Floor Statements

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to this self- executing rule which will raise our national debt to nearly $2 trillion. That's 12 zeros. I urge Members to vote ``no'' on the previous question so that we can immediately have the House consider H.R. 4566, the END TARP Act, that will end the TARP bailout program once and for all, saving taxpayers about $200 billion.

In the most recent report, the Special Inspector General of TARP himself said the program has failed to boost bank lending and it's also failed in halting the spread of home foreclosures. If the program isn't helping small businesses, if the program isn't helping homeowners, two of its major goals, why do we consider to throw hundreds of billions of dollars of taxpayer money at it?

It's time we got serious about fixing our national fiscal house and spending problems. I urge Members to vote ``no'' on the previous question so that they can bring up the END TARP Act. We can end the bailouts once and for all and not raise the debt ceiling by nearly $2 trillion.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment that would require that the cybersecurity strategic research and development plan to also include how we can work with international partners to make our technology infrastructure even safer.

Throughout most of our Nation's history, our security concerns have evolved around our national security of military security, intelligence, and protection of our borders. Now, over the past few decades, our technological advances and our ever-increasing reliance on that technology are increasingly important and have drastically expanded. This, naturally, makes our technology a likely target for attack by those that would like to harm the United States.

Furthermore, as Minnesota's Chief Information Officer, Gopal Khanna, says, ``Cybersecurity is not just a Federal issue; it is also a national policy issue with huge global ramifications.'' And he is absolutely correct, Mr. Chairman. We must view the issue of cybersecurity from both a domestic and a foreign perspective. His article, ``Mutually Assured Survival in Cyber Space,'' which I do intend to offer into the Record, outlines the critical importance of our Nation's cybersecurity infrastructure.

As Mr. Khanna states, a cybersecurity attack on our most vulnerable assets--that's the data and information that power our productivity and support the United States and global economies--will be utterly devastating. An attack would not only affect us here at home, but it would have a very adverse impact on our trading partners and the flow of commerce every day.

Today's technology-driven economy makes cybersecurity an essential national security issue, one with ramifications that stretch across our Nation and far beyond our borders. We must remember this as we look at ways to strengthen cybersecurity. We need to think about our alliances abroad in the general context of new geopolitical realities of the digital cyberworld in which we live and operate today, and this amendment recognizes those realities.

[From Governing, Sept. 8, 2009]

Mutually Assured Survival in Cyber Space

(By Gopal Khanna)

We must pool resources to focus on an all-encompassing

national approach to defending our information infrastructure

from attacks.

For the better part of the 20th century, America's greatest

threat came from the expansionist strategies of Communism,

with its values and aspirations so contradictory to our own

free and open democratic society. At the heart of the

conflict was the proliferation of nuclear arsenals and the

horrific potential to kill millions with one strike. Baby

boomers who were schoolchildren at the time remember the

drills when they were instructed to hide under their desks in

the event of an attack.

While nuclear proliferation is still a threat, America is

beginning to recognize a sleeper threat of a different kind:

the devastation that can result from the mass disruption of

business communications and the workings of government

through cyber attacks. As we reflect on the results of

President Obama's 60-day Cyberspace Policy Review, policy

makers and private-sector leaders need to come together to

apply great effort and creativity in crafting safeguards

against these vulnerabilities.

The series of apparently orchestrated attacks on U.S. Web

sites in July--directed at such critical entities as the

Treasury Department, Secret Service, Federal Trade Commission

and New York Stock Exchange--is precisely why the U.S. should

become a leader in thwarting cyber attacks on our national

and international information infrastructure. In his May 29

remarks on securing the nation's information infrastructure,

President Obama stated that ``the status quo is no longer

acceptable'' and called our attention to the critical work

ahead. To reiterate that point, last month Homeland Security

Secretary Janet Napolitano emphasized how important the role

of state and local governments will be in meeting today's

cyber security threats and that ``it is important to

recognize that there is no international structure'' where

cyber crime is concerned.

The Cyberspace Policy Review has validated our

understanding that it is not only corporate America that is

now under siege, but the federal, state and local

governments, private institutions and non-governmental

organizations as well. Capable of wreaking a different sort

of havoc, and easier to execute, today's menace comes from

cyber security attacks on our most valuable assets--the data

and information that power our productivity and support the

economy of the United States and the world.

That is why we must pool resources to focus on an all-

encompassing national approach to defending our assets within

the context of the new geopolitical realities of the digital

world we live in. We need to apply all of our tools and our

finest minds to harness our capabilities and competencies in

the interest of protecting an infrastructure that supports

our way of life. Just as ducking under desks would have done

little to protect schoolchildren in the 1950s from a nuclear

attack, simply hiding behind new software or the latest

firewall will not protect us from tomorrow's range of cyber

threats. We must do more.

To this end, the United States should take the lead in an

international endeavor to address these threats; not only the

risks to our own country but also the risks to our allies in

free economies and open governments around the world. Every

attack, regardless of its target, poses global dangers, due

to the interconnections of digital infrastructure and

networks as well as the interdependencies of national and

regional economies, and imperils commerce and communications

among all nations.

In the past, the doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction

acted as a deterrent to prevent a nuclear first-strike by

either side. Both the United States and the Soviet Union knew

that a strike would mean mutual annihilation. As a result,

although the doctrine has not contained the spread of nuclear

technology to rogue states, a nuclear weapon has not been

detonated in military conflict since World War II.

We need to develop an analogous approach against these new

dangers--one that fends off the cyber anarchy envisioned by

some nation-states and fringe borderless entities.

The G-20 Summit in Pittsburgh this month is an ideal forum

to establish America's leadership in cyber security. It's

important that the international community come together to

answer some basic, foundational questions about cyber attacks

as a tactic of warfare: Should attacks of a cyber-nature be

condemned in the same manner as chemical and biological

weapons? How should a country respond to a cyber attack from

another nation-state? How should the international community

respond to such an attack?

The potential for mass disruption to all aspects of social,

economic and political workings of nations requires that the

G-20 country CIOs who are responsible for policies, practices

and management of the digital infrastructure in their

respective jurisdictions be a part of this discussion.

By working together, perhaps it will be understood that a

cyber attack against one country is an attack against all

countries, justifying a response--maybe even an international

response. Time will tell if the international community will

embrace as bold a deterrent as ``Mutually Assured Survival in

Cyber Space.'' Still, now is the time to develop a doctrine

of accountability and consequences that will serve as a

deterrent to nation-states and rogue entities and prevent

levels of cyber warfare that could jeopardize international

trade, our government services, our security, our corporate

and business interests, and most important, our open,

democratic way of life.

I yield such time as he may consume to my colleague from Texas (Mr. McCaul).

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

Mr. Chairman, just in closing, I know that by working together on the commonsense approach--I thank the gentleman--I look forward to support of this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to say welcome home to a group of Minnesota heroes, the National Guard's 34th Infantry Division, known as the Red Bulls. Many of the Red Bulls have begun arriving home from their most recent tour of duty in Iraq. These brave Minnesotans have played a very crucial role in transitioning security responsibilities from American troops to the Iraqi forces, as well as leading more than 1,000 new reconstruction projects to help the Iraqi people. The 1,200 soldiers that are now returning home come from more than 275 communities in Minnesota and represent the American spirit of selflessness, sacrifice, and service.

I had the chance to personally meet with some of the Red Bulls when I visited Iraq not too long ago. I was humbled to see their selfless work that they accomplish every single day. Today, I'm thrilled to see them returning home from Iraq safely to their friends, to their families, and to a State that is especially grateful for all that they do.

Madam Speaker, I rise in honor of Nicholas D. Turcotte, a citizen-soldier gave his life on December 4, 2006 while serving in Iraq.

As a member of the Minnesota National Guard, Nick distinguished himself. In just 2 years he rose to the rank of Sergeant, and was known as a soldier's soldier; dependable, helpful, and an outstanding example to those around him.

Sergeant Turcotte was born in Highland Park, Illinois. After living in Colorado, he moved to Maple Grove, Minnesota with his grandparents.

He enjoyed playing hockey, paintball, singing and playing trombone. He contemplated a career in law enforcement and joined the Maple Grove Police Explorers until he entered basic training with the Minnesota National Guard.

Nick married his high school sweetheart, Jennifer, in September 2004.

Inspired by his enthusiasm for service and commitment to his country, Nicholas Turcotte's family has established a scholarship in his name that supports the Minnesota Law Enforcement Explorer Association. This scholarship will allow other young people to participate in the educational programs the Explorers offer, as well as providing money for secondary education.

Madam Speaker, it is with the greatest respect and admiration that I honor Sergeant Turcotte's sacrifice on behalf of the Nation today. We are ever grateful for his service, and continue to grieve with his family, who is keeping his memory alive each and every day.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to call attention to Mike Siitari, a 31 year veteran of the Edina Police Department and who will retire as its Chief at the end of January.

For more than three decades, Edina law enforcement has seen Chief Siitari rise through the ranks from police dispatcher to patrol officer to lieutenant and finally, a decade long stint in the Department's highest post.

Even after dedicating a lifetime to public service, Chief Siitari has no intention of quietly retiring; instead he will take on a role at the School Safety Center in St. Paul. There, he will work with the Minnesota Department of Safety to make schools safer by minimizing violence and maximizing prepared emergency procedures.

As the community congratulates Chief Siitari on his new opportunity, we would also like to thank him for what he leaves behind. Because of his dedicated work, Edina is a safer, more enjoyable community.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the Oak Grove Presbyterian Church of Bloomington, Minnesota, for receiving the

2009 Omar Bonderud Human Rights Award.

Named for the first chairperson of the Bloomington Human Rights Commission, the award is given to individuals and organizations that have made a significant contribution to improving the rights of people in their community.

The selfless works of Oak Grove Presbyterian Church include tutoring for the economically disadvantaged, as well as improving dialogue and understanding across different religions and cultures.

In a letter to the Human Rights Commission, Oak Grove was described as ``an outstanding community organization with a long history of working with community partners to improve the lives of the diverse residents of Bloomington.''

This award shows the dedication of Oak Grove to the pursuit of justice and freedom, rights that we can all aspire to protect. I am honored to congratulate them today.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Barbara Stoflet, a teacher at Gatewood Elementary School in Minnetonka.

At a recent White House ceremony, Barbara was awarded the Presidential Award for Excellence in Mathematics and Science Teaching, the Nation's highest honor for teaching in those fields. Barbara is one of only two Minnesota educators to receive such an honor.

She used her cutting-edge teaching methods and passion in the classroom to develop each student's potential for more than 20 years, even earning a Minnesota Teacher of the Year Award along the way.

Barbara's participation in the improvement of educational programs in the school as well as in the entire district ranges from instrumental classroom development to writing mathematical standards for Minnesota. For her development of innovative teaching strategies, her work to promote the key areas of math and science, and for her selfless commitment to an important profession, I am honored to recognize Barbara Stoflet before this body.

Mr. Speaker, last week the Bureau of Labor and Statistics released its final economic report for 2009. Unfortunately, the report showed the year ending on a very disappointing note: 85,000 more jobs lost and 10 percent unemployment for the month of December.

It is very clear that the excessive borrowing and spending in Washington is not paying off where it is needed most: job creation. In fact, just this week, an investigation by the Associated Press found that large portions of the $787 billion stimulus plan had ``no effect on local employment.''

Mr. Speaker, Americans across the country have already made their 2010 New Year's resolutions. Congress now needs to make its own, and that is that job creation will be our number one priority.

An economic recovery without jobs is not a recovery. I urge Congress, as we get back to work this month, to finally work together to enact real bipartisan solutions that will give the American people what they want: more jobs, without breaking the bank.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 2194, the Iran Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act.

A few months ago, a second nuclear enrichment site was discovered in Iran. The Iranian regime had withheld the disclosure of this facility from the International Atomic Energy Agency for quite some time--yet another violation of Iran's obligations under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. Furthermore, this second facility will allow Iran to produce more enriched uranium and at an even faster rate.

There is no doubt that a nuclear Iran poses a dangerous threat to the United States and its allies throughout the Middle East and across the entire globe. We cannot allow the Iranian regime to continue threatening its neighbors and thumbing its nose at the world. And we certainly cannot let a regime that has threatened to wipe Israel off the map even come close to obtaining a nuclear weapon.

Madam Speaker, the Iran problem is getting worse, not better. It is time we take action.

Currently, Iran relies on foreign suppliers for 40 percent of its refined petroleum. The legislation before us would sanction foreign companies that sell refined petroleum to Iran, or help Iran with its own domestic refining capacity, by depriving those companies of access to the U.S. market. This will help put needed pressure on Iran to suspend its program and allow for verification of that action.

Time and time again, Iran has been given the opportunity to prove they are not pursuing nuclear weapons and each time they have failed to do so. It is time for the U.S. to take action and send a message that the world will not sit idly by as tyrants in Iran buy time to enrich uranium and ultimately amass a nuclear weapon.

Madam Speaker, I would be remiss if I did not mention the brave Iranian people who are peacefully going to the streets to protest the actions of the current regime. It is not only for our own security but also for these people--the students and dissidents who desire a better future for their nation--that this legislation should be passed.

The status quo when it comes to Iran is no longer a viable option. This bill offers a peaceful, significant course of action that will set the world on a safer course when it comes to Iran. I urge adoption of this important legislation.

I thank the gentleman.

Madam Speaker, I rise to oppose this rule because there were numerous amendments which would have improved this bill, but they were not made in order in the Rules Committee.

Now, many of these amendments were actually ``good government'' amendments. They were amendments that would have assured the reforms we were making were smart and would not be harmful to the economy. One amendment I offered with Representative Tiahrt would have guaranteed the end of the TARP bailout program at the end of this year, and it would have applied the remaining $200 billion-plus worth of taxpayer money towards reducing the Federal budget deficit.

We all know that the TARP program has had a myriad of problems since day one. We have heard testimony in committee that has said the funds have not been properly monitored. This is the program that was used to fund executive bonuses by taxpayers. We have been told by the special inspector general that the program is ``almost certainly'' going to result in a loss to the taxpayers. Last month, it was just reported that now taxpayers could lose over $5 billion in investments in foreign banks.

Rather than ending this flawed program once and for all, the administration announced just yesterday that they will extend the bailout for TARP for another 10 months. This was after the Treasury Secretary just said last month that he wanted to work to put TARP out of its misery. So the Treasury Secretary has kind of flip-flopped now, and taxpayers are going to be

forced to stand idly by while this administration will have the ability with Congress to spend over $200 billion of taxpayer money as ``walking around'' money.

What is even more alarming, I think, Madam Speaker, is the fact that the legislation before us creates a TARP second bailout program and more bailout authority. With all of the problems we've had on this first bailout program, why on Earth is the Federal Government pursuing a sequel?

Without these amendments, the underlying legislation will make it harder to create jobs, harder to get credit for companies, and most importantly, it will make it more difficult for consumers to have freedom in their financial decisions.

I would urge Members to oppose this closed rule, which has effectively limited debate on many good amendments.

Mr. Chair, the bill before us establishes a Financial Stability Oversight Council that includes the Secretary of the Treasury, the Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, and Federal banking and securities regulators.

The bill also includes non-voting members, a State insurance commissioner, a State Securities commissioner, the head of the new Federal Insurance Office and a State banking supervisor, who would serve on the Council in an advisory capacity.

My amendment ensures that the non-voting regulators are not excluded from any proceedings, meetings, discussions, and deliberations.

I believe that is important to ensure that the Federal insurance office and other state regulators will have a seat at the table for any deliberations that impact the consumers they protect and institutions they regulate.

If these institutions are going to be responsible for paying into the bailout fund, it is only fair that their concerns are represented.

I urge adoption of my amendment.

I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight in opposition to the rule for H.R. 4173 and the underlying legislation.

Mr. Speaker, the effects of this bill, as we have already heard, will further harm our economy, draining capital from our economy and reducing overall lending by over as much as $55 billion, as studies have shown. The effects of this bill further harming our economy will hurt small business and consumers alike. They are going to considerably find it much more difficult to access the credit they need in a very challenging economy in addition to dealing with more government bureaucracy.

This bill, this legislation, will create a new credit czar with a mandate to limit consumer choice, to ration credit, and to increase the cost of financial transactions. Congress should be focusing on measures that will lead to job creation and encourage American prosperity, not implementing policies that will increase the unemployment numbers. Again, studies have shown that this legislation will literally cost hundreds of thousands of jobs in our economy.

We should be putting an end to all Washington bailouts and the Washington bailout mentality. This legislation does not firmly put an end to taxpayer-funded bailouts. Rather, it could increase the likelihood of future bailouts. This legislation should also be ending the ``too big to fail'' mentality that has dominated Washington. Instead, this legislation will institutionalize it.

By creating institutions that are too big to fail, we are implying that certain financial companies will be sheltered by a Federal safety net. Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule.

I thank my colleague for yielding.

Madam Chair, unfortunately this bill only continues the culture of bailouts and encourages firms to engage in risky behavior. As far I'm concerned, all it will do is remove the element of surprise that we saw last fall with the first amount of selected bailouts we had, and this is not the right way to go.

Just look at what this bill would do to the availability of credit. The bill before us, this 1,300-page bill, has provisions that actually take away capital needed by firms to help expand businesses, increase investments, and ultimately create jobs. Estimates show that the size of the fund could be more than $200 billion as a part of this fund. Now, this money has to come from somewhere, and this will place a significant burden not only on these firms but also on credit that will get dried up.

During these tough economic times with record unemployment, 10 percent unemployment, why do we make it more difficult for getting credit for small businesses and job creation? Why should a company who is not deemed to be systemically risky have to pay for those companies that have been engaging in excessively risky behavior?

Madam Chair, it's also worth mentioning the danger that's posed when we create institutions that are ``too big to fail.'' That's been a problem with Washington, the ``too big to fail'' doctrine. In doing so, we will also define those businesses, unfortunately, that are too small to save, and we're not helping those too-small-to-save businesses.

It's unacceptable, unacceptable to have an economy, a two-tiered economy, economic system where the government is going to be picking winners and losers and it's codified into law. This bill does nothing to shelter companies from being swayed by the political winds like we saw in the previous round of bailouts. We've heard in testimony in committee that this bill will harm consumers from access to credit. It's going to make services even harder

to get. In a time when businesses can't access credit, why would we further stunt jobs and hurt economic growth? But as studies have shown, that's exactly what this bill will do.

The bottom line is, between the restrictions on capital, the jobs that would be lost, and the continued bailouts, this legislation is unacceptable.

Madam Speaker, recently I met with representatives of Dakota Communities--an award-winning 37 year old non-profit organization that helps people with disabilities realize their potential in their lives and communities.

In Minnesota's Third Congressional District, there are over fifty direct support professionals who have dedicated their careers to working for several group homes. These hard-working, talented men and women have repeatedly demonstrated their dedication to caring for those with disabilities. For their efforts and the positive impact these efforts will have in the lives of so many, I am extremely grateful.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize a great example of the academic and business communities working together to create new lifesaving technologies.

The Medical Devices Center at the University of Minnesota is a shining example of what can happen when innovation is encouraged and sought out by an educational institution and aided by partnership.

Last week I visited the University's Medical Devices Center and learned about this unique program that focuses on development of devices that have the strongest lifesaving impacts, partnering with others to also bring these products to market in the fastest manner possible. And you know what? The results speak for themselves.

From just 1 year in the fellowship program, we've had 15 new provisional patents, 12 new available technologies, one licensing deal with a local business, and one new startup among the program's fellows.

The center's collaborative approach between academics and business makes this a valuable program as well as a model for both Minnesota and the entire Nation to follow.