Cliff Stearns

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Lost in the hyperbolic statements and calls of doom-- ``if Congress does not raise the current debt ceiling''--is the real problem that our Nation faces: the out-of-control spending that has become epidemic here in Congress. No doubt a technical default in August surely would be problematic. But much worse would be the results if Republicans caved to Democrats and no significant spending reforms are implemented. Today, my colleagues, 68 cents of every dollar is spent on entitlement programs. By the year 2025, the government will spend 100 percent of every dollar of revenues on entitlements. The United States is over $14 trillion in debt, and without spending cuts in the deficit, our national debt will continue to grow. We must begin to rein in spending and bring about the fiscal changes to protect our children from this growing burden of debt. Mr. Speaker, importantly, markets understand the difference between a technical default in which investors may have to wait a short period of time for an interest payment and an actual default in which a country is unable to repay its debt. If Congress does not act appropriately now, very soon the country will not face merely a technical default, but instead a real default. Then the calls of doom will be appropriate. Investors have every incentive to want Congress to balance its budget and get its house in order finally. If this means investors will have to wait a few days for an interest payment to be repaid, then so be it. Because fixing the real problem now guarantees to investors that this government can make its payments 10 years from now, a realization that will comfort investors much more than preventing a mild delay-- particularly if that mild delay means future delays, future debt limit debates, and future possible defaults. The best solution, of course, is no default at all, not technical and not actual. Congress must quickly come together and make some tough decisions that will forever affect the future of our country. But we will not be coerced into a position that fuels the spending addiction that has landed us in this situation where we stand today. We will not succumb to a vote to increase the debt limit if we are not compensated with significant spending cuts. As our Speaker John Boehner has said, ``It's true that allowing America to default would be irresponsible, but it would be more irresponsible to raise the debt ceiling without simultaneously taking dramatic steps to reduce spending and reform the budget process'' itself. And it can be done. We can look back to understand what will happen next. Several years back, Russia had a real default, yet within 2 or 3 years they reached all-time low interest rates. Earlier this year, the House passed a budget resolution for fiscal year 2012 which set non-security discretionary spending to below 2008 funding levels. It calls upon repealing the costly and burdensome health care law and envisions reforming some entitlement programs to contain costs and pay down the national debt. My colleagues across the aisle have criticized portions of this legislation. But the question is asked, where is their alternative? There can be no debate if the other side cannot produce a logical document that seriously sets out to solve our Nation's crisis, the real crisis. Just like the solution to a drug addiction is not to increase one's intake, the solution to our Nation's spending addiction is not to increase one's capacity to continue to accumulate debt. The time is now for real reform. Only after we have curbed the trillions of dollars of debt that we continue to pile up can we then consider raising the debt limit.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, last year I introduced the ``Access to Appropriate Immunizations for Veterans Act of 2011.'' I'm proud to reintroduce this bill in the 112th Congress which I believe would help advance the goal we all share of promoting lifelong health for the men and women who fought for our freedom. While the Department of Veterans Affairs, VA, health care system is doing an admirable job of caring for those who bore the burden of combat, continual reform is needed to ensure the care veterans receive represents the most up-to-date practices and procedures. According to statistics from the Centers for Disease Control, CDC, each year approximately 70,000 adult Americans die from vaccine- preventable diseases. Influenza alone is responsible for over one million ambulatory care visits, 200,000 hospitalizations and 30,000 deaths. Many of our veterans who are in the ``high-risk'' category of contracting vaccine-preventable diseases--including those with HIV, Hepatitis C, and substance use disorder--are enrolled in the VA health care system and could particularly benefit from receiving vaccinations. Commendably, the VA has protocols in place that recommend vaccines as protection against deadly viruses. However, VA only has established performance measures for two vaccines, making it unclear if protocols are being routinely enforced for all CDC recommended vaccines. The tremendous value performance measures have regarding the increased utilization and effectiveness of vaccination distribution is evidenced by VA's own application of performance measures for the influenza and pneumococcal vaccinations. When these performance measures were initially applied, VA saw vaccination rates rise respectively from 27 percent and 26 percent to 77 percent and 80 percent. It also resulted in a 50 percent decline in pneumonia hospitalization rates. The legislation I am introducing today would expand VA performance measures to cover all vaccinations recommended by the VA and CDC and ensure that veterans receive appropriate immunizations at the time suggested by the CDC. It would also require VA to report to Congress on their progress in supporting vaccinations in the veteran population. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join with me in cosponsoring the Access to Appropriate Immunizations for Veterans Act of 2011. This legislation would ensure that our veterans are receiving timely and suitable access to vaccines and prevent those under the care of the VA from being unnecessarily exposed to vaccine preventable diseases.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at noon tomorrow, and further, when the House adjourns on that day, it adjourn to meet at noon on Tuesday, May 10, 2011, for morning-hour debate and 2 p.m. for legislative business.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have my name removed as a cosponsor of H.R. 1081.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, there are two points or arguments that I've heard from the other side. One, they are talking about States' rights. It's really almost pathetic to think that they are arguing on States' rights, because the health care bill that they and the administration are advocating forces State governments to pay for existing established exchanges. No States rights there. That's part of what the Secretary of Health and Human Services will do, and she will use this money as an incentive to bribe them, which is unlimited to her, to force States to pay for existing established exchanges. But once they do it, the money will stop. The other point is that they are saying we aren't talking about jobs and that we're focusing on this particular bill that's not really getting us jobs. Yet this bill does focus on spending. It's limiting spending. With the national debt of the United States just increased by $262 billion at the start of this year, we need to handle our debt here in this country and control spending. So I am pleased that we are taking up H.R. 1213, which would eliminate uncapped, unlimited programs in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, which is ObamaCare. This provision grants far too much in budgetary authority to the Secretary of Health and Human Services and far too few program requirements to ensure proper oversight. That's why we need to pass this bill. This is fiscal responsibility. It is fiscally irresponsible to argue, as they say, for giving any one in the Administration as an individual unlimited, mandatory spending authority, which is what is in ObamaCare. I am glad we have an opportunity to correct this legislative error. We must gain fiscal control over our government programs, starting with these exchanges. Whether it's recapturing wasteful stimulus program dollars, eliminating fraud or using the appropriations process to set budgetary priorities rather than mandatory spending, we must all exercise fiscal restraint, and that is what this bill does. Just because we followed Greece into democracy does not mean that we should follow them into bankruptcy.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, earlier this week, Jim Matheson and I introduced H.R. 1528, the Consumer Privacy Protection Act. Our legislation attempts to strike the proper balance between consumer privacy and innovation by requiring entities to provide consumers, in clear and easy to understand language, what information is being collected and how the information is being used. By giving the consumer more notice and choice, we can encourage strong Internet commerce while protecting consumer privacy. Overreaching privacy regulations could have a significant, negative economic impact at a time when many small businesses are struggling today. Only the consumer knows how he or she feels about the information being collected, the parties doing the collecting, and the purpose for which the information is collected. Congress cannot and should not make that decision for them. We need to place the control over consumer information with the actual consumer, and our legislation does this.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 1363 because it provides funding for the Department of Defense for the remainder of the current fiscal year and cuts an additional $12 billion in discretionary spending. This bill is just one step in significantly reducing spending and reining in our historic deficits. Unfortunately, President Obama and Senator Reid have not made a similar commitment to get our fiscal house in order. We must remember that the reason we are in this situation in the first place is that the previous Democrat majority never got around to passing a budget for fiscal year 2011. Let's remember that Democrats controlled the House, the Senate and the White House, yet they shirked their duty by not even presenting a budget plan, leaving mountains of debt for others to deal with. I urge my colleagues to support this important troop funding legislation, and let's continue down the road of fiscal responsibility.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Madam Speaker, it's a shame the gentleman from Massachusetts is not here. I appreciate always when he speaks his exclamatory speeches, high emotionality. His idiosyncrasies that he brings to the House floor are obviously humorous. But I think he and the gentleman from Pennsylvania miss a very blatant fact: The FCC has never had the authority to regulate the Internet. In fact, the Comcast decision, the D.C. Circuit Court in 2010 indicated clearly the Court found that the FCC failed to demonstrate it had authority under Title I. Not even Title II, but under Title I, Mr. Markey, they had no authority. So if the D.C. court ruled that way, you would think that you would respect that. So they had no jurisdiction to regulate the Internet in any form. And as a result of what the FCC did in December, a major telephone communication company intended to sue. They stopped their suit because of a technicality, but they are going to move forward with it because they also believe the FCC doesn't have jurisdiction to regulate the Internet. So I am a little puzzled why you folks have come down here. I think all of you on the Democrats' side should realize there are over 60 Democrats on your side that signed a letter to the FCC in the last Congress saying they didn't want the FCC to regulate the Internet. So why don't you talk to me about your own colleagues, 60 of them, that agree with Mr. Walden and our republican Telecommunications Subcommittee on this issue. So I really think it's a little puzzling why we are down here talking about it, and you are getting to the point where you are saying the FCC is having their authority taken away. They never had it. And the majority, a lot of your Members also agree with us that, frankly, the FCC should not regulate the Internet. And this argument has been going on for over 3 years. It's nothing surprising. Mr. Markey acts like we are bringing this legislation to the floor all of a sudden. We have been working on this when Mr. Barton was ranking member of the Energy and Commerce Committee and I was the ranking Republican on the subcommittee on Telecommunications. I sent letters, Barton sent letters, and almost everybody on the Republican Telecommunications subcommittee also did it. So this is nothing new. And I think, Mr. Waxman and Mr. Markey, as you continue to try to exploit the idea that we are bringing fresh new legislation down here to control the FCC, you are wrong. I rise in strong support of H.J. Res. 37. This measure will overturn the FCC's dangerous Internet regulations. These rules will, for the first time, give government a substantive role in how the Internet will be operated and managed, how broadband services will be priced and structured, and potentially how broadband networks will be financed. Over the past 18 months, as the former Ranking Member of this Communications Subcommittee, I joined with former full committee Ranking Member Joe Barton in sending 3 letters to FCC Chairman Genachowski expressing strong opposition to his plan to regulate the Internet. I have introduced legislation in the past two Congresses to try to prevent the implementation of net neutrality rules, as have other members. So as we can see, there is a long record fighting Internet regulation. It is not appropriate for the unelected FCC to make a decision with such potential long-term consequences without explicit direction from Congress. The FCC's actions will lead to uncertainty and will drive investment out of the broadband sector. Aside from the harm these rules will cause, whether or not the FCC even has the authority to enforce these rules is not clear. The FCC claims it has authority to enact the rules under Section 706 of the 1996 Telecommunications Act relating to the promotion of advanced telecommunications capability. However, the FCC cannot rely on Section 706 because, as the agency has previously acknowledged, Section 706 is not an independent source of authority, because Section 706 talks of removing barriers to infrastructure investment but the rules will erect barriers to investment. The FCC's claims stretch the authority under those provisions too far. Just look at the DC Circuit's April 2010 decision in the Comcast case. The court found that the FCC failed to demonstrate it had ancillary authority under Title I to regulate Internet network management. As a result of these rules, more lawsuits will be filed, which will only lead to more uncertainty. One of the few bright spots in our economy is in the technology sector. Yet, for some reason, the FCC has decided to overstep its bounds and institute unnecessary regulations. Only in Washington, can a regulatory agency issue rules to solve a problem that does not exist. It simply does not make sense. The FCC talks about this in terms of open Internet and net neutrality. In actuality, it is net regulation that will freeze investment, chill innovation, and harm job creation. The Internet that exists today is open and thriving, because of the deregulatory approach we have taken over the past two decades. Consumers can access anything they want with the click of a mouse thanks to our historical hands-off approach to the Internet. We must maintain that course if the Internet is to continue to flourish, especially in the face of demands for more sophisticated content, services, and applications. There is no crisis warranting the FCC's recent departure from that policy. The FCC hangs its adoption of network neutrality rules regulating the Internet on speculation of future harm. I urge passage this legislation to stop the FCC from regulating the Internet.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today with some serious concerns with the continued egregious spending by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac approving large executive salary compensations at the expense of our taxpayers. For example, the chief executive officer of Fannie Mae received $9.3 million in compensation and salary for 2009 and 2010, while the chief executive of Freddie Mac received $7.8 million for 2009 and 2010 together. But it was a failure of these same types of company executives in the past that forced government intervention in the first place by then overstating past earnings and generating millions in improper bonuses. Now taxpayers, who have already spent $153 billion to bail them out, which doesn't include legal fees that taxpayers have to pay to keep them afloat, may require more bailout money to counter the companies' mounting mortgage losses. Mr. Speaker, allowing this gross mismanagement of public funds to pay for extravagant salaries is unconscionable.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Let me just bring to the attention of this side of the aisle that some of the issues you are talking about, transparency, moves into privacy. We hope in the near future we do have a privacy bill, but I think some of the things you are concerned about impacted with the privacy, and not necessarily in this debate dealing with House Joint Resolution 37. As a former ranking member of the Telecommunications Technology Subcommittee, both the ranking member, Joe Barton, and I have sent three letters to FCC Chairman Genachowski expressing simply our strong opposition to his plan to regulate the Internet. In fact, I have introduced legislation the past two Congresses to try to prevent the implementation of the net neutrality rules, and other Members have supported us. So there is a long record here, I would say to my colleague on that side of the aisle, of our side trying to prevent Genachowski, the chairman of the FCC, from regulating the Internet. In fact, he went so far as to step out and try to do it. There was a Comcast case. In an April of 2010 decision, the court found that the FCC failed to demonstrate it had ancillary authority under title I. So under title I, the courts ruled they did not have the authority to regulate Internet network management. So I think the courts themselves have corroborated what Mr. Walden has indicated. So, you know, what you are arguing is against a court case that actually occurred. And as far as the technicality that Verizon was involved with, they are going to continue their suit. They feel they have a strong argument, and as Mr. Walden pointed out, it was just by a technicality. They are going to continue to go forward. I will also mention a little bit what the chairman, Mr. Walden, has indicated dealing with the 706 rule. The FCC claims it has authority to enact this under the 706 rule of the 1996 Telecommunications Act. I was one of the conferees on that act. And they are using this as a way to advance telecommunications capability, saying they have the authority. But they can't rely on 706 because as the agency has previously acknowledged, acknowledged themselves, section 706 is not an independent source of authority, because 706 talks of removing barriers to infrastructure investment, but the rules themselves will erect barriers to investment. So the FCC's claim simply stretches the authority under these provisions. So I think between the Comcast case and the interpretation of 706, they don't have any authority do this. In a larger sense, what we are talking about is when the FCC moves out and starts to regulate the Internet, that creates uncertainty in the economy, uncertainty into people who are investing vast sums of money for fiber optics so that they can spread broadband. And heaven knows we don't need in this economy this uncertainty. So I think the FCC was unwise just from a standpoint of the economy to strike this uncertainty. The Internet, as has been pointed out, exists. It has been open and thriving for all these years because of a deregulatory approach. If we step in and let the FCC start to regulate the Internet under title I, then it's going to create this uncertainty, and that's in fact why Verizon is moving forward. As others have pointed out, a lot of people are fearful of the FCC. That's why they won't say anything. As many of us know, lots of times when you are in a situation where you have an empowering authority up there that can regulate you, you don't want to get those people upset with you. So you are very delicate in how you move. So the people are saying basically that, oh, we are not going to say anything; but silently they are telling us, certainly they are telling us on this side that they cannot see any reason for the FCC to start to regulate. There is no crisis warranting them to do this. The example used with his newspaper in Minneapolis is not a crisis. So the FCC hangs its adoption of network neutrality rules based upon speculation and future harm. I urge the passage of this rule.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I just finished a hearing as chairman of the Oversight and Investigations Committee, and we had the administration up to talk about some of the programs that they're handing out money on; and one of them is giving out money to large corporations and to unions for early retirement of the employees of for-profit corporations. So think about this. The United States Government is giving millions of dollars. In fact, they gave United Auto Workers $260 million towards their plan for early retirement for their workers. Now, when you think about it, these are corporations and unions and entities around this country who've actually settled in with a contract with their employees. Yet the government is stepping in and giving them money to help them so they can get to 2014. And they're running out of money. Obviously, they will run out of money if they give free money to these corporations. They're going to accept it. And in the end, taxpayers are going to foot the bill. In light of the fact we're losing $4 billion a day, why should taxpayers be giving out almost $5 billion to corporations that are very profitable to help their employees retire?

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, some new statistics have just come out on government wages and salaries in this country. Government payouts, including Social Security, Medicare, and unemployment insurance, make up more than one-third of total wages and salaries of the United States population, a record figure that will only increase if action isn't taken before the majority of baby boomers enter retirement. Social welfare benefits make up 35 percent of wages and salaries this year. In the year 2000, that percent was 21 percent. In the year 1960, it was 10 percent. And these are statistics that came from the Bureau of Economic Analysis data. Recently, it was quoted that the U.S. economy has become alarmingly dependent on government stimulus itself. So, in this country, we have a stark choice: We have to reduce government spending. Otherwise, not only will we go bankrupt, but there will become a tipping point, a tipping point where the government payout for wages and salaries will become 50 percent of all U.S. wages. All of us should know what that means.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, last week, as chairman of the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee of Energy and Commerce, I held a hearing on the problem of Medicare fraud. This is not a new issue. It has been a continuing problem with Medicare, and I have been concerned about Medicare fraud for some time here. Last Congress, I introduced a bill to increase the civil and criminal penalties on those who defraud the Medicare program. In fact, in 1990, the Government Accountability Office, GAO, listed both Medicare and Medicaid as high risk because these programs are vulnerable to waste, fraud, abuse, and mismanagement. Now, how badly mismanaged are we talking about? Well, the GAO recently issued a report that there was $48 billion just in improper payments. This isn't fraud. This is just improper payments. So when it comes to fraud, it is estimated anywhere from $60 billion to $90 billion is lost to Medicare fraud every year. During this hearing, I asked the Director of Medicare Program Integrity, whose job it is to protect Medicare against fraud and abuse, if he knew how much money is lost to fraud in Medicare. He could not answer this question. The following week, Secretary Sebelius was asked in a Health Subcommittee hearing if she knew how much money was lost to fraud in Medicare. Her answer: ``If we knew how big it was, we'd hopefully shut it down.'' But in my hearing, Special Agent Omar Perez, the head of the Medicare Fraud Strike Force in the Miami region of Florida for the Office of the Inspector General, testified he was able to find $3.8 billion in Medicare fraud. My colleagues, this is one city. If extrapolated across 50 States, with almost 20,000 municipalities, you can see how we could get to $60 billion to $90 billion in fraud. According to the Inspector General, Medicare fraud is more lucrative than the drug trade, with easy money, less violence, and lighter punishments. And organized crime is taking notice and getting involved in defrauding Medicare. So here are five reform ideas that came out of this hearing that were mentioned to help secure Medicare against criminals engaged in defrauding the program. First, Medicare needs to maintain better control over their provider network. It is easy for a company to do business with Medicare, and the burden is on the government to remove a company from the Medicare program. This needs to change to allow the government to remove bad actors from the program quickly and efficiently. Secondly, Medicare needs to significantly improve their provider and supplier screening process. While individuals have a right to Medicare, companies do not have a right to become or stay a Medicare provider. Third, Medicare needs to shift away from a fee-for-service program. A capitated managed care organization provides a strong financial incentive to the managed care organization to eliminate fraud and abuse. It is the managed care plan that has the financial risk and not the United States Federal Government when criminals perform fraud. Managed care organizations present their own set of challenges but need to be considered when discussing reforms to eliminate fraud in Medicare. And fourth, Medicare needs to increase the role of physicians in detecting and preventing fraud themselves. Medicare providers and suppliers must use a doctor's prescription to obtain government reimbursement. Bad actors forge these documents. Previously, the GAO has recommended that Medicare require that physicians receive a statement of Medicare home health services that their patients receive so they can review the documents. This will allow them to look at it carefully and detect any potential misuse of their authorizations. And lastly, Medicare needs to use predictive computer modeling and other technologies. The credit card industry uses this modeling to identify potentially fraudulent transactions. Medicare and Medicaid should adopt this style of analysis to prevent fraudulent claims. Mr. Speaker, these are five simple ideas to empower the Medicare program to stop the fraud in this system, and this was recommended from the hearing what we had in Oversight and Investigations. It must be stated again there is an estimated $60 billion to $90 billion in fraud in Medicare every year, and of course, no one over at Health and Human Services knows how much is lost. The Secretary of Health and Human Services could not even come up with a number. And think of that. After 45 years of this program, no one knows how much fraud is in Medicare, and no steps have been taken to really analyze and find out. Yet we have all the baby boomers that are beginning to retire. The cost of Medicare will explode, and the hidden cost of fraud will increase. My committee will forward the material from the Oversight and Investigation hearing to the Health Subcommittee to start to develop legislation to address these problems with Medicare fraud. We have a $1.5 trillion deficit, and eliminating waste, fraud, and abuse is necessary to balance our budget, and we should start now.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. STEARNS. Let me just mention a little thing more about my amendment. Basically, as I've told my colleagues, this is a cost overrun on renovations in the U.N., and more importantly, with this huge economic downturn that we've had, I think we need to go back and look at the procurement process at the U.N. I want to say something that's different from the U.N. amendment. I had an amendment, 429, dealing with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. This amendment was ruled out of order, and it was because the amendment basically did not specify the individuals whose defense by the United States taxpayers has been supported, would be stopped payment by my amendment 429. To put it into perspective, the amendment I had was saying that people like Franklin Raines, who was the CEO of Fannie Mae, and these other executives, while they were hiding huge amounts of debt, were collecting huge bonuses, including the board of directors of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac; and at the same time, the inspector general found that these people were hiding this debt, and now taxpayers have to pay for their defense and bail them out. But the ironic thing and the tragic thing is that taxpayers have to pay the lawyers to defend all these people that actually were hiding the debt and looting these companies. So my amendment is basically saying that taxpayers should stop paying the legal fees for these executives that were hiding the debt and acted illegally. But understanding that this is out of order, I'm not going to offer this amendment. I will look for another opportunity to make my case. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time. My amendment would prohibit funds from the United States from being used for the design, renovation, or construction of any headquarters of the United Nations located in the United States. The U.N. headquarters will undergo renovations, as planned, with an estimated cost of more than double the original amount expected. The renovations are necessary, but the cost to do so is not. I want to be clear that my opposition is not to obstruct the U.N. from making a safe environment for their workers and visitors, but to encourage reform through better business practices--considering taxpayers are responsible for 22% of the U.N.'s budget. Time after time, we have asked American families to tighten their belts and exercise fiscal restraint. Why should they do with less and not the U.N.? It is time that this Congress lead by example. Our constituents deserve more than the perceived normal rhetoric of ``Do as we say, not as we do.'' Congress held a full-scale hearing to determine if the U.N. estimates in fact reflected the lowest cost option. According to Donald Trump's testimony at the U.S. Senate hearing, the costs associated with the renovations would be overwhelmingly more than the U.N.'s estimate. Trump who has experience in these matters, testified he could complete the project for $700 million. That's nearly half the amount than the U.N. projected they needed. The U.N. has a proven history of wasting hard-earned taxpayer's dollars and I am certainly not surprised to expect anything less from the U.N. when discussing the expenditures spent for their headquarters. The architect, that was later terminated, was given $44 million. To me, this does not reflect the lowest cost option. Furthermore, the U.N. spent $130,000 on a ventilation system to accommodate smokers in the cafeteria. Why would you spend so much to ventilate smoke in a cafeteria despite a 2003 Secretary General's Bulletin banning smoking in the U.N.? What's even more alarming is that even the U.N.'s own auditors had concerns regarding the possible inaccuracy of the project's estimated calculations and weaknesses in procurement and contract management. Moreover, in 2006 the GAO expressed their concerns regarding the U.N.'s weaknesses in existing internal oversight and procurement. It seems to me that this issue deserves more attention than the hearing conducted 5 years ago. Without proper planning and oversight, I fear that these funds would just be wasted. More hearings and further investigations need to be conducted before irresponsibly spending funds from this bill. With my amendment, the U.N. will be prohibited from continuing this gross disregard of hard-earned taxpayer dollars. Due to these reasons, I urge my colleagues to support my amendment. It is my understanding that the Appropriations Committee never intended for any of the funds included in the continuing resolution be used for legal expenses defending Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac's former senior executives. My amendment is a certainty in an uncertain world. An assurance to our constituents that this gross abuse of taxpayer funds ends today. The amendment I offer would prohibit funds made available by this act to be used for the payment of attorneys' fees or other legal expenses of any former senior executive officer of the Federal National Mortgage Corporation or Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation. In response to the greatest financial crisis since the Great Depression, America hastily engaged, with my strong opposition, in a strategy of multiple bailouts to avoid the complete collapse of our financial system. We now know, as I believed then, that this strategy was no cure to our financial crisis and would leave taxpayers exposed to vast financial risk. When the Government took over Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae in September 2008, taxpayers unknowingly inherited $160 million in defending the failed firms. Of the $160 million in taxpayer dollars spent, $24.2 million was spent in defense of Fannie Mae's top senior executives. According to an in-depth report from the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight, these Fannie Mae executives were accused of taking action to manipulate profits, generating $115 million in improper bonuses. Two years before this report was published, Fannie was found to have overstated its preceding six years of past earnings by $6.3 billion. Currently, employment contracts protect executives when sued and the company pays for legal defense. Some believe there should be no government liability to these legal fees because of the executives' breach of responsibility to the company and its stockholders. I agree responsible Americans should not have to pay for the irresponsibility of others and that is why I offered this amendment. As you may recall, the 1,900 page legislation placing these GSEs under conservatorship failed to address a resolution to these entities, allowing the Federal Housing and Finance Agency (FHFA) to continue paying the legal fees of their executives. Poor crafted legislation is the reason this injustice has been allowed to carry on. When asked why funding of legal defense has not been cut off, the acting director of the FHFA, said: ``I understand the frustration regarding the advancement of certain legal fees associated with ongoing litigation involving Fannie Mae and certain former employees. It is my responsibility to follow applicable Federal and State law.'' I am outraged that billions of dollars have gone to benefit an indiscriminate number of private financial institutions that utilized reckless investment strategies. American's deserve more than for us to just ``understand'' their frustration; our responsibility to the taxpayers is much more than that. We must be diligent in ensuring the investigation of these issue's are a top priority for the 112th Congress. The time has come to make sure that we are doing everything we can to minimize any further taxpayer exposure to the irresponsible behavior of these companies. The nationalization of private assets was clearly un-American and, as free-enterprising Americans, we needed to let our markets determine the winners and the losers. Unfortunately, the winners were not the American taxpayers of this country and, after billions spent and much debate, we are left with unanswered questions and unpaid legal fees showing no sign of ending. This financial crisis affects every hardworking, taxpaying American. We should not be paying for the legal defense of the people whose reckless actions forced this economic crisis on us. I hope that members of this 112th Congress recognize the dire importance of this issue and vote in favor for the American taxpayer.

Mr. STEARNS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. My amendment, my colleagues, is simply to say that the United Nations is a very valuable building and the renovations that are occurring right now are necessary, but-- Now, the renovations that are occurring on the U.N. ultimately are necessary, but the cost that is occurring is not. There's a huge overrun. I want to be clear that the opposition I have with this amendment is not to obstruct the U.N. from making a safe environment for the workers and the visitors that come there but to encourage reform and use best business practices considering that the taxpayers are funding about a quarter of the amount of money they're spending for renovations. You know, we had a hearing here in Congress looking at what it would cost to build and renovate the United Nations. And they presented a figure. Well, Donald Trump, who's built a lot of hotels, a lot of apartment houses, came in and he said, ``I could do the same thing for half the money.'' That was half the money back when he offered that. So he said using better business practices, he could do it for a lot less money. So I believe my colleagues that the U.N. has had a history of wasting money. Let me give you one example. In 2003, in the Secretary General's bulletin, he banned all smoking in the U.N. Well, the U.N. spent $130,000 on a ventilation system to accommodate smokers in the cafeteria. Well, I'm not clear why they did that. The architect was starting to get into so many problems, they terminated him. By so doing, they paid him $44 million after the termination. So these are the kinds of things that I am worrying about, and I think the U.N. auditors have expressed the same concern that I have in the whole process of procurement and contract management on the U.N. renovations and building construction programs. The GAO expressed their concern regarding the U.N.'s weakness in existing internal oversight and procurement. So all I'm asking simply is in this time of a weak economy, we should hold off continuing to renovate the U.N. until we practice best business practices and we make sure that they're not continuing to have overruns. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time is remaining?

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chair, on rollcall No. 109, I was unavoidably detained. I would have voted ``no.'' Amendment No. 409 Offered by Mr. Price of Georgia

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. STEARNS. The gentleman from New York has indicated that this is the big guys against the little guys. Actually, he has it wrong. But if the government steps in and regulates the Internet, then really the little guy, the upstart company, won't have a chance. So anytime the government comes in and stipulates through regulation, it really hurts the little guys. The big guys can handle the litigation. They can handle all the legal forms and filling them out and handle the politics of it, but the little guy has no chance. So this really is trying to help the little guy. The other point is, I think as the gentlelady pointed out from the Appropriations Committee, the FCC really doesn't have the jurisdiction. This belongs in Congress. So really this amendment in a larger sense is trying to prevent the FCC from regulating the Internet. I think all of us agree that one of the bright spots of this economy has been the technology sector; yet for some reason the FCC has decided to step in and overstep its bounds and apply perhaps 19th-century regulation. They would really like to put this into title II, which is the old rotary telephone service, instead of keeping it in title I, which is information service. So they tried to compromise and put something into title I. But they still have a process in place to put Internet regulation into title II. They have created a chill in the broadband economy because a lot of the manufacturers and a lot of the Internet providers and people who are putting down broadband see this open process and are concerned. So it creates a chill because they see the FCC still going about considering regulating the Internet under title II instead of the information services so again there is uncertainty created in the broadband marketplace. I think this amendment is simple. In a sense it says the FCC does not have the jurisdiction, and in a larger sense says we don't need the government to step in with new and cumbersome regulation. At this point let me yield time to the chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr. STEARNS. I would just close by saying it is not appropriate for the unelected FCC to regulate interstate communication services on barely more than a whim and without any additional input from the United States Congress. If left unchallenged, this claim of authority would allow the FCC to do anything, anything it could allege to promote broadband under their jurisdiction, which they don't have. So Congress must stop the FCC. This amendment will do that just by preventing any money from being spent to implement these rules. I urge its adoption. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. I thank my distinguished colleague. My colleagues, recently the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee of Energy and Commerce held a hearing, and I chair this subcommittee. It was one of the first hearings on the rapid pace of regulations that are coming from the Obama administration. We made clear to the witness, regulation czar Cass Sunstein, that we objected to the fact that the administration is considering and issuing regulations with regard not to jobs and the economy, but is simply using as a standard such ridiculously amorphous terms as equity, human dignity, fairness, and distributive impacts. I asked him what this meant and he said, well, basically distribution of income. What? The administration is making a decision on regulation on the basis of distribution of income? I thought the market was supposed to decide that, not a government czar. In fiscal year 2010, Federal agencies promulgated 43 major rules that impose costs that are estimated to cost industry $28 billion, the highest annual level since 1981. Along with all these major rules come daunting levels of red tape, the cost of which cannot easily be counted. The Obama administration's regulatory agenda released this past fall identifies 4,225 rules under development. Now, the EPA alone has finalized almost 1,000 new regulations since the start of the administration and has also proposed a number of expensive and complex new rules affecting our energy system, our industrial and manufacturing infrastructure, and even the electric power we rely upon every day. Now, with this Nation suffering from 21 straight months of unemployment at 9 percent or higher unemployment, our focus should be on jobs. Unnecessary and burdensome regulations act as a de facto tax on every American family and small business in this country; yet there's no end in sight for all the regulations that are coming from the Obama administration. From our health to our wealth to the freedom to live our lives the way we want, the Federal regulatory state continues to grow and grow and intrudes. It's time for Congress to reduce this burden and get our economy growing again.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, this past weekend, America came together to honor the 100th birthday of President Ronald Reagan. President Reagan believed that personal accountability and hard work are the cornerstones of the American Dream. He understood America's greatness and its exceptionalism. No American will ever forget how he touted America as a shining city on a hill and ``built on rocks stronger than oceans, wind-swept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace.'' In these troubling economic times, we would be wise to follow Reagan's lessons that limited government, low taxes, and free enterprise foster economic growth and job creation. Reagan knew that freedom was America's greatest export to the world, whether it was promoting freedom overseas against a Communist threat or at home through free markets. President Reagan left an unparalleled legacy to his country, and we honor his extraordinary life on what would have been his 100th birthday.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. I thank my colleague. Mr. Speaker, perhaps the gentleman from New Jersey didn't listen to me when I just spoke. It's creating 150 new government agencies, and these are all government jobs. So, if you're talking about increasing jobs, they're government jobs. It also includes $500 billion in taxes, burdensome 1099 paperwork requirements, according to a study by the Nation's largest small business association, the NFIB. I would like you to talk about that 1099. These employer mandates that are in the health care bill are terrible, and it is estimated they will wipe out 1.6 million jobs over just 5 years. So I caution the gentleman from New Jersey to listen carefully to my speech.