Patrick McHenry

Mr. McHENRY

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Chairman, in closing, I would encourage my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment. The reporting requirements my colleague references are required by the servicers that are participating in HAMP, and they are required to disclose the information related to the Federal program, HAMP. This amendment goes much further and requires these servicers to disclose hundreds of thousands of other modifications that are in the private sector. We know the aggregate number. What is being requested here is detailed information that is not correct for personal privacy and is not proper in keeping with the hundreds of thousands of private transactions going on across this country. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.'' I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McHENRY. I appreciate the gentlelady offering this amendment. Unfortunately, I must rise in opposition to it. The requirements in this amendment are both cumbersome and unnecessary. It requires servicers and lenders to provide information regarding proprietary information on their entire portfolio of loans, not just HAMP. The reporting requirement for, quote, requests for modifications is undefined in the amendment and is, therefore, unworkable based on the research that we have done. It's unclear why this new role is necessary in the contractual negotiations between private citizens and private companies. Furthermore, servicers already provide results of their modification efforts to the HOPE NOW Alliance as well as in their annual reports without disclosing proprietary information. In fact, the HOPE NOW Alliance reports servicers having completed 961,355 proprietary modifications in 2008; 1,172,490 proprietary modifications in 2009; and 1.2 million in 2010. Now I might add, this is many multiples in the private sector in terms of mortgage modifications than have been provided under the HAMP government funded program that we're discussing here today and trying to eliminate here today, the program that has hurt just shy of 800,000 Americans, destroyed their credit, taken their savings and, at the end of the day, taken their homes. I would encourage my colleagues to vote against this amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. McHENRY

Mr. McHENRY. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, the bill that I am sponsoring is the HAMP Termination Act, and it is a bill that will protect at-risk homeowners across the country from a government program that has proven to be an abysmal failure. The Home Affordable Modification Program, or HAMP, was originally supposed to help as many as 3 million to 4 million struggling homeowners avoid foreclosure by modifying loans to a level that is affordable to borrowers now and sustainable over the long term. That was the intention. However, nearly 800,000 of the 1.4 million homeowners who enrolled in this program have subsequently been rejected or terminated. In his most recent testimony to Congress, the Special Inspector General for TARP, Neil Barofsky, stated: ``It is just not working. The Home Affordable Modification Program has to date been a failure.'' ``A failure,'' in the words of the independent individual to oversee this program. A failure. Now, there is no doubt that people of good will created this program. There is no doubt about that. The intention was to help those that are facing foreclosure. That was the intention. Unfortunately, the design of this program has led to more people being harmed than actually helped. Understand that. We have a government program that harms more people than it was designed to help because it strings them along with a so-called verbally modified change to their payments, and so it drains their savings. At the end of the day, the majority of the people enrolled in this program are kicked out, and they are left not only with their savings depleted, which is bad enough that a government program strings people along for that, but it also ruins their credit rating, because this government program only verbally modifies their loan terms. In the end, you have folks that have depleted their savings, ruined their credit, and lost their house. And this is a Federal Government program paid for by the American people's tax dollars. It is an abject failure. Worse than that, it is destroying people's lives. I would ask my colleagues to vote for this rule. It allows for a number of amendments, some of which are wise, others that I think are very flawed from my colleagues across the aisle. But this HAMP program, we have to come to a consensus on it. All the folks that oversee this, nonpartisan, bipartisan, have all looked at this and described it as a failure. So if we can't eliminate this government program, then I ask my colleagues, What government programs can we eliminate? Vote for the rule; and, please, I ask my colleagues to vote for the HAMP Termination Act as well.

Mr. McHENRY

Mr. McHENRY. I want to thank my colleague from New Jersey for yielding. Let's be clear: This amendment will not save one single dime. My colleague from Minnesota simply is misinformed. Every dime spent in this sponsorship program is measurable. You can measure the number of media impressions you have, which the U.S. Army's participation in NASCAR sponsorship netted it 484 million media impressions, 34 million of which were offered specific Army recruiting messages. So let's be very clear. This sponsorship is about recruiting. This amendment is about politics in certain districts for certain groups of people. But the vast majority of NASCAR fans--one out of five--have served or are currently serving in the U.S. military. It's a target- rich environment for Army's recruiting message and a target-rich environment for military and the military message. So I would just urge my colleagues to vote against this irresponsible amendment that is certainly politically charged, but at the end of the day will not save the taxpayers one single dime.

Mr. McHENRY

Mr. McHENRY. I thank my committee chair for yielding me time. I appreciate his leadership. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of this resolution and recommend that we review regulations and the order from Federal agencies that they submit and control the private sector. Since the onset of the recession, the driving policy in Washington has been to grow our economy for the long term. Some of our colleagues believe that we can achieve that by growing the Federal Government. However, more government and more regulations do not lead to more jobs. In 1988, Ronald Reagan stated that, in the end, it was not government regulation, high taxes or Big Government spending but, rather, free enterprise that led to the building of a great America. Over the past 2 years, the American business owner has seen darker economic days than this country has seen in generations. Yet our businesses still push forward, innovating and adapting to the increasingly global marketplace that we live in. Our government must do the same thing. Astonishingly, a number of our colleagues believe that Federal regulations actually lead to more jobs and more productivity. Some have even called for more Federal regulation to spur job growth. Quite frankly, I think that's insane; and I think most Americans believe the same. After hearing from job creators yesterday in our Oversight and Government Reform hearing, as well as hearing from job creators in my district, it is clear that the best way to help small businesses, America's job creators, is to look in our own backyard to see what onerous regulations and wasteful spending programs are getting in the way of free enterprise. That means a renewed commitment to tough government oversight and transparency. That's what this resolution does. This Chamber must remain committed to enacting policies based on the principles of Ronald Reagan, reducing the size of government, increasing its efficiency, and making it accountable to those it serves, the American people.

Mr. McHENRY

Mr. McHENRY. Thank you, Chairman Dreier, for yielding. Madam Speaker, last night House Republicans took a major step in keeping our pledge to America by passing the repeal of ObamaCare. Now we must work to replace this budget-busting law with sensible, market- based policies that actually lower costs for families and small businesses and expand access to affordable care. Small businesses are the job creators that hold the key to our economic recovery. They cannot afford the hundreds of billions of dollars in new taxes in the ObamaCare law and the new employer mandate as well. Our small businesses need certainty in the Tax Code and certainty in the regulations coming out of Washington. ObamaCare only makes matters worse. I look forward to an open and transparent debate in this Congress on alternative, affordable solutions. That's what the American people want, and that's what my constituents desire. I would also challenge my friends on the other side of the aisle to listen to the American people and to join our efforts to work towards better solutions to our Nation's health care challenges.

Mr. McHENRY

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I support H.R. 1107, a bill proposed by the Office of Law Revision Counsel, to update and approve the codification of title 41 of the United States Code. The Judiciary Committee has jurisdiction over law revision bills, and this particular bill deals with the title addressing public contracts. The Judiciary Committee considered and approved a similar bill last Congress, but it was ultimately not taken up by the House before the end of the Congress. H.R. 1107 and similar law revision bills are important because they ensure that the U.S. Code is up to date, accurate, and usable. I am glad to support this legislation today. In closing, certainly the floor has been in chaos this afternoon, but we would like to take care of these Judiciary Committee suspension bills so we can get them done before the end of the year, and I appreciate my colleague taking the floor as well. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McHENRY

Mr. McHENRY. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Bankruptcy Technical Corrections Act of 2010, as amended by the Senate. The House passed the original version of the bill in late September to make purely technical changes to the Bankruptcy Code. Then, as now, these changes are not intended to make any change to substantive bankruptcy law. Instead, these changes clean up the text of the Bankruptcy Code to make it easier to use by lawyers and judges. The Senate amendment strikes one provision of the House bill which would have renumbered the section of the Bankruptcy Code that defines the term ``timeshare plan.'' Rather than define ``timeshare plan'' in their own State codes, many State legislatures have chosen to incorporate the Federal definition by reference into their State law. The Senate amendment reflects a concern that changing the section number of the Bankruptcy Code definition would have resulted in inaccurate cross references in numerous State codes. The necessity of the Senate amendment highlights the perils that result when States legislate by reference to provisions of Federal law. The States are sovereign in our system of constitutional federalism and they should exercise an independent duty to legislate without respect to mutable Federal laws. The House bill, as amended, will clear up some existing confusion in the bankruptcy community regarding provisions of the Bankruptcy Code. It is important that Federal law be technically sound so that the intent of Congress is clear and judges do not use technical loopholes to practice judicial activism. In particular, it is important that the Bankruptcy Code be technically sound because of the volume of bankruptcy filings during this recession. As America continues to struggle with high unemployment, bearish capital markets, and massive deficits, the Bankruptcy Code is playing an increasingly important role in our Nation's financial health. Unfortunately, that is the case. As my colleagues on the Judiciary Committee stated when the House first considered this bill, it is important that the Congressional Record reflect the bipartisan acknowledgment that this bill does not, and is not, intended to enact any substantive change to the Bankruptcy Code. Lawyers and judges who practice bankruptcy law should not understand any provision of this bill to confer, modify, or delete any substantive bankruptcy right. Similarly, no inference should be drawn from the absence in this bill of a technical amendment to any other part of the Bankruptcy Code. With this understanding, I support the bankruptcy technical amendments bill as amended by the Senate, and I share that with my Republican colleagues on the Judiciary Committee. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McHENRY

Mr. McHENRY. Madam Speaker, today I rise in strong opposition to S. 3167. In the last 2 years, I have served as the ranking member of the Census Subcommittee here in the House. We have had no legislative hearing, no markup, no substantive discussions about the content of this legislation. And here we are at the last hour of a lame duck Congress and they are trying to pass a piece of legislation that hasn't had an honest-to-goodness legislative hearing or a markup. Well, I guess that is what we have seen over the last 24 months out of this Congress, a disregard for the legislative process. I don't think it is responsible for us to pass a major piece of legislation like this, and it does have a major impact. I certainly appreciate my colleague submitting ideas such as this to improve the census, but I don't think this is the right approach. To that end, I would like to submit for the Record a letter from the Department of Commerce signed by Secretary Gary Locke dated December 13 stating his opposition to components of this legislation. I think it is important that we should not reward the Census Bureau for a repeated history of cost overruns and mishaps. These suggest that the Bureau needs more, not less, oversight. S. 3167 would grant greater autonomy to the Census Director. The bill would have the director bypass the Commerce Under Secretary for Economics and Statistics Administration, ESA, in favor of a direct report to the Commerce Secretary. Each Commerce Secretary has opposed this proposal. In fact, the current Commerce Secretary has 16 direct reports, so this further puts in place a process that I don't think is sustainable for this Commerce Secretary or future Commerce Secretaries. Yesterday, the current Commerce Secretary, Gary Locke, wrote a letter to the Congress stating, The department strongly opposes the provisions of this bill enabling the Census Bureau Director to submit legislative recommendations or testimony to Congress without supervisory review. This letter also expresses concern about the provisions of the bill that would require the Director of the Census Bureau to report directly to the Secretary of Commerce. With regard to these views, it is worth pointing out that it is the Commerce Secretary himself who is granted the statutory authority to carry out the decennial census. The Census Bureau will have less oversight if it reports directly to the Secretary, as I stated before, because the Secretary has 16 direct reports. The Census Director currently reports to the Under Secretary for Economic Affairs, who heads ESA. It is the role of ESA to coordinate economic data, some of which is provided to the Census Bureau's Economic Directorate. Granting the Census Bureau autonomy from ESA will hinder the coordination of economic data, and certainly we are a world leader in terms of our regard for economic data. The Census Bureau wants to operate as independently as possible. That certainly is understandable. But it is also important to recognize a history of cost overruns the Bureau has had under Democrat and Republican administrations, and the GAO has put the 2010 census on its high risk list due to concerns of mismanagement within the Census Bureau. Again, that was a bipartisan problem. Congress should not reward fiscal irresponsibility by granting additional autonomy. Madam Speaker, this bill does not establish accountability. It does not require the Census Bureau to have an inspector general, which I think would be proper. It does not establish fiscal constraints. It does not even provide guidelines on the questions and surveys that it can ask the American people. And it doesn't require the Bureau to produce alternative methods of procuring statistical data, such as partnerships with universities and the private sector, which I think is necessary and proper in this time that we are in. Madam Speaker, consideration of this bill is premature. The 2010 census results will be released one week from today. The Bureau just announced that yesterday. But crucial information concerning the statistical confidence level of the data will not be released until early next year. Again, this bill is premature. I certainly appreciate my colleague's interest in this, but I think it is better handled in the next Congress, where we can actually have an honest-to-goodness, I don't know, legislative hearing perhaps, maybe even a markup of a bill, and actually get some input from both sides. Just because the Senate passed it doesn't mean the House should rubberstamp it, by any means. But I do think we should have serious consideration of this bill and do it under the light of day, not at the 11th hour of a dying Congress. So, that is my view, and I think that is the view of many colleagues on my side of the aisle as well. U.S. Department of Commerce, The Secretary of Commerce, Washington, DC, December 13, 2010. Hon. Edolphus Towns, Chairman, Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Chairman: This letter provides the views of the Department of Commerce on the Senate-passed version of S. 3167, the ``Census Oversight Efficiency and Management Reform Act of 2010.'' Your continued work on behalf of the Census Bureau is appreciated, and we look forward to working with you to make it an even better agency. The Department of Commerce's goal is to ensure that the Census Bureau functions as a transparent, cost-effective, and competent organization that is successful in planning and implementing its programs, while maintaining its statistical integrity and freedom from political interference. Therefore, we consider it crucial that we convey the following assessment of several provisions of the legislation as passed by the Senate. The Department supports the provision of the bill that would create a five-year fixed term for the Census Bureau Director beginning on January 1, 2012. A five-year term (limiting an individual to two full terms) for the Census Bureau Director helps avoid political interference by giving the Director more stability across election cycles. This stability conforms to well-accepted principles and practices of independence for federal statistical agencies and is the current status of the appointment of the Commissioner of the Bureau of Labor Statistics and of the National Center for Education Studies. It may mitigate the risk of having long periods after elections where there is no Senate-confirmed Director, particularly in those years leading up to a decennial census. At the close of the 2010 Census, five of the last seven decennial censuses will have been led by a Director appointed in the year ending in 9 or 0, leading to management uncertainty at critical times during the decennial census cycle. However, the Department strongly opposes the provision of the bill that could be construed to enable the Census Bureau Director to submit legislative recommendations or testimony or comments to Congress without supervisory review, and has concerns about the provision of the bill that would require the Director of the Census Bureau to report directly to the Secretary of Commerce. With respect to the proposal concerning the submission of the Census Bureau Director's views directly to Congress where the views include a statement indicating that they do not represent the views of the President, the Department of Justice advises us that in order to avoid infringing on the powers reserved to the President under the Recommendations Clause of the Constitution, the Executive Branch would construe the word ``officer,'' in that provision, not to include the President, thereby allowing him to direct the review of the Director's legislative recommendations, testimony and comments prior to their submission to Congress. Even as so construed, however, the proposal would overreach into Executive Branch prerogatives by bypassing normal communication and decision-making channels within the Executive Branch, and therefore we oppose it. There are always a variety of data policy issues under discussion that are often the subject of testimony or that emerge as legislative recommendations out of a broader Executive Branch decision-making process. It is a prerogative of the Executive Branch to speak with one voice on such issues. The ability to speak with one voice on policy matters does not interfere with statistical agencies' ability to provide unfiltered statistical data. A key principle of government statistical agencies worldwide is that the credibility of the information they provide depends on the public perceiving these data as independent of political intervention. In addition to this provision, we have concerns about the provision in the bill that would require the Director of the Census Bureau to report directly to the Secretary of Commerce. This provision unnecessarily limits the Secretary's discretion to establish an organizational structure that best suits the needs of the Department. The Director of the Census Bureau has full access and accountability to the Secretary of Commerce. However, there are sound reasons for maintaining the current reporting relationship of the Census Bureau to the Economics and Statistics Administration (ESA). The Under Secretary for Economic Affairs, who heads ESA, serves as the principal adviser to the Secretary on economic issues and also oversees the activities of the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA). The Under Secretary is responsible for the analysis and development of policies on economic and statistical issues. One of ESA's primary roles is to interpret the mission of statistical agencies to senior officials within the Department, ensuring that the Office of Management and Budget directives of independence and freedom from political influences are maintained. Like you, I believe that independence from partisan political interference and effective management oversight and accountability of the Census Bureau is a top priority. I encourage you to take into consideration our concerns and accept our recommendations on this important issue. We are always looking for ways to improve the Census Bureau and look forward to continuing to work with you on this and other important matters. The Department appreciates the opportunity to present these views on the Senate-passed version of S. 3167. The Office of Management and Budget has advised that there is no objection to the transmittal of these views from the standpoint of the Administration's program. If you have any questions, please contact me or April Boyd, Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at (202) 482-3663. Sincerely, Gary Locke. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McHENRY. I again yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, just to address my colleague's comments about the opinion she imputed to me about this legislation and the way she changed the legislation to more meet with my opinion, those, Madam Speaker, were not my opinions. We have actually not had discussions about this legislation, my colleague and I from New York have not. So, just to be very clear, those opinions were someone else's; not mine. Additionally, it is kind of interesting to throw in the tax debate regarding a piece of legislation about the census. I'm not going to take the bait. It's fine. We'll have a vote on that or we won't have a vote on that this Congress, depending on what the Speaker thinks. I certainly understand the concern about not having hearings and not having markups. But I would say to my colleague from New York that it is her party that is in both the House and Senate and had every opportunity to schedule a hearing on this piece of legislation. They had every opportunity to schedule a markup on this piece of legislation, and they didn't. So, clearly, it is a problem not with my party, but it is a problem with my colleague from New York's party about getting that scheduled. Madam Speaker, I do have serious concerns and, I think, legitimate concerns. I also understand how many folks operate in Congress: we take a pledge that we will fix it later, and that ``later'' never happens. So what I would say to my colleague from New York is that, in the next Congress, I will be very happy to work with her to pass a reasonable piece of legislation which, I think, structurally will look different than this but which will take on some of the concerns that she has about the Census Bureau. I am truly concerned about making sure that our statistical agencies are independent, independent from political influence like this President tried to have at the beginning of his term in office by having the Census Director report directly to then-Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel. We came out opposed to that. It was my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who wanted that. We came out opposed to the statistical manipulation of the outcome of the census, which some in the other party were very much in favor of. It is true that there are political disagreements between Republicans and Democrats, but I think we all want to have a fair and accurate census. I also want to have a census that is cheaper in the future than it has been in the past. We have had a cost overrun of $3 billion. As I would mention to my colleague from New York, the entire budget of the Department of Commerce is just shy of $9 billion annually. They had a $3 billion cost overrun within just the Census. That is an enormous sum, and I think it is worthy of having an Inspector General to make sure that this doesn't happen again. So that is my concern. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McHENRY. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, again, I rise in opposition to this legislation. I certainly appreciate the sponsor's thoughtfulness in creating it, but I think there are a number of provisions that do cause problems. And I agree with the Democrat Secretary of Commerce, the current Secretary of Commerce, with his opposition to large provisions within it. In order to thoughtfully legislate on the decennial census, I think we need to have a hearing and I think we need to have a markup, and I think we can hash this out. And I am willing to work with my colleague from New York to make that happen in the next Congress, because I do think she comes from a sincere place with this legislation. Unfortunately, it is a piece of flawed legislation. I'll give you one example. The Census Director will report directly to the Secretary of Commerce. Again, that Census Director will be one of 17 individuals with a direct report to the Secretary of Commerce. However, the Secretary of Commerce is not able to fire the Census Director. So, if he or she is a direct report to the Commerce Secretary, shouldn't the Commerce Secretary have the ability to fire that person if they're incompetent or inept rather than just letting them serve a 5-year term? That's one provision within the legislation that I think is troublesome. Additionally, as the sponsor mentioned, there is no inspector general. And, with a multibillion-dollar census, I think it is important that we have IGs that actually have the power to oversee a program, and a program that's so large and so expensive. This census has a $3 billion cost overrun over its life cycle. Now, the individuals responsible for that weren't held accountable. But that $3 billion, rather than rewarding the Bureau for having a cost overrun of that size by giving them independence and autonomy right now, I think we need to have some thoughtful consideration of how to ensure that we don't have future cost overruns like that. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. McHENRY. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McHENRY. Madam Speaker, I am sorry my colleague used up her time. I am going to close by saying that anyone who wants an accountable Census Bureau will oppose this bill. Instead of saying we want an independent bureau that is not accountable, I think we are saying we want an independent bureau that is accountable. That is why I am going to oppose this bill. I ask my colleagues--those who want fiscal sanity, those who want proper oversight of the Census, those who want reasonable legislating, which actually means we would have a hearing and a markup--to vote ``no'' on this bill. I would also mention to my colleague from New York that her legislation we are discussing here today got just about as many votes as that tax deal that she opposes. So you can take this for all you want as to what the Senate does, but the census affects every Member of the House, all of our constituents, our statistical reporting agencies, and our economic bureaus as well. We want to make sure we get this legislation right, but it is highly flawed as it is currently constructed; and it would mean further cost overruns going forward. With that, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this legislation.

Mr. McHENRY

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding. Mr. Speaker, today I am here to support the YouCut proposal on the floor that would end the bailouts permanently, the Troubled Asset Relief Program, the so-called TARP program which we all know and dislike, and the bailouts. This is our opportunity to vote to cut billions of dollars worth of spending that Washington has propagated in the last few years. Namely, within this bill, within this vote is the Home Affordability Mortgage Program. It is a great idea. It is a fantastic idea to give mortgage relief to those who are trying to make ends meet and make their payments. Unfortunately, this program has been an abject failure. It has modified 230,000 mortgages but cost billions of dollars, far from its goal of 3 million mortgage modifications. So many of the folks who participate in this program are later rejected for permanent modifications. They end up 3 months behind in their mortgage or more, hit with penalties and late fees, show delinquency on their credit report, and, at the same time, end up worse off than if the program had never existed. President Obama's proposal here is absolutely the wrong approach, and moreover, it's just another symptom of the bailout culture of Washington, D.C. So vote to cut spending.

Mr. McHENRY

Mr. McHENRY. Madam Speaker, on September 16, 2010, the X PRIZE Foundation, an educational nonprofit prize organization, and Progressive Insurance, awarded a total of $10 million to three teams who successfully completed the rigorous Progressive Insurance Automotive X PRIZE competition. Among the three winning teams was Li- ion Motors Corp. in my district. Li-ion Motors emerged from an original field of 111 competing teams, representing 136 vehicle entries from around the world. The winning vehicles were showcased to an audience of individuals from the auto industry, national and international businesses, and U.S. government leaders. Li-ion Motors' design of the ``Wave II'' was awarded $2.5 million for the Alternative Side-by-Side Class category. The two-seat battery electric car was built on a lightweight aluminum chassis and weighed in at only 2,176 pounds, despite the weight of its powerful lithium ion batteries. The Wave II demonstrated outstanding low mechanical and aerodynamic drag that resulted in 187 miles per gallon equivalent, MPGe, in combined on-track and laboratory efficiency testing, and a 14.7 second zero-to-60 mph acceleration time. The vehicle also has a range of 100 miles in a real-world driving cycle. This is a great day for all the individuals who work at Li-ion Motors and helped achieve this amazing accomplishment. This company is now eligible for a U.S. Department of Energy program that will help ready highly efficient vehicles for introduction to the U.S. market.

Mr. McHENRY

Mr. McHENRY. I thank my colleague from Texas for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this closed rule and to vote ``no'' on the conference report of this so-called ``financial regulatory reform bill.'' I say ``so-called'' because this is not much in the way of reform. It is change. It is manipulation, and it is going to be harmful to the American people. My district is still mired with high unemployment. We've got over 13 percent unemployment in western North Carolina. The people across this Nation have about 10 percent unemployment nationally. People are hurting. Small businesses in my district are worried about access to credit. Families are worried about being able to keep their credit cards, their checking accounts, and the financial products that they know and like. Unfortunately, this bill, this legislation, restricts credit, and it makes credit less available and tighter going forward. It makes it harder for the small businesses which are struggling to meet payroll-- much less to create jobs--to make ends meet. Now, the new taxpayer-funded bureaucracy that this legislation creates will intervene in the financial affairs of every single American and not for the better. The results will be fewer loans for people to buy cars, to purchase homes, to go to college, or to start small businesses. To make matters worse--and the kicker with this bill--is that it won't prevent the next crisis. It doesn't even address the root causes of the last crisis. Certainly, we are in favor of making sure the last crisis we faced doesn't ever happen again. I think we agree on that, Republicans and Democrats. The fact is this bill doesn't address the root causes of the last crisis. So to call this ``reform'' is a sham and a fraud, and I encourage my colleagues to vote against it.

Mr. McHENRY

Mr. McHENRY. I want to thank the ranking member, Mr. Camp, for his leadership on the Ways and Means Committee and for yielding time this morning. Well, as we well know, we've seen the devastation of the earthquake in Haiti, the loss of life, the suffering. It's tragic, and certainly the American people rally to the Haitian people. But what we have before us today is not just about Haiti; it's about jobs in the United States. And, unfortunately, there's a provision here within the bill that will hurt jobs here in the United States. This legislation will allow for duty-free access to yarns and fabrics produced in other Third World countries, and Haiti will simply be more of a location for transshipment than other nations. Bad trade deals like this one have devastated my district in western North Carolina and devastated manufacturing in the United States. Counties in my district have unemployment rates of up to 16 percent, some that my colleagues here can relate to in their regions of the country, but certainly devastating in western North Carolina. And it's a time when our people need jobs. Our families are hurting. And this bill is simply giving away some of those jobs. In a time when we should help small businesses, this is hurting them, specifically in my district. In the past, Haiti has had tremendous success producing apparel using U.S. yarns and fabrics. We should be strengthening that partnership, not turning Haiti into a stopping-off point for more transshipment of goods from Asia and around the globe. Our government should represent its people and the best interests of its people. Unfortunately, this Congress is not, this leadership is not, and unfortunately, this bill with this provision is not. Charity is one thing, but giving away our jobs is a completely different matter. With that, I would oppose this bill.

Mr. McHENRY

Mr. McHENRY. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H. Res. 1242, a resolution congratulating the Duke University Men's Basketball team for winning the 2010 NCAA National Championship. As a cosponsor of H. Res. 1242, I would like to commend my colleague from Chapel Hill, Mr. Price, for bringing this bipartisan resolution to the floor today, particularly since he previously served as a Professor in Political Science at Duke before coming to Congress. On Monday, April 5, 2010, the Duke Blue Devils outlasted an outstanding team from Butler University by a score of 61-59 to win the NCAA National Championship. In the closest National Championship game played since 1989, the Blue Devils--with the starting line up of Jon Scheyer, Kyle Singler, Nolan Smith, Lance Thomas, and Brian Zoubek-- captured the school's fourth national title behind the leadership of Head Coach Mike Krzyzewski. Madam Speaker, the Blue Devils finished the season with a record of 35-5, and on the way to the National Championship, they set a school record in home victories by going undefeated with a mark of 17-0 at historic Cameron Indoor Stadium. Furthermore, Duke won a share of the Atlantic Coast Conference regular-season championship with a record of 13-3 and won a record 18th ACC Tournament title. While this National Championship was truly a team effort, it is difficult to overlook the individual contributions that guided this championship run. Kyle Singler was named Final Four Most Outstanding Player and ACC Tournament MVP. Jon Scheyer and Nolan Smith were also named to the all-tournament team, and Brian Zoubek averaged 10 rebounds per game throughout the NCAA Tournament. These contributions, among many others, led the Blue Devils to the championship. Madam Speaker, in his 30th year at the helm of the Blue Devils, Head Coach Mike Krzyzewski coached his 1,000th game at Duke, led the Blue Devils to his 11th Final Four appearance--tying the legendary North Carolina Coach Dean Smith--and 8th National Championship game appearance. In leading Duke to the 2010 National Championship, Coach K tied legendary Kentucky Coach Adoph Rupp with four national championships. During his time at Duke, Coach K has built a program that embraces the idea of the student-athlete. In addition to the numerous athletic accomplishments, the Blue Devils have also excelled in the classroom. In a study conducted by the Institute for Diversity and Ethics in Sport at the University of Central Florida, the Duke Blue Devils achieved a 92% graduation rate, ranking Duke among the highest of the 65 schools that qualified for the 2010 NCAA Tournament. Madam Speaker, I believe Duke students, alumni, and fans in my Congressional District in Western North Carolina--as well as across the state and nation--can take pride in the accomplishments made by the 2009-2010 Duke Blue Devils. This team represented Duke University, the State of North Carolina, and the ACC in a way that truly embodies the spirit of college athletics. I urge all of my colleagues to support H. Res. 1242.

Mr. McHENRY

Mr. McHENRY. Madam Speaker, look, I'm surprised when I go home. My constituents will tell me unequivocally that they're in favor of health care reform, but they're not in favor of this plan. And yet I come to Washington, and they say, if you're in favor of health care reform, you have to buy into this sham of a health care bill. Well, my constituents know what a sham is and, unfortunately, it's this Senate bill that the House is going to be voting on. Then I read headlines that the Speaker of the House doesn't actually want a vote on the Senate bill, and I recall the basics of parliamentary procedure that require the House to vote on the exact same bill the Senate does before it can be signed by the President to be enacted into law. So the Democrats are just trying to pull a fast one on the American people. The American people know that this is a bad deal. According to the Congressional Budget Office, run by a Democrat, they're right to be worried, because premiums will go up between 10 and 13 percent under this plan. That means $2,100 more for the average family in America in health care expenses. It's a wrong plan, and we should oppose it.

Mr. McHENRY

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Speaker, this is not about partisanship. The census is important for every community across this country and for every State in this Nation. Every individual group within this country has something to gain or to lose in this census. It is not simply about how districts are drawn. It is about how Federal, State and local money is allocated. If you don't respond, if you don't mail your form back in, if you don't answer the door when somebody knocks to collect your census data, which is very basic information by the way, you are doing a disservice to yourself, to your family, to your community, to your State, and to your Nation by saying, I don't exist. So it is very important for individuals in this country to respond to the census. Moreover, it is helpful to see that the President has recorded a PSA, encouraging folks to respond to the census. It shows the importance, from the White House on down to everyone else, for us to respond to the census. Finally, I hope that the 2010 census is the most successful census we have ever had in our Nation's history. The Bureau has done a solid task of putting together the logistics of getting millions of folks in this country to respond to the census. It's a costly endeavor, but it's one that the Founders insisted on for us to have a functioning democracy. Especially when the House of Representatives is based on population, they wanted to make sure that the population count was correct and accurate. I thank the Bureau and all of the folks who are working all across every community in this country. Those folks who are working for the Bureau are wonderful, patriotic people, and we want to say thank you for your service to your country and to your community. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I concur with my colleague and fellow member of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee. I rise today in support of H.R. 1096, and I am proud to cosponsor this resolution encouraging full participation in the 2010 Census and expressing support of the designation of March as Census Awareness Month. Our Constitution requires that every 10 years the Federal Government count every person residing in the United States once, and only once, and where they live. As a Nation, we have been doing this every decade since our very first Census in 1790. This is not new. This week, the Census Bureau will begin the process of delivering the 2010 questionnaire from the Census all across America. By midmonth, the majority of the approximately 120 million households in the United States will receive their form by mail or by hand delivery from a Census Bureau employee. The 2010 questionnaire is the shortest and simplest one the Bureau has ever sent out. There are only 10 easy questions that should take less than 10 minutes to fill out. And not only is it easy, but it's confidential, too. The individual information that respondents provide is protected by Federal law and cannot be shared with any other government agency. Census data guides the distribution of more than $400 billion in Federal funds, as my colleague mentioned, directs funds to State and local governments each year, and decides the makeup of representative districts from the United States Congress on down to the school board. Decisions to build new infrastructure such as roads, schools, and hospitals are dependent upon population counts derived from the Census. When people do not participate in the Census, they only shortchange themselves and their communities. A poor response rate means people cannot be accurately represented in Federal, State, and local districts when they are drawn. It means that a community may lose its fair share of Federal and State funding. It means a road that should be built won't. A 10-minute response can help avoid 10 years of underrepresentation and underfunding. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this resolution, this very important resolution. The Census only comes around every 10 years. We have an obligation, as the people's representatives, to make sure that they know that this is going to happen. Census day this year is April 1. Every American should get that form in the mail or hand-delivered. Simply fill it out, mail it back in, and you have done your patriotic duty. Every individual in this country should respond. Let me make this clear: Every individual in this country should respond. It is a wonderful opportunity for you to simply do your patriotic duty. It is what the Founders insisted on. In order for us to have a representative democracy, we must know who we represent, how many people we represent, who's here. And that is our obligation to carry that message out, but it is the American people's obligation to share this message as well. So with that, I urge my colleagues to support this resolution, this very important resolution. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McHENRY

Mr. McHENRY. Madam Speaker, today Congress voted to raise the national debt limit to $14.3 trillion, or $121,000 per American family today. The vote is the third debt increase since the Democrats took control of Congress and they have passed a debt increase three times in the last 12 months. This is a burden to small businesses and communities, will hurt our economic growth and prosperity for years to come, will raise interest rates and hurt our ability for our communities to gain jobs. This is irresponsible, and yet it's merely a symptom of the problem. The problem is that Washington cannot control its spending. We need folks in Congress who will look at the budget line by line, as the President pledged in the last campaign, and look at how to root out waste, fraud, and abuse, and curb the growth of government and balance our budget. That is what the American people want, and that is what I am fighting for.

Mr. McHENRY

Mr. McHENRY. I rise today in support of H.R. 4495, designating the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 100 North Taylor Lane in Patagonia, Arizona, as the ``Jim Kolbe Post Office.'' Congressman Kolbe is a former colleague of mine here. We had one term overlapping. I certainly appreciate the chairman's words in support of this bipartisan resolution. He served in the United States Navy and the Naval Reserves before being elected to the State Senate in Arizona and elected to the United States Congress in 1984, and he served very ably on the Appropriations Committee for Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs. He was one of this institution's hallowed--well, the big guys in this institution seem to be on the Appropriations Committee. And he was an appropriations subcommittee chair, which, as we all know, actually wields a significant amount of weight, especially when you're running a major portion of the budget, such as foreign operations. In addition to foreign policy, this Congressman served his constituents ably. He was committed to constituent service and believed that assisting the hardworking individuals and families of his district was a real, everyday good part of his job and was focused on their first priorities in southern Arizona. Mr. Speaker, Jim Kolbe served his constituents of Arizona in this country honorably for years, and we support this resolution. I yield back the balance of my time.