Floor Statements

Madam Chair, I rise in support of this commonsense amendment to give struggling homeowners a fair chance to keep their homes when it makes economic sense.

I am joined today by a diverse bipartisan group of cosponsors, including Mike Turner, Zoe Lofgren, Jim Marshall, Maxine Waters, Steve Cohen, Brad Miller, Bill Delahunt, Jerry Nadler, and Marcia Fudge.

This is the same provision the House approved in March as a key component of H.R. 1106, the ``Helping Families Save Their Homes Act.''

As the House considers financial regulatory reform legislation today, we should not forget the problem that started it all--the cataclysm of home mortgage foreclosures.

These foreclosures have pulled the rug out from under our economy, devastating families, neighborhoods, and local governments. And unfortunately, the end to this toxic cycle is nowhere in sight.

In Wayne County, Michigan, which includes Detroit, there are almost 200 foreclosure-related actions every day, even worse than the 138 foreclosures a day back in July.

According to recent data, 14 percent of American homeowners were in foreclosure or had fallen behind in their mortgage payments--up from 10 percent in 2008.

This Wednesday, the Congressional Oversight Panel for TARP released a report in which it projected that there could be up to 13 million foreclosures over the next 5 years.

We have not seen foreclosure numbers like these since the Great Depression.

This amendment will help provide meaningful relief to struggling homeowners, by giving bankruptcy courts the authority to make fair modifications to mortgages, giving families a decent chance to come to terms with their lender on workable payment terms.

The amendment would allow the courts to extend repayment periods, reduce excessive interest rates and fees, and adjust the principal balance of the mortgage to a home's present-day market value.

The amendment also grants authority to the Department of Veterans Affairs, the Federal Housing Administration, and the Rural Housing Service to support fair modification of mortgages, by continuing to honor Federal guarantees for them after they are modified.

This is imminently fair to mortgage lenders. They will still get everything they could reasonably hope to obtain if the home is foreclosed on and sold--more, in fact--and without forcing the family out of house and home.

True, the lenders will not get every dime they might theoretically get on the mortgage paper they now hold. But that is a dangerous pipe dream. And the prospect of rational modification in the courts should serve as a reality check, and help create a healthy incentive for more meaningful voluntary modifications to be done outside of court.

As it is now, lenders and servicers simply do not have enough of an incentive to modify mortgages in a meaningful and realistic way. It is too easy for them to hide their heads in the sand until the damage is done. Voluntary mortgage modification programs, by themselves, simply haven't worked.

There is also a matter of basic equity here. Mortgages on second and third homes and investment properties can all be modified in the courts, as can virtually any other secured claim, including claims secured by yachts, private jets, and commercial real estate worth many millions of dollars.

It is unfathomable to me that a working family does not have the same opportunity to save its home.

I thank the chairman of the Financial Services Committee, Barney Frank, for his support on this important issue.

I also want to thank all of my cosponsors on this amendment--Mike Turner, Zoe Lofgren, Jim Marshall, Maxine Waters, Steve Cohen, Brad Miller, Bill Delahunt, Jerry Nadler, and Marcia Fudge.

In the midst of our response to the widespread damage large Wall Street financial institutions caused by their recklessness--including the drain of hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars to bail them out--we also have a moral obligation to help average working families who are struggling to save their homes.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the Conferees for including section 747, which regulates the relationship between automobile manufacturers and automobile dealerships. I, along with Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, and Representatives Chris Van Hollen, Daniel Maffei, Frank Kratovil, Steven LaTourette, Jackie Speier, Robert Brady, Betty Sutton, and Bob Etheridge have worked together to create legislation that will best serve the interests of the automobile industry, including manufacturers and dealerships, and the citizens who have a significant portion of their tax dollars invested in the success of this critical industry. The following is a description of the legislation.

Section 747 of the Conference Agreement includes language establishing an arbitration process to determine whether previously terminated, non-assigned, non-renewed, or non-continued auto dealerships should be added to dealership networks of automobile manufacturers that received federal assistance under the TARP program, or that are partially owned by the Federal Government. This provision replaces Section 745 of the House bill, which also addressed concerns regarding terminated auto dealerships.

It is in the national interest to protect the substantial federal investment in automobile manufacturers by assuring the viability of such companies through the maintenance of sufficiently sized dealership networks to meet consumer demand for sales and servicing nationally. In addition to facilitating the maintenance and growth of industry market share among manufacturers that benefitted from TARP funds, and in which the taxpayers have a significant financial investment, it is in the national interest to ensure that dealerships and manufacturers are each treated fairly in their business relationships based on their respective economic interests.

Evidence obtained over the course of numerous Congressional hearings in 2009 demonstrates that the automobile industry is integral to the health of the United States economy as a whole. Automobile manufacturers have been among the largest and most successful corporations in the United States, providing significant numbers of jobs and producing valuable goods for consumers. Automobile dealerships are also essential businesses in most communities nationally, providing many jobs to local residents and facilitating the distribution, sales, and servicing of millions of vehicles annually. Our investigations have made clear that it is in the best interest of the automobile industry, automobile manufacturers, dealerships and the public to have a competitive and economically viable domestic automobile distribution network throughout the country, including urban, suburban, and rural areas.

This provision was included because we also believe that by providing a process for working out the relationship between automobile manufacturers and dealerships that ensures transparency and review by a neutral arbitrator according to an equitable and balanced standard, taking into account the interests of all affected parties, the property and due process rights of manufacturers and dealerships will be safeguarded.

Section 747 establishes a procedure by which an automobile dealership that had a franchise agreement for a vehicle brand that was not assigned to a covered manufacturer, or that was terminated in a manner not consistent with applicable state law, on or before April 29, 2009, may seek continuation or reinstatement of the franchise agreement, or seek to be added as a franchisee to a dealership network of the covered manufacturer who manufactures the vehicle brand of the covered dealership, with such franchisee being located in the geographic area where the covered dealership was located when its franchise agreement was terminated, not assigned, not renewed, or not continued. Absent such election by the covered dealership, no such binding arbitration would occur.

In order to provide a covered automobile dealership with the information useful to determine whether to elect to enter into binding arbitration, the dealership will receive in writing notice from the covered manufacturer detailing the specific criteria pursuant to which such dealership's franchise agreement was terminated, was not renewed, or was not assumed and assigned to a covered manufacturer. This notice must be provided within the 30-day period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Section. This transparency is a vital step in giving dealerships the opportunity to understand why their franchise agreements were terminated, not renewed, or were not assumed and assigned to a covered manufacturer. It is our expectation that this transparency will obviate the need for unnecessary arbitration. It is also our expectation that this transparency will encourage informal agreements between covered dealerships and manufacturers without

recourse to the more formal procedures provided in this Section. We expect that the written transmittal letter will also provide appropriate contact information, including an e-mail address, to enable the dealership to contact the manufacturer should the dealership have specific questions about the dealership's information and individual criteria contained in such letter.

The Conference Agreement provides such dealerships with the opportunity to elect to participate in a neutral arbitration process designed to permit the dealership to present information in support of its addition to the manufacturer's dealership network, and for the manufacturer to present information against such addition based on its business plan and future economic viability. The arbitrator in each case shall balance the interests of the covered dealership, the covered manufacturer, and the public and will decide based on that balancing whether or not the covered dealership should be added to the dealership network of the covered manufacturer. These are the only remedies the arbitrator may provide. The Conference Agreement specifically prohibits the awarding of compensatory, punitive, or exemplary damages to any party.

The Conference Agreement sets out seven specific factors that the arbitrator should consider in ruling on each case. The list is not exclusive, and the arbitrator would have the discretion to consider all the relevant facts on a case-by-case basis. In considering whether adding the covered dealership to the covered manufacturer's dealership network is in the public interest, the arbitrator should consider, among other factors, the need for reasonable access for consumers to a dealership that can service their vehicles, which is of particular concern in rural areas. The arbitrator should also consider the impact on the viability of the manufacturer of adding the dealership to the manufacturer's network, the length of experience of the dealership, the dealership's historical profitability and current economic viability, and demographic and geographic characteristics of the market.

It is our understanding that the General Commercial Rules of the American Arbitration Association shall apply to the arbitration proceeding, except to the extent that a rule is inconsistent with any provision of this Section.

Subsection (f) addresses negotiations between a covered manufacturer and a covered dealership, whether acting individually, as a group, or through an organization acting on behalf of one or more covered dealerships. The provision is intended to ensure that any legally binding agreement, such as a memorandum of understanding, resulting from a voluntary negotiation between a covered manufacturer and a covered dealership, a group of covered dealerships, or an organization acting on behalf of one or more covered dealerships will not be disturbed by this section. It also makes clear that once a covered dealership is party to such an agreement, such covered dealership would not be eligible for the arbitration remedy in this section.

It is not the intent of Congress to bar a covered dealership from the provisions of this section if the covered dealership accepted a standard form contract prepared by the covered manufacturer and offered on a ``take-it-or-leave-it'' basis, even if the agreement was entered into voluntarily. As a consequence, a covered dealership that accepted a ``wind-down'' agreement drafted by a covered manufacturer would be able to avail itself of the provisions of this section. An agreement between a covered manufacturer and a covered dealership, whether acting individually, as a group, or as part of a group of dealerships acting through an organization, will be considered voluntarily negotiated if the agreement between the parties reflects a compromise based on written or oral discussions, even if one party to the negotiation is the principal or primary drafter of the agreement.

We chose this approach because binding arbitration by a neutral arbitrator is the most appropriate means of resolving the differences between covered dealerships and manufacturers, and to protect the taxpayers, and the broader economy. For this reason, the Conference Agreement sets out a procedure for ensuring that a neutral arbitrator conducts the arbitration according to a clear standard with factors the arbitrator must weigh.

Due to the time sensitive nature of this situation, the Conference Agreement provides that a covered dealership must elect to pursue arbitration no later than 40 days of the date of enactment of this section, that such arbitration must commence as soon as practicable and must be submitted to the arbitrator for deliberation not later than 180 days of such date. The arbitrator is given the flexibility to extend that period for up to 30 days for good cause. The arbitrator then has seven business days after the arbitrator determines that the case has been fully submitted to issue a written opinion.

Section 747 expressly permits the manufacturer and dealership to present any kind of relevant information during the arbitration. As an additional means of ensuring efficiency and economy in the arbitration process, the provision prohibits depositions and limits discovery to documents specific to the covered dealership.

Section 747 also makes clear that a manufacturer may terminate a covered dealership in accordance with applicable state law.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3570) to amend title 17, United States Code, to reauthorize the satellite statutory license, to conform the satellite and cable statutory licenses to all-digital transmissions, and for other purposes, as amended.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

I also further ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Boucher) be yielded 10 minutes of my time and that he be allowed to control that time.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker and Members, H.R. 3570 extends the compulsory copyright license for satellite television providers for another 5 years, as Congress has done in each of the last two other cycles that this measure has been reauthorized.

This is an important intellectual property law and will also make a number of critical updates and much-needed clarifications to the compulsory copyright licenses for both satellite and cable television. Passage of this legislation before the end of the year is crucial. We must pass this bill in both bodies by December 31. If we don't pass this bill, thousands upon thousands of satellite television subscribers will lose their signals.

In addition to simply reauthorizing the license, the bill ambitiously tackles several other issues for consumers, for content owners, and for cable and satellite companies as well. For example, this bill restores the section 119 license to DISH Satellite Network if they serve every market in the United States, even neglected rural markets. The bill also resolves the phantom signal problem that has caused instability and confusion for the cable and content industries, to the detriment of consumers.

In addition, the bill provides an audit right to content owners so they can be sure that they are being fairly compensated for the use of their intellectual property. It significantly increases penalties for copyright infringement under the licenses and updates the licenses to reflect the national digital television transition.

The Judiciary Committee marked this bill up in September and reported it with a unanimous vote of 34-0. Since the markup, we have worked with the Energy and Commerce Committee, which has jurisdiction over communications policy. The bill that we vote on today is a combined Judiciary and Commerce bill. Title I contains the Judiciary piece on copyright. Title II contains the Commerce piece on communications. The committees have done their best to respect each other's jurisdiction, and I thank the chairman of the committee for his cooperation.

Since the markup, we have made further improvements to the language. We've attempted to address some concerns expressed by members of the committee. The changes include: harmonizing the so-called ``grandfathering'' provisions in the bill with those in the Energy and Commerce bill to ensure that consumers who lawfully receive certain kinds of programming are not abruptly cut off because of changes in the law; providing a method for calculating the value of multicast programming schemes under the section 111 license; strengthening the protections for copyright owners in the qualified carrier provision, which provides an incentive for a satellite carrier to serve every market in the United States; increasing the effectiveness of the national emergency provisions; and authorizing a study of how the compulsory licenses may be phased out in favor of direct negotiation for copyrights over time without disrupting the television marketplace.

Title I also includes a savings clause to make absolutely clear that the changes we make and issues we address have no application to communications law unless specifically mentioned. The committee is amending the cable and satellite licenses to reflect the digital transition--something new--and multicasting, in particular, as it pertains to copyright law only. Nothing in this title should be used as a basis for conclusions concerning cable and satellite regulation in areas where Congress has not yet spoken.

Among the many Members who contributed to this progress, I would like to single out in particular my good friend from Virginia, Rick Boucher, who serves in the dual role as a senior member of the Judiciary Committee and the Chair of the Telecommunications Subcommittee. I also must thank Lamar Smith, the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, for helping work to improve the bill in several ways. Of course the distinguished chairman of Energy and Commerce, Chairman Henry Waxman, and Ranking Member Barton for all their counsel and cooperation which made this legislation possible.

We've been working on these issues for more than a year now, and the result is a consensus bill among just about all of the industry stakeholders, including satellite and cable companies, studios, sports leagues, public television and several others. Most importantly, it's a bill that improves service to television consumers and fosters efficiency and competition between cable, satellite, and broadcasters. The satellite license expires in less than a month, December 31, and we must have this reauthorized without delay to avoid the immediate loss of service to tens of thousands of satellite consumers.

House of Representatives,

Committee on Homeland Security,

Washington, DC, October 28, 2009.

Hon. John Conyers, Jr.,

Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, House of

Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Conyers: I write to you regarding H.R. 3570,

the ``Satellite Home Viewer Update and Reauthorization Act of

2009.''

H.R. 3570 contains provisions that fall within the

jurisdiction of the Committee on Homeland Security. I

recognize and appreciate your desire to bring this

legislation before the House in an expeditious manner and,

accordingly, I will not seek a sequential referral of the

bill. However, agreeing to waive consideration of this bill

should not be construed as the Committee on Homeland Security

waiving, altering, or otherwise affecting

its jurisdiction over subject matters contained in the bill

which fall within its Rule X jurisdiction.

Further, I request your support for the appointment of an

appropriate number of Members of the Committee on Homeland

Security to be named as conferees during any House- Senate

conference convened on H.R. 3570 or similar legislation. I

also ask that a copy of this letter and your response be

included in the legislative report on H.R. 3570 and in the

Congressional Record during floor consideration of this bill.

I look forward to working with you as we prepare to pass

this important legislation.

Sincerely,

Bennie G. Thompson,

Chairman.

Madam Speaker, I would like to insert into the Record at this point a more detailed description of the changes that have been made in the bill since it was reported.

Explanation of Changes to SHVRA

Introduction

The Committee believes that the licenses in Sections 111

and 119 should be updated to accommodate the growing practice

of multicast broadcasting, by which television stations

transmit multiple streams of digital television programming

over a single broadcast signal. While the Committee has

endeavored to avoid including in the bill any provisions that

would interfere with existing communications law and

regulation, the Committee has been cognizant of the interplay

between the copyright and the communications elements of the

legislation and intends to confine its amendments to the

copyright licenses only.

In addition to addressing issues raised by multicasting in

the 111 and 119 licenses, this bill addresses important

concerns raised by Members at markup.

The penalties for willful and large-scale infringement of

the license have been increased, and some damages now go

directly to the pool of copyright owners.

The qualified carrier provisions have also been clarified

and strengthened. While nothing in the qualified carrier

provisions reported by the Committee lessened the qualified

carrier's obligation to comply with all aspects of the

Section 119 license, the Committee recognizes that the

royalty and household eligibility requirements of the Section

119 license should not be overshadowed by the qualified

carrier's unique commitment to provide local-into-local

service to all 210 markets. Therefore, the bill provides for

at least one compliance examination and a certification

requirement for the qualified carrier.

Finally, the bill responds to some Members' concerns about

the continued necessity of these compulsory copyright

licenses by providing for a study of policy alternatives that

may enable Congress to phase out the licenses without

unfairly altering the television market or diminishing the

value of the copyrights involved.

I. Section 111 Multicasting

With the transition from analog to digital technology,

questions have arisen as to how digital streams shall be

treated for cable

royalty purposes. The definitions in Section 111 have been

amended to address the multiple digital streams that

television stations are now able to transmit. The definition

of ``primary transmission'' now includes both the primary

stream and any multicast streams transmitted by a television

station. The ``local service area'' definition has been

amended to clarify that the primary stream of a television

broadcast station and any multicast streams of that station

have the same local service area. For example, if the FCC has

determined that a television broadcast station is

``significantly viewed'' in a particular area, that area will

be part of the local service area of all of the station's

digital streams for purposes of section 111. This definition

is relevant to the Copyright Act only, and is not intended to

create any inference in favor or against carriage obligations

for cable multicast streams, which are the exclusive

jurisdiction of the Communications Act and the Federal

Communications Commission.

The calculation of royalties under the cable license has

been amended to value multicast signals. The ``distant signal

equivalent'' definition now specifies that each non-simulcast

primary and multicast stream carried outside of its local

service area will be subject to a separate royalty payment

calculation by cable operators and should be evaluated

separately to determine its distant signal equivalent value

assignment.

Section 111 allows cable systems to pay less than full DSE

rates where FCC rules permit only a portion of a distant

signal to be carried. This amendment gives the same treatment

to multicast streams. The significantly viewed status of a

primary stream under the FCC rules and regulations also

applies to the multicast streams of the same television

stations, to determine distant or local status for royalty

purposes. However, the 3.75 percent ``market quota rate'' and

the ``syndicated exclusivity'' surcharge royalty rates are

only payable for retransmission of primary streams, and are

not applicable to secondary transmission of multicast

streams.

In order to clarify the different types of digital streams

that may be offered by television stations, definitions for

``primary stream,'' and ``multicast stream'' have been

slightly altered and a definition has been added for

``simulcast stream,'' in Section 111. A ``primary stream'' is

the digital stream that a television station is entitled to

demand be carried by cable systems located within the

station's local service area under the FCC's rules in effect

on July 1, 2009. A ``multicast stream'' is any digital stream

transmitted by a television station other than the primary

stream.

The Committee recognizes that some broadcasters may use

their multicast streams to create ``simulcast'' streams--

i.e., streams that duplicate the programming on the

broadcaster's primary stream or on other multicast streams.

For example, a broadcaster may transmit the same content on

two streams, but one stream will be in high definition format

and the other will be in standard definition. In such

instances, a DSE value will be assigned only to one of the

duplicating streams. The Copyright Office may, as

multicasting evolves, determine whether there are other

circumstances in which two streams should be considered

duplicating.

The definitions of ``network station,'' ``independent

station,'' and ``noncommercial station'' have all been

expanded to include a television station's multicast streams

as well as its primary stream. The ``network station''

definition incorporates the conditions under which a

multicast stream may be deemed a network station for royalty

purposes. Thus, to be considered a network station for

royalty purposes, a multicast stream must transmit all or

substantially all of the programming from an interconnected

program service that (a) is owned and operated by one or more

of the networks that supply nationwide programming for a

substantial part of the typical broadcast day and (b) offers

programming on a regular basis for 15 or more hours per week

to at least 25 affiliated television station licensees

located in at least 10 states. These revisions do not

alter the statutory definition of ``network station'' as

it applies to a primary stream.

DSE values are applied to individual multicast streams as

of the date of enactment, except where a cable system was

retransmitting a distant multicast stream prior to that date,

in which case the assignment of a DSE value to that multicast

stream shall commence on July 1, 2010. Separately, a

multicast stream retransmitted by a cable system subject to

an agreement requiring carriage of multicast streams that was

entered into prior to July 1, 2009 will not be assigned a DSE

value for royalty purposes until the first accounting period

after the expiration of the agreement.

While cable operators that did not account for multicast

streams in their royalty calculations prior to the effective

date are not retroactively liable for royalties for such

carriage, cable operators that did may not seek refunds or

offsets of any royalties paid on account of such secondary

transmissions.

The Committee does not intend that any of its audit

provisions in this bill alter existing liability and related

damages for copyright infringements.

II. Section 119 Grandfathering

The Committee also believes that simply because Congress

changes the law, law-abiding consumers should not be deprived

of programming they have become accustomed to receiving

without fair warning. In Section 119, where changes to the

law that govern the treatment of multicast streams have the

potential to render certain consumers ineligible for distant

signals that consumers are currently receiving,

grandfathering provisions have been added to facilitate a

smooth transition to the changed compulsory license system.

Households classified as ``unserved'' with respect to a

particular network station are the only households eligible

to receive secondary transmissions of an affiliate of that

network station under the Section 119 license. The advent of

multicasting has introduced confusion about whether a

``multicast stream'' of a particular network renders a

household served, which would force the satellite carrier to

stop providing distant signal programming to the household

for that network.

The bill harmonizes the preexisting grandfathering

provisions with those in the Energy and Commerce bill to

ensure a smooth transition to a new regime in which, in three

years' time, any stream of local programming, primary or

multicast, will render a household served. Specifically, the

bill provides that households that subscribed to distant

signals before the date of enactment who were lawfully

receiving them can keep those distant signals until the

subscriber elects to no longer receive those signals.

A household that requests a network's distant signal from a

satellite carrier after enactment can receive such a signal

if: (1) the household is in a market where the satellite

carrier offers local service, but does not yet receive from

the satellite carrier the primary stream of an affiliate of

that network that originates within its local market (in

which case the subscriber can keep the distant signal until

he or she does receive such stream from the satellite

carrier); or (2) the household is in a market where the

satellite operator does not yet offer local service (in which

case the subscriber can keep the distant signal until he or

she decides to discontinue it).

III. Increased Protections for Copyright Owners in Section 119

The bill also responds to concerns expressed by Committee

Members at the markup by increasing transparency and

accountability by the qualified carrier concerning its

obligations to copyright owners. A certification provision

similar to the one passed by the Committee on Energy and

Commerce has been added. It requires the satellite carrier to

certify to the district court and the Copyright Office that

it remains compliant with the license 30 months after the

district court initially recognized the satellite company as

a qualified carrier.

The bill provides for at least one Qualified Carrier

Compliance Examination. This examination is not intended to

be punitive. The Committee anticipates that the Comptroller

General will take precautions to ensure that compliance with

its examination does not burden the qualified carrier any

more than is necessary to examine the qualified carrier's

observance of the proper royalty calculation, payment and

adherence to the license's standards for eligible households.

Only if the Comptroller General, in consultation with the

Register of Copyrights, determines that there is a

substantial likelihood that a copyright owner could bring a

successful infringement action will a second examination be

initiated.

The report does not replace the judgment of the district

court, which retains exclusive jurisdiction over the waiver

of the injunction and assessment of damages against the

qualified carrier.

The Committee has taken one other additional step to

strengthen protections for content-owners. The Committee has

increased the damages available for infringement of copyright

by any satellite carrier who engages in a pattern or practice

of wrongful provision of distant signals on a substantially

national basis. Statutory damages of up to $2,500,000 are now

available for each 3-month period of infringement.

Furthermore, these vastly increased damages will be split

between the plaintiff and the pool of copyright holders whose

funds are distributed by the United States Copyright Office,

to compensate copyright owners who may have been unaware of

the infringement.

IV. Study of Alternatives to Compulsory Licenses

Despite these improvements, the Committee is aware that the

compulsory license is not a perfect system. It is, however,

deeply entrenched in the current cable and satellite

television industries, and cannot be eliminated at the

present moment without causing serious disruption for both

the industries and the consumers. The compulsory license

expires at the end of the year and must be reauthorized, but

we know that the television marketplace and broadcast

technology will continue to evolve. This legislation provides

for a study of whether the licenses can be eliminated in the

future, and how the marketplace could and should transition

away from the licenses.

Madam Speaker, I yield with pleasure to Chairman Boucher.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, on December 1, 2009, I was called away on personal business. I regret that I was not present for the following votes:

On the passage of H.R. 3029. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

On the passage of H. Res. 727. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

On the passage of H.R. 3667. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. Speaker, as I look over the House, no one has known Jesse Jackson longer than I. I remember him coming to Detroit, I remember going to Chicago, and I remember the work that he was doing even before Dr. Martin Luther King added him to the top of his staff as a valuable assistant.

The quest that he pursued then is still the quest that he pursues now.

Over the 25 years, he hasn't changed. As a matter of fact, he has become international. I'm so proud that in our State we nominated him for President in one of his runs. Obviously, now the connection is clear--from Jackson to Obama. Rev. Jackson, we owe you this victory that we celebrate today.

Thank you, Chairman Rangel, and all of our colleagues that have supported single-payer health care. Eighty-six other Members are now working to make sure that we get this bill passed. I single out my colleagues Dennis Kucinich and Anthony Weiner for their particularly effective work.

But I want to say that this is the same battle that some people went through when we passed Social Security. We had the same naysayers. The same people when we passed Medicare, the same naysayers. The same people when we passed Medicaid, the same naysayers. And now we try to reform health care today, and what do we get? The same people saying ``no'' again.

So I'm proud to bring all of the support that I can to make sure that this bill becomes law, that more people are covered, and that preexisting conditions no longer will be an excuse to get rid of people.

Mr. Speaker, I was unable to make the following votes today. If I were present I would vote ``yea'' to: H. Con. Res. 210-- Providing for the House, upon completion of the Affordable Health Care of America Act, to adjourn until November 16, 2009 and H. Res. 893-- Congratulating the 2009 Major League Baseball World Series Champions, the New York Yankees.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 3548, which extends unemployment benefits to scores of Americans who are out of work due to the severe downturn in the economy. The bill will also continue to extend the First Time Home Buyer Tax Credit though April 30, 2010.

The $8,000 First Time Home Buyer Tax Credit program has allowed approximately 350,000 hard working Americans to achieve the dream of home ownership this year. Given that this nation is still struggling, providing American families with an $8,000 homebuyer tax credit will stabilize the housing market and stimulate the economy. The bill will also provide a $6,500 homebuyer credit to current homeowners who purchase another home.

Furthermore, providing an extension of the First Time Home Buyer Tax Credit will also help further encourage job growth at a time when it is desperately needed. With the purchase of a home, other jobs are created in various sectors. This includes construction, plumbing, home appliances, and numerous other jobs that are the result of expanding affordable housing. There is also evidence that suggests that neighborhoods are safer and become more stable when there are high rates of home ownership in the community.

This legislation also extends unemployment benefits to millions of Americans who otherwise would lose much needed and deserved benefits. In this sluggish economy, American workers are finding it more difficult to find good jobs and this benefit will fill this gap.

This bill could not be any timelier. It extends a provision that allows states with high unemployment, like Michigan, to provide a total of twenty weeks of extended benefits.

Mr. Speaker, I believe today's legislation will further help the workers of Michigan through these difficult times. I rise in strong support of H.R. 3548 and urge my colleagues to support today's legislation.

Madam Speaker, on November 3, 2009, I was unable to cast votes due to personal reasons. I was not present for rollcall votes 835 through 840. Had I been present, I would have cast a ``yea'' vote for final passage of H.R. 3949. I would have cast a ``yea'' vote for final passage of H. Res. 398. I would have cast a ``yea'' vote for final passage of H. Res. 866. I would have cast a ``nay'' vote for the final passage of H. Res. 867. I would have cast a ``yea'' vote for final passage of H.R. 3157. Also, I would have cast a ``yea'' vote for H. Res. 736.

Mr. Speaker, on November 2, 2009, I was unable to cast votes due to personal reasons. I was not present for rollcall votes 832 through 834. Had I been present, I would have cast a ``yea'' vote for final passage of H.R. 1168. I would have cast a ``yea'' vote for final passage of H. Res. 291. Also, I would have cast a ``yea'' vote for the final passage of S. 509.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Ryan White HIV/AIDS Treatment Extension Act of 2009, S. 1793. In our efforts to assist those with HIV/AIDS, the Ryan White Program has been at the forefront, offering lifesaving care for those with this disease.

The Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program allocates federal funds to metropolitan areas and states to assist in reducing health care costs and increasing support services for individuals and families affected by the human immunodeficiency virus or acquired immune deficiency syndrome. The Ryan White Program has been able to serve more than half a million low-income citizens living with HIV/AIDS each year. Of these constituents with HIV/AIDS, 33 percent of them are uninsured and an additional 56 percent are underinsured. This program is facilitated by the Health Resources and Services Administration of the Department of Health and Human Services. Composed of four major parts, the Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program provides grants to urban areas, directs funds to states and territories, pays for the AIDS Drug Assistance Program, and provides grants to both public and private nonprofit entities for family-centered care. This bill also allows for the continued funding for the Minority AIDS Initiative, a program that is attempting to address the impact of this disease on racial minorities.

In December 2006, Congress reauthorized the Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program until September 30, 2009. With 1.1 million persons in the U.S. living with diagnosed or undiagnosed AIDS/HIV, we must ensure that the Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program and the Minority AIDS Initiative are fully funded so that vital services to our neighbors are not cut.

I strongly support the Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program Act and its mission of providing direct care to patients in need. I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Madam Speaker, the FISA Amendments Act of 2009 would amend FISA to protect the constitutional rights of Americans while ensuring that the government has the powers it needs to fight terrorism and collect intelligence.

Section 1--Short Title

This Act may be cited as the FISA Amendments Act of 2009.

Section 2--Telecommunications Immunity

The bill would repeal the retroactive immunity provision in

the FISA Amendments Act, leaving it to the courts to

determine whether any telephone companies that complied with

the illegal warrantless wiretapping program acted properly

under the laws in effect at the time and therefore deserve

immunity. It would retain limitations on liability for acting

in compliance with FISA, the criminal surveillance laws, the

Protect America Act and the FISA Amendments Act.

Section 3--Bulk Collection

The bill retains the new authorities provided in the FISA

Amendments Act but builds in additional safeguards to protect

the rights of innocent Americans. The bill would prevent the

government from using the warrantless collection authorities

of the FISA Amendments Act to conduct ``bulk collection,''

which could include the collection of the contents of all

communications between the United States and the rest of the

world. It would do so by requiring that the government have

some foreign intelligence interest in the overseas party to

the communications it is collecting. Bulk collection raises

serious constitutional questions, and it could permit data

mining of massive quantities of communications of Americans.

Section 4--Reverse Targeting

The bill would place additional limits on the warrantless

collection authorities of the FISA Amendments Act to ensure

that they are not used as a pretext when the government's

real goal is to target the Americans with whom the ostensible

foreign target is communicating. It would require a FISA

Court order if the government is wiretapping a person

overseas but ``a significant purpose'' of the surveillance is

to collect the communications of the person in the United

States with whom the person overseas is communicating.

Section 5--Use of Unlawfully Obtained Information

The bill would limit the government's use of information

about U.S. persons that is obtained under FISA Amendments Act

procedures that the FISA Court later determines to be

unlawful, while still giving the FISA Court flexibility to

allow such information to be used in appropriate cases. This

provides a basic incentive for the government to target

foreign agents overseas rather than innocent Americans here

in the United States. It is similar to the existing law that

limits the use of information collected pursuant to FISA's

emergency authority if the FISA Court determines after the

fact that the FISA standard was not met.

Section 6--Protections for International Communications of Americans

The bill would permit unfettered acquisition of foreign-to-

foreign communications and of communications of suspected

terrorists into or out of the United States, while creating

safeguards for communications not related to terrorism that

the government knows have one end in the United States.

Specifically:

When the government knows in advance that a foreign target

is communicating with someone in the United States, it can

acquire that communication if it involves terrorism, if

someone's safety is at stake, or with a court order.

When the government does not know in advance with whom a

foreign target is communicating, it can acquire all of that

target's communications, without individualized court review.

If the government later realizes that it has acquired a

communication with one end in the U.S., it must segregate

that communication in a separate database. It can then

access, analyze and disseminate that communication if the

communication involves terrorism, if someone's safety is at

stake, or if the government has obtained a court order.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to introduce the ``Disclosure of Presidential Declassification of Intelligence Information Act of 2009.''

This bill will help increase transparency by requiring the White House to release public notices when classified materials are declassified. Specifically, this legislation would require the President to inform the relevant congressional committees within 15 days whenever intelligence has been declassified. The bill also contains a sense of Congress that additional notice should be given to the Director of National Intelligence, the Archivist of the United States, and the heads of the applicable elements of the intelligence community.

In January of this year, I released a report documenting several abuses and excesses of the Bush Administration. The Report, titled ``Reining in the Imperial Presidency: Lessons and Recommendations Relating to the Presidency of George W. Bush,'' contained 50 separate recommendations designed to restore and support the traditional checks and balances of our constitutional system.

This bill carries out the recommendation that Congress consider legislation requiring the President to announce the declassification of classified materials.

As the report details, the Bush administration selectively leaked numerous items of classified information to strengthen the case for war in Iraq. For example, evidence suggests that President Bush secretly authorized the declassification of information without notice in an effort to neutralize Ambassador Joe Wilson's op-ed that raised questions about the case for war.

This bill will help to prevent similar future abuses and political manipulation of intelligence authority by alerting Congress when information is declassified. Such transparency in presidential delegations of declassified authority is a matter of good government regardless of who occupies the White House.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to introduce the ``Inspector General Authority Improvement Act of 2009.''

This Act will provide the Inspector Generals of the various agencies the authority to issue subpoenas for the testimony of former employees or contractors as part of certain investigations of wrongdoing. Under current law, a critical witness can evade being interviewed by an Inspector General, and thus seriously impede an investigation, by simply resigning from the agency.

In January of this year, I released a report documenting several abuses and excesses of the Bush Administration. The Report, titled ``Reining in theImperial Presidency: Lessons and Recommendations Relating to the presidency of George W. Bush,'' contained 50 separate recommendations designed to restore and support the traditional checks and balances of our constitutional system. This bill responds to one of those recommendations.

As the Report details, that ability of Inspector Generals to investigate serious allegations of wrongdoing was significantly impeded during the prior Administration because critical witnesses could not be interviewed if they simply resigned during the investigation or had already left the agency. As a practical matter, the witnesses were beyond the reach of the Inspector General, and their knowledge of potential wrongdoing went with them.

For example, in the investigation of potential misconduct by Monica Goodling, the Department of Justice Inspector General was unable to obtain witness statements from those who had resigned and thus were no longer available. Similarly, the Department of Homeland Security Inspector General was limited in his ability to conduct a complete investigation into the circumstances surrounding the rendition of Canadian citizen Mohammed Arar to Syria. His Report stated bluntly: ``Many of the principal decision-makers involved in the Arar case have left government service and declined our requests for interviews. As they are no longer DHS employees, we cannot compel them to speak with us.''

It is important to note that this bill contains important limitations on the Inspector Generals' subpoena power in order to prevent abuse or damage to ongoing investigations. Most prominently, an Inspector General cannot issue a subpoena if the Department of Justice concludes in a particular case that the taking of a deposition would interfere with civil or criminal litigation.

I believe that with this limitation, this legislation strikes an appropriate balance between the need for an independent Inspector General to investigate administrative wrongdoing and the responsibility of the Attorney General to enforce our criminal laws and protect the civil interests of the United States Government.

This legislation will go a long way in fostering transparency in government by improving the Inspector Generals' tools and permit them to effectively carry out their mission. Such vigorous oversight is a matter of good government, regardless of whether we have a Democratic or Republican Administration.

Madam Speaker, I submit the following:

Sec. 1. Short title and table of contents. Section 1 names

this Act the ``USA PATRIOT Amendments Act of 2009'' and

provides a table of contents for the entire bill.

Title I--USA PATRIOT Act Related Amendments

Sec. 101. Roving Wiretaps. Sec. 101 clarifies that when the

government only provides a description of the target of

surveillance for purposes of obtaining a warrant (whether or

not that warrant is for a regular or roving FISA warrant),

that description must be sufficient to allow a court to

determine that the target is a single individual.

Sec. 102. Extension of Sunset of Sections 206 and 215 of

USA PATRIOT Act. Sec. 102 extends the sunset dates of roving

wiretaps and FISA business records to December 31, 2013.

Sec. 103. Access to Certain Tangible Things under section

501 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978.

Sec. 103 (Sec. 215 tangible things) requires a statement of

specific and articulable facts showing that the tangible

things sought are relevant to an authorized investigation,

other than a threat assessment. The ``specific and

articulable'' language is not present in the current law, and

is a more exacting standard for government to meet.

This section also retains the concept that certain types of

records are ``presumptively relevant'' to a counterterrorism

or counterintelligence related investigation (assuming an

appropriate statement containing specific and articulable

facts). The retention of the ``presumptive relevance'' for

documents pertaining to foreign powers or agents of a foreign

power accomplishes two important goals. First, it puts the

government and a court on notice that these types of records

are the type of documents that Congress generally expects the

government will be pursuing in furtherance of authorized

counterterrorism and counterintelligence investigations. The

presumptive relevance standard does not, however, allow the

government to obtain the documents merely by showing

relevance to a foreign power or agent of a foreign power

through a statement of ``specific and articulable facts.'' A

court must also find that the requested records are actually

relevant to an authorized investigation.

Second, the government may be able to acquire certain

records even if it cannot show

that the documents are relevant to a foreign power or agent

of a foreign power. However, these types of records, which do

not fall into the ``presumptively relevant'' category, would

be evaluated with a higher degree of scrutiny by a court. The

court would determine whether or not the government presented

specific and articulable facts to show relevance to an

authorized investigation.

With respect to judicial review, current law requires the

recipient of a nondisclosure order associated with a Sec. 215

order to wait a year before seeking judicial review of the

nondisclosure order. Sec. 103 allows a recipient to challenge

both the underlying order and any associated nondisclosure

order immediately. In addition, the government must notify

the recipient of a right to challenge the legality of the

production order or nondisclosure order, and the procedure to

follow to file such a petition at the time the government

serves the Sec. 215 order on the recipient. Absent bad faith

on the part of the government, current law also allows a

certification by a high level official to conclusively defeat

a challenge to a nondisclosure order. Sec. 103 eliminates the

concept of a ``conclusive certification'' entirely.

Compliance assessments of minimization procedures

pertaining to Sec. 215 orders are now facilitated by allowing

FISA court judges to review government compliance with

minimization procedures associated with specific orders. A

request for Sec. 215 records cannot be made to a library or

bookseller for documentary materials that contain personally

identifiable information concerning a patron. None of these

elements are present in the current law.

Sec. 104. Sunset Relating to Individual Terrorists as

Agents of Foreign Powers. Sec. 104 allows the ``Lone Wolf'

provision to sunset on December 31, 2009. ``Lone Wolf'' is

not reauthorized.

Sec. 105. Audits. Sec. 105 requires the DOJ Inspector

General to audit and submit reports to Congress for 215

tangible thing orders, National Security Letters (NSLs), and

FISA pen register/trap and trace orders for all calendar

years through 2013.

Sec. 106. Criminal ``sneak and peek'' searches. Sec. 106

requires the government to seek an extension for delaying

notice of the search after seven (7) days, not the current

thirty (30) days. Any extension to delay notice granted by a

court cannot be longer than 21 days at a time. In addition,

any application for extension must be made by the Senate-

confirmed United States Attorney for the district seeking the

delay. This section also narrows the circumstances under

which the government could obtain a ``sneak and peek''

warrant by eliminating ``otherwise seriously jeopardizing an

investigation or unduly delaying a trial'' as a situation

that would permit the issuance of a ``sneak and peek''

warrant.

Sec. 107. Use of Pen Registers and Trap and Trace Devices

under title 18, United States Code. Sec. 107 requires the

application for a pen register to contain a statement of

specific and articulable facts showing that the information

likely to be obtained is relevant to an ongoing criminal

investigation. Current law only requires a certification by

the applicant.

Sec. 108. Orders for Pen Registers and Trap and Trace

Devices for Foreign Intelligence Purposes. Sec. 108 requires

the application for a pen register to contain a statement of

specific and articulable facts relied upon by the applicant

to justify the belief that the information likely to be

obtained is foreign intelligence information not concerning a

United States person or is relevant to an ongoing

investigation. Current law only requires a certification by

the applicant. This section also requires the implementation

of minimization procedures for pen registers and trap and

trace devices, and allows FISA court judges to assess the

government's compliance with these minimization procedures.

These are new requirements.

Sec. 109. Public Reporting on the Foreign Intelligence

Surveillance Act. Sec. 109 requires annual public reporting

of aggregate numbers of requests for surveillance that also

include a breakdown of requests for (a) electronic

surveillance, (b) physical searches, (c) orders for tangible

things (Section 215 orders), and (d) pen registers. Current

law requires only public reporting of the above categories in

the aggregate.

Sec. 110. Challenges to Nationwide Orders for Electronic

Surveillance. Sec. 110 allows a provider of electronic

communication service or remote computing service to

challenge a subpoena, order, or warrant requiring disclosure

of customer communications or records in either the district

in which the order was issued or the district in which the

order was served.

Title 11--National Security Letter Reform

Sec. 201. Short Title. Sec. 201 indicates that title II

shall be cited as the ``National Security Letter Reform Act

of 2009.''

Sec. 202. Sunset. Section 202 provides a sunset date of

December 31, 2013 for national security letters, with the

effect of returning the relevant national security letter

statutes to read as they read on October 25, 2001.

Sec. 203. National Security Letter defined. Sec. 203

defines ``national security letter,'' for the purposes of

this bill, as a request for information under one of the

enumerated provisions of law.

Sec. 204. Modification of Standard. Sec. 204 requires an

official with authority to issue a national security letter

to document and retain a statement of specific and

articulable facts showing that there are reasonable grounds

to believe that the information sought pertains to a foreign

power or agent of a foreign power. This standard changes the

focus of the ``relevance'' required under current law from

``authorized investigation'' to ``foreign power or agent of a

foreign power.'' In addition, current law does not directly

couple the relevance standard with ``specific and

articulable'' facts as support for relevance--a more exacting

standard for the government to meet. Current law also does

not require the government to create and maintain a record of

such facts at the time the national security letter is

issued.

Sec. 205. Notification of Right to Judicial Review of

Nondisclosure Order. Sec. 205 requires the government to

notify a recipient of a national security letter of (1) a

right to judicial review of any nondisclosure requirement

imposed in connection with that national security letter and,

(2) that the nondisclosure requirement will remain in effect

during the pendency of any judicial review proceedings.

Current law does not require such notification.

Sec. 206. Disclosure for Law Enforcement Purposes. Sec. 206

requires the Attorney General to authorize the use of any

information acquired or derived from a national security

letter in a criminal proceeding. Current law does not require

such ``use authority'' for national security letters.

Sec. 207. Judicial Review of National Security Letter

Nondisclosure Order. Sec. 207 establishes additional

procedures for a recipient to seek judicial review of a

nondisclosure requirement imposed in connection with a

national security letter. If the recipient wishes to have a

court review a nondisclosure requirement, the recipient must

notify the government. Not later than thirty days after the

receipt of notification, the government must apply for a

court order prohibiting the disclosure of information about

the national security letter or the existence of the national

security letter. The nondisclosure requirement remains in

effect during the pendency of any judicial review

proceedings. The government's application for a nondisclosure

order must include a certification from the Attorney General,

Deputy Attorney General, or the Director of the FBI (or the

head of another agency if not part of DOJ) containing a

statement of specific and articulable facts indicating that

disclosure may result in a danger to the national security of

the United States, interference with a criminal,

counterterrorism, or counterintelligence investigation,

interference with diplomatic relations, or danger to the life

or physical safety of any person. If a court determines that

there is reason to believe that disclosure will result in one

of the enumerated harms, the court will issue a nondisclosure

order for no longer than 180 days. The government can seek

renewals of nondisclosure orders for additional periods of no

longer than 180 days each. If there comes a time when the

facts supporting a nondisclosure order issued by the court

cease to exist, the government must promptly notify a

recipient who sought judicial review of a nondisclosure order

that the nondisclosure is no longer in effect.

Current law neither requires the recipient to formally

notify the government if ``he'' wishes to seek judicial

review, nor specifies that the government will initiate such

court review by applying for a court order. The government is

also not required to notify a recipient who sought judicial

review of a nondisclosure if or when such an order would

cease to exist based on a change in facts supporting the

nondisclosure order. In addition, absent bad faith on the

part of the government, current law also allows a

certification by a high level government official to

conclusively defeat a challenge to a nondisclosure order if

the challenge is filed within one year of the request for

records. Current law also allows a recertification made by

high level officials to be treated as conclusive, unless made

in bad faith. Sec. 207 eliminates the concept of a

``conclusive certification'' entirely. Moreover, this section

corrects constitutional defects in the nondisclosure orders

pertaining to national security letters as addressed in Doe

v. Mukasey, 549 F.3d 861 (2nd Cir. 2008).

Sec. 208. Minimization Procedures. Sec. 208 requires the

Attorney General to establish minimization and destruction

procedures to ensure that information obtained pursuant to a

national security letter regarding persons that are no longer

of interest in an authorized investigation is destroyed.