Cliff Stearns

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt), the author of the bill.

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

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res. 790, a bill commemorating the people of the State of Washington for showing their support for the needs of the State of Washington's veterans and encouraging residents of other States to pursue creative ways to show their own support for veterans. This resolution was introduced by my distinguished colleague from Washington (Mr. Baird). It was particularly inspired by the Veterans Family Fund Certificate of Deposit, an insured account created through the grassroots efforts of citizens in Washington State to benefit military veterans and their families. The Veterans Family Fund Certificate of Deposit was officially launched on November 8, 2007. When an individual purchases a Veterans Family Fund Certificate of Deposit from a participating financial institution, half of the interest is automatically donated to the State of Washington's Veterans Innovation Program. The Veterans Innovation Program was created to provide emergency assistance to help current or former Washington National Guard or Reserve servicemembers simply cope with financial hardships, unemployment, educational needs, and many other basic family necessities. The initiative of the citizens of the State of Washington in creating this program is to be commended. Throughout the years, young men and women across this great Nation have answered the call to duty and taken up arms in defense of our freedom and that of others in this world. We should recognize the service of these veterans and encourage others to honor them by simply passing this bill today. I would like to thank Chairman Filner and Ranking Member Buyer for bringing this resolution so quickly to the floor for consideration today. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Let me thank, first of all, the discerning, clairvoyant, highly observant and eloquent statements from the gentleman from North Carolina for his kindness in recognizing that it is, indeed, my bill. I appreciate his very eloquent statement. Mr. Whitfield was supposed to be here, but, of course, with the tornadoes, he cannot be here. He flew back to Kentucky to take care of his constituents, so he is to be commended for that. But I rise today also in support of this bill, which is my bill which came through my subcommittee, the Do-Not-Call Registry Fee Extension Act of 2007. The Senate bill is 781. As pointed out, this bill is identical to H.R. 2601 which I introduced and which passed this Chamber by voice vote under suspension of the rules on December 11, last year. As the sponsor of the companion legislation to the Senate bill and as the former ranking member of the committee with jurisdiction over consumer protection, I assured all my colleagues that this legislation is necessary and, of course, very timely. The gentleman from North Carolina mentioned that it is one of the most popular bills we have passed in Congress, and indeed it is. I can also assure each of you that it will have an immediate and meaningful impact on our constituents, much more so than many of the bills that we've passed this year. The Congress originally passed the Do-Not-Call Act in 2003 in response to the growing concern about the persistent invasion of unsolicited telemarketing calls to consumers' homes. Now, at that point I was chairman of the Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection Subcommittee, and I took great pride that our committee came together with Jan Schakowsky, who was the ranking member, to put together the do-not-call registry. She is to be commended today, too, for her support and her enabling of this legislation. The idea was very simple: Consumers could place their home phone numbers on a list, and telemarketers would then be prohibited from making unsolicited phone solicitation. In order to avail themselves of the tranquility afforded then by the registry, consumers simply call a toll-free number from the telephone line they wish to register, or they could add their number via the Internet. Telemarketers then access the registry at the Federal Trade Commission to obtain a list of registered numbers over the Internet and then remove their numbers from their call list. Pretty simple. These telemarketers then pay a simple fee for such access. It is those fees that fund the registry, including the maintenance and, ultimately, the enforcement of the violators of this legislation. The program has been a huge success, as the gentleman from North Carolina has pointed out, with one recent polling finding there is over 150 million active telephone numbers on the registry. My colleagues, that's roughly 70 percent of Americans who avail themselves of the registry benefit. That poll also found over 90 percent of those registered with the do-not-call list do indeed receive fewer unsolicited telemarketing calls. The Federal Trade Commission must also be commended for its part in making the registry a success. Without vigorous enforcement, a prohibition would be meaningless. Consumers who receive unwanted telemarketing calls log complaints via either a toll-free telephone number or the Internet. As a result, the commission has pursued 35 cases for violations of this do-not-call provision in the bill and has collected $25 million combined in civil penalties and equitable relief. Unfortunately, the commission's authority to collect the fees necessary to maintain the registry expired last September. This legislation restores the commission's authority to collect the necessary fees to maintain and simply update the registry in a timely manner. Further, this act provides businesses with certainty into the future regarding the fees they pay to access the registry. So, my colleagues, while this bill sets specific access fees, it also ensures Congress will receive the information necessary to assess in the future whether those fees are simply sufficient and appropriate. The Senate bill requires the Federal Trade Commission and the SEC to submit two reports to Congress biennially. One report shall include information regarding basic registry statistics such as the number of consumers registered, number of persons paying for access, and the impact of new telecommunications technology on the registry. The second report addresses consumer reports of abuse of registry exceptions, including the recent reports of ``lead generators,'' unsolicited mailers, and we've all gotten those unsolicited mailers through the mail, used to establish a business relationship. Then once that business relationship is established, they can come back and call you or otherwise they trick you into answering these little lead generators. And most frequently the people who do answer them are seniors, who are very conscientious, and then that, in fact, involves waiving their do-not-call protections. As time passes and people think of new ways to circumvent these protections, we will want to ensure we have the necessary information to keep pace with these folks that are trying to trick our constituents, thereby protecting their original intent of the do-not-call registry. In conclusion, Madam Speaker, many of our constituents still express their gratitude for enacting the original Do-Not-Call Act, simply enabling them to make their home hours more peaceful without irritating telemarketing interruptions, especially around suppertime. The popularity and success of the do-not-call registry is without question. It is successful and it is one area in which this Congress has acted in a bipartisan fashion, almost unanimously on the House floor with approval. So I urge all my colleagues' support. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. STEARNS. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. STEARNS. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess).

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, my colleagues, last night while attending our President's final State of the Union, I was encouraged to hear him say: Ending the bias in the Tax Code against those who do not get their health insurance through their employer is one reform that would put private coverage within reach for millions, and I call on the Congress to pass this piece of legislation this year. My colleagues, I'd like to draw your attention to the Health Care Tax Deduction Act of 2007, a bill which I have offered, and one that accomplishes this goal of insuring every American man, woman and child. This bill will allow individuals a tax deduction from gross income for health insurance premiums and unreimbursed prescription drug expenses for themselves and their family. I urge you to cosponsor this bill and attack this problem with meaningful and responsible legislation. With this legislation, we can end the debate over inefficient government-run health care.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Reserving the right to object, Madam Speaker, I will accept this time the gentleman's request to withdraw his words, but his clear and egregious violation of House rules needs to be fully understood by himself. Both sides wish to restore civility here with legitimate debate and not utter personal accusations. With that, Madam Speaker, I withdraw my objection.

Mr. STEARNS. Madam Speaker, I demand that the words of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) be taken down.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. As Congress contemplates an economic stimulus package to aid our slowing economy, we also must commit ourselves to reduce Federal spending. As American families tighten their budgets to weather this impending economic storm, Congress should match their sacrifice. While reducing taxes is important, another aspect is to control the Federal deficits, the Federal spending. A decrease in wasteful spending would directly increase the value of the dollar and ultimately lower deficits. The American people and businesses are better at deciding what to do with their money than the Federal Government. With more money in their hands, an increase in investment in our economy and in increase in personal savings would take hold and ultimately lead to a stronger and growing economy. As we in Congress consider this one-time stimulus package over the next few weeks, I contend that a long-term solution to this problem is to lower spending, which will in turn lead to lower taxes and a permanent economic bounce and revitalization.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of this bill. As Chairman Barton has pointed out, it has been bipartisan, with 51 people voting for it and no one voting against it. We had a conscientious markup, particularly on several amendments. These amendments were defeated so that we had a little compromise involved. A lot of Americans should realize that the Consumer Product Safety Commission came into existence in 1973 as the agency to ensure consumer products, including toys, not to pose risks of injuries to our families, illness or death to consumers. Lots of times products are not used properly, and that causes a problem. The Consumer Product Safety Commission cannot guarantee safety if the consumers don't use their products properly. They have 15,000 different products that they have to promulgate with standards. Fortunately, the Commission rarely has had to promulgate mandatory standards for all these products and can rely on voluntary standards that are simply developed by the industry itself. This bill, as Mr. Barton pointed out, is going to be signed in very short order after we pass this under suspension. Many of the Members on both sides talked about the growing compliance shortfalls with toys that are manufactured outside the United States, particularly in China. Specifically, our attention was focused on the spate of recalls which increased dramatically for toys with lead-based paints exceeding the United States limit. This was a problem we have rarely seen in 30 years since we passed the Federal ban on lead-based paint. I am pleased to report that manufacturers and retailers have stepped up to the plate in testing in response to these problems, and that's good. Nevertheless, my colleagues, toys have not been the only problem this year, as imports of every type of product increasingly account for our supply of goods, particularly from China. As our imports have risen over the years, so have the number of problems that have been associated with these products that come in. But the Consumer Product Safety Commission has met this daunting challenge and, as you can imagine, with 15,000 different kinds of products, they have issued more recalls over the last 2 years than any other time in our history. Despite this, we recognized the need to provide the Commission with additional resources, which we are doing today. We authorize significant increases in their budget so that the Commission may fulfill their mission to keep defective products that can cause injury, or worse, out of the stream of commerce. So, I'm pleased to report that the omnibus bill we passed this week includes increased appropriations for the Commission, so they're getting new resources. This bill is good public policy that not only provides the Commission with new resources, but, as was pointed out, much, much more. It provides for new standards regarding lead paint and implements the most stringent standard ever for lead content in children's products. The bill requires testing and certification of children's products before they are ever shipped to store shelves, and provides increased penalties for companies that violate the law. New laboring requirements will help facilitate effective recalls, and the bill provides greater authority for the Commission to recall harmful products and notify the public of these dangers. Very important; they have this extra recall authority. We have worked with the consumer groups, industry, and the Commission to make this a bipartisan, sound bill that works effectively. So I commend Chairman Rush, I commend, obviously, Mr. Dingell, and I commend our ranking member, Chairman Barton, on their willingness to make this an open process. We talked about it, and the result is what we see today, a bipartisan bill that has the support of the House. So, I urge my colleagues to support it, and I look forward to its implementation into law.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this bill that corrects a desperately ill-advised regulation hurting our Nation's heroic men and women in uniform. This Defense Department policy has resulted in several veterans being denied their full bonuses or being asked to repay funds they are entitled to, simply because their injuries prevented them from serving out their full term of service. Unfortunately, this is not a new problem. Back in October of 2004, Brian Ross of ABC News reported that Army Specialist Tyson Johnson, who was injured by an exploding mortar round in Iraq, later received a letter demanding repayment of his enlistment bonus while he was still recuperating in the hospital. Two months ago, National Public Radio highlighted the story of Army Specialist Ronald Hinkle, who suffered a traumatic brain injury after an IED explosion cut short his military career. Not only was Specialist Hinkle owed $2,500 in back salary, but two months after NPR's story aired, he was notified that a $3,000 enlistment bonus would not be paid because he ``failed to fulfill his contract.'' In yet another case, Tommy Guinn, who is a respected 14-year Army veteran, ended his term of service early when a helicopter accident in Pakistan left him paralyzed. Thank God he made it home safely to his family, but the military kept $1,000 out of his re-enlistment bonus. This is not the treatment our returning warriors deserve. I am proud to support this bill that finally changes this flawed policy. The Veterans Guaranteed Bonus Act makes the bonus payments automatic and requires the Secretary to pay any remaining portion of bonus payments within 90 days of medical discharge. During this season of Peace on Earth and goodwill towards men, let us show goodwill to those on the frontlines protecting our peace. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. I thank the distinguished ranking member. Mr. Speaker and my colleagues, when you look at this bill, the question you should ask: Has this been tried before and has it been successful? Corn ethanol is not an efficient fuel, as mentioned by the previous speaker. Even if the Nation's entire corn crop was used for ethanol, it would replace only 12 percent of current gasoline use. Worse, taxpayers will pay twice for ethanol: at the pump; but, more importantly, billions of dollars for these dollars through subsidies. When you go into the European Union, you ask, How is it working over there? Well, there is a report. October 2007 Report ``Leaping Before They Looked. Lessons From Europe's Experience With the 2003 Biofuel Directive,'' by the Clean Air Task Force states that a 2003 European Union mandate to increase and promote the use of biofuel has exacerbated some of the very problems it was designed to solve, driving up food prices. So my colleagues, this makes the problem worse, driving up food prices, leading to increased deforestation in tropical countries, worsening global warming and increasing imports of bio-oils. So this is a report from the European Union which is trying to do the same thing you are trying to suggest in this bill. It did not work there and probably won't work here in the bill. Lastly, I would conclude that the cellulosic biofuel credits is really based on something that is totally not science driven. So I ask my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this bill.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers. I just want to add to Mr. Pickering's comment about the frugality of the Senate. I think certainly if Mr. Pickering was in the Senate, we wouldn't have that frugality.

Mr. STEARNS. I would be glad to yield.

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill, H.R. 3541, the Do-Not-Call Improvement Act, and I thank my colleagues from Pennsylvania and Mississippi for their initiative here of making a good bill even better. This legislation simply removes the requirement from the Federal Trade Commission to automatically remove consumers' phone numbers from the registry. My colleagues, the original act would have required consumers to re- register their phone number every 5 years and was intended, in part, to keep the list accurate and up to date. This will result in tens of millions of Americans being dropped off the list each year contrary to their intention. Millions of Americans would have to re-up, so to speak, to stay on the list. Most of them, in their day-to-day life, would be unaware that their number is about to expire. So, this bill does a great service. This bill corrects this and would make numbers on the registry permanent, but at the same time require the Federal Trade Commission to keep the list accurate by simply removing invalid and disconnected phone numbers. As further assurance of this, the Federal Trade Commission must study and report to Congress on the accuracy of these numbers. I think that's important. And we mentioned that earlier in the bill, that we're going to have the Federal Trade Commission come back with a report to us. And this is a good area for the Federal Trade Commission to come back and talk about the accuracy of these millions and millions of numbers. So, I applaud my two colleagues for doing that. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished Member from Mississippi (Mr. Pickering). (Mr. PICKERING asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I thank the gentleman from North Carolina for his support on this important bill. I rise in support of H.R. 2601, the Do-Not-Call Registry Fee Extension Act of 2007. As the sponsor of the legislation and as ranking member on the committee with jurisdiction over the Federal Trade Commission and over consumer protection, I can assure the Members of the body that this is a necessary piece of legislation. It will have an immediate and meaningful impact on our constituents. I can remember when we marked this up when I was chairman of the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection and we started this whole process rolling. The national do-not-call registry was enacted by Congress to provide citizens the ability to place their home phone numbers on a list that prohibits unsolicited phone solicitations. My colleagues, unfortunately, the authority of the Federal Trade Commission to collect fees to maintain the registry has expired. This legislation simply restores the commission's authority to collect the necessary fees to maintain and update the registry and provides businesses with certainty on the fees that they pay to access the registry. The bill also includes input from both the Federal Trade Commission and industry. We asked for their support. Substantively, the amended legislation provides permanency for the program through a consistent fee structure. This will help both business with predictability of fees and help the Federal Trade Commission excel by providing certainty of funding for this popular program, and this obviously makes budgeting far easier from year to year. The legislation also provides for certain biannual reports by the Federal Trade Commission on the effectiveness of this registry that will provide Congress with the necessary information to provide adequate oversight, and that's important too, Mr. Speaker. As the gentleman from North Carolina has mentioned, the popularity of this program has been very high and success of the do-not-call registry was confirmed by almost every member of our committee and their district. Many of our constituents still express their gratitude for enacting a simple law like this, the original law in providing a means to stop unwanted commercial solicitation over their home phone. For those who avail themselves of this option, and remember now, if people out there want to use it, they have to call the toll-free number to get it, but the people who avail themselves of this have expressed satisfaction. They have experienced a noticeable decrease in phone calls interrupting their dinner and their family life. So I am proud to be a sponsor of the reauthorization legislation. It's important that the act and the list continue in effect. This is one example where our actions received near unanimous bipartisan support here in Congress. Here we are with the omnibus budget bill and all the controversy, but here is a good example of bipartisan support. It brings in both the public, industry, and the Federal Trade Commission. So I am confident that the reauthorization of the Do-not- call Act is supported by millions of Americans who have placed their number on the list. So I urge all Members to support and vote for this bill. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life and accomplishments of a terrific Member, former Congressman Henry Hyde. He's often recognized for his wisdom and his eloquence of speaking. But, frankly, there were some other sides of him that were very precious. He was a man of quick wit and a keen sense of humor, to which I was always a willing audience. Above all, he was passionately committed to protecting and improving the lives of Americans, all Americans, both born and the unborn. He was an effective pro-life advocate, through prohibiting Federal funding of abortions with the Hyde amendment and his advocacy for the ban on partial-birth abortions. Conservative estimates indicate that there are about 2 million Americans alive today as a direct result of his work. Henry Hyde leaves behind a legacy that inspires and challenges those of us who remain behind today. My deepest condolences and sympathy to his family, and may God bless Henry Hyde.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Madam Speaker, unfortunately, I was unavoidably detained and missed rollcall vote No. 1059 on Wednesday, November 7, 2007. However, had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on H. Res. 801, providing for consideration of the bill, H.R. 3688, to implement the United States-Peru Trade Promotion Agreement.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this is an important resolution, H. Res. 744, obviously, recognizing the contributions of Native American veterans is important, and asking the President to issue a proclamation urging the people of the United States to also observe a day of honor for Native American veterans. My colleague from California has talked about this. It's interesting; we recognize the contributions of Native American veterans to our society and, of course, by so doing, we are recognizing their achievements, their singular achievements, if I might add. I compliment the resolution that was introduced by my good friend, the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson), and the gentlewoman from South Dakota (Ms. Herseth Sandlin) for their support and also their prescience for bringing this bill forward. We have Veterans Day less than a week away, my colleagues. I think it's important this body recognize one often overlooked group of veterans. These veterans have made numerous contributions to the United States military, not just recently in World War II, but as far back as the War of 1812. Currently, there are 195,000 Native American veterans who live in the United States. According to the U.S. Army Center of Military History Web site, there have been 24 Native American Medal of Honor recipients since the Civil War. Let me just repeat that. There have been, according to the U.S. Army Center of Military History Web site, there have been 24 Native American Medal of Honor recipients. During World War II, we know about the Navajo Code Talkers, whose ranks in the Pacific Theater exceeded 400 during World War II, and in all six Marine divisions from 1942 to 1945. They were credited with saving thousands of lives and actually hastening the end of the war itself. At the time of the war, World War II, fewer than 30 non-Native speakers understood the Navajo's unwritten language. The size and simple complexity of the language made the code extremely difficult to comprehend, much less decipher. In fact, it was not until 1968 that the United States Government declassified the code. The Japanese never were able to decode this code. So that is a compliment to their accomplishments with the Navajo Code Talkers. In fact, there has been a movie made on it. In Congress, we have begun to recognize the extraordinary achievement from veterans such as these. This past June, the House passed H.R. 366. This was introduced by Congressman John Sullivan of Oklahoma, naming the Department of Veterans Affairs Outpatient Clinic in Tulsa, Oklahoma, as the Ernest Childers Department of Veterans Affairs Outpatient Clinic. This man was a Native American from the Creek nation, who was awarded the Medal of Honor for his courageous actions during World War II. In addition, the House passed H.R. 2546, which names the Asheville VA Medical Center after another brave Native American, PFC Charles George. He also was honored with the Medal of Honor posthumously for his actions in the Korean War. H.R. 2546 was passed last week by the Senate and now is awaiting the President's signature. So, Mr. Speaker, it is because of the gallant actions of our Native American veterans like those of Lieutenant Colonel Childers and PFC George, as well as the bravery and fortitude of the Navajo Code Talkers who served with the Marines, that I and other Members are proud to sponsor this resolution. We urge its passage. It actually recognizes the many contributions throughout the history of our Nation of our Native American veterans in protecting the freedoms that we enjoy in this country today. So I encourage all Americans, take time to recognize the sacrifice and achievement of these veterans.

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

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I think we've talked about this bill, and it's a very good bill. I thought I might take from my colleagues and just read the summary of it just to remind ourselves that H.R. 513 is to amend the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act to enhance the protection of credit ratings of active duty military personnel who are activated for military service. And the question usually comes up on some of these bills, what do they cost. Mr. Brady, the gentleman from Pennsylvania, talked about that. So we have a Congressional Budget Office cost estimate that I would share with my colleagues, and it says, ``The requirements imposed on credit reporting agencies would be private sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, the UMRA. CBO suspects the cost of the mandates would be minimal and unlikely to exceed the threshold for private sector mandates established in the UMRA.'' So, I think we have a bill that we can all support. So, obviously on this side, we do support it. The bill, as amended, will improve the protections of the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act by providing the opportunity for certain servicemembers experiencing financial difficulties, while deployed, to simply request that their credit record be annotated to reflect simply that deployment. It also requires the credit industry to take such deployment into consideration. This new protection, my colleagues, would cover credit accounts opened before the servicemember was deployed. While these protections are important, it is also critical that Members understand that such an annotation may have adverse effects on their credit rating, despite all the existing laws prohibiting such actions. Therefore, my colleagues, the bill also requires the National Credit Bureau to inform applicants of that potential in writing. So, Mr. Speaker, I think that, in terms of its strong support for veterans, and in their case, when they're deployed, I urge support for the bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.