economy still struggling, now is the worst time to impose new regulations on the Internet and on Internet service providers; yet, this is exactly what the FCC is going to try to do. Communication companies are among the few companies still investing billions of dollars into our economy in these very difficult financial times. Net regulation will discourage investment and innovation precisely when we need it the most, especially in light of our push to increase broadband deployment in this country.

The FCC's announcement is a perfect example of how regulations meant to help can actually hurt our policy goals while taking more money out of the American taxpayers' pockets. I am reminded again, Madam Speaker, of another Will Rogers quote when he said, ``Be thankful we're not getting all the government we're paying for.'' Our history of communication policy is rife with examples of the best regulatory intentions going awry. More often than not, advances come despite regulation or, as with our Internet policy over the past couple of decades, from our decision not to regulate.

Mr. Speaker, on February 24, 2010--just 3 months ago-- Federal Reserve Chairman Bernanke told Congress that ``We have no plans whatsoever to be involved in any foreign bailouts or anything of that sort.''

Now, Mr. Bernanke has changed his own policy statement by agreeing to revive a Fed emergency lending program that will loan American taxpayer dollars to foreign central banks so they can in turn lend this money out to smaller foreign banks, as reported in the Wall Street Journal on May 10 of this year.

This decision comes in the wake of the European Union's agreement with the International Monetary Fund to create a $1 trillion bailout package for the EU in order to deal with that region's ensuing fiscal crisis. The IMF, which is also funded by American taxpayer dollars,