Cliff Stearns

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Let me say to my friends on this side of the aisle and to the people from New York City and from New York: Can anyone come down to this House floor and question this spending without being attacked on their character? Mr. Speaker, there is no strategy or tactics we've developed here. We are just saying it's the CBO. The CBO has scored this at $11 billion. They said it's a template for future types of programs. They used the word ``entitlement.'' It creates another mandatory program. This is not the Republicans talking. This is the CBO. For you to come down here and question anybody who questions spending in this country of taxpayers' money and then to disparage our character is wrong. It is ironic that the President has created a fiscal commission to look at debt spending and entitlements. Yet Congress is pushing ahead with yet another spending program. We can talk about this intelligently without your emotionalizing this issue. But Mr. Speaker, we don't need to create this entitlement. We should do a 5-year program with the standard reauthorization and appropriation process. Why do you object to the standard appropriation process? It is a proper method for fiscal discipline. If we are to pay for this entitlement, it should also come by reducing the waste and fraud in this country. We are on your side. Show us how to eliminate waste and fraud, and we will pay for it through that.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Let me also, at this point, thank Mr. Markey for his eloquent remarks. But also, he is steadfast in pushing this bill. He has been working on this bill for almost 4 years. Oftentimes, when you come to the floor on a suspension like this, many Members do not realize the amount of work that goes into a bill like this. And I know the ranking member before Mr. Markey had talked to us about the possibility of this 2 years ago, 3 years ago, 4 years ago, so I'm glad it's culminated as it is today, 20 years after the anniversary of the Americans with Disabilities Act. And obviously, I'd also like to compliment the gentleman from Rhode Island for being in the chair. It's altogether appropriate, historic and important. I think many of us have come out of the House floor and walked into the halls of Congress and saw veterans in wheelchairs. We've seen men and women without legs. We've seen men and women without arms, hands, some of them practically blind. Shouldn't they have the opportunity to come back from Afghanistan and Iraq and have the full benefits of the electronic media? Before this bill passed, they might not have had the complete opportunity, but now, with this bill they will. So I rise in strong support of H.R. 3101, the Twenty-First Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act. We know there's all kinds of new devices coming on. Mr. Markey mentioned the iPad. And as I mentioned, it's important that people with disabilities are not left behind, have access and are afforded the opportunity to enjoy this wide variety of technology. And in many cases, through the Internet it's going to be life saving, through tele-medicine and from other ways that we can help the handicapped, the people that are at home through emergency calls, and, ultimately, the D spectrum, when we have that kind of spectrum set aside just for safety and security. Whenever you do a bill like this, it gets complicated, because lots of people want to use a lot of mandates for the United States Government to mandate through the FCC. But I think, as Mr. Markey pointed out with the iPad, oftentimes industry can come to the front and voluntarily do it. We, in the United States Congress, if we mandate certain technologies, we attempt to pick winners or losers. The best approach to ensuring accessibility is to establish accessibility goals, but not dictate how to accomplish them. We need to encourage innovation to flourish and, my colleagues, this bill does that. Now, obviously, all legislation we bring up here is not perfect, and this bill, obviously, needs some additional improvements. Perhaps the FCC can do that. Nevertheless, I think, as Mr. Markey pointed out, through the bipartisan process we have had here, Republicans and Democrats, we achieved a consensus, which is not altogether an everyday occurrence here in Congress. So I think, in many ways, we can compliment ourselves, both as Democrats and Republicans, that we came together on a very important issue which affects a huge number of manufacturing companies in this United States and throughout the world. We came together in a consensus. And, of course, I would like to thank Chairman Waxman for doing this, Subcommittee Chairman Boucher from Virginia, Joe Barton, the ranking member from Texas, and my staff, particularly Neil, who worked with the Democrat staff to bring this consensus together. A collaboration of this kind doesn't often happen in such a short amount of time. My main concern was that the legislation was extremely broad in its original scope, and included unnecessary mandates. Changes that were adopted at the committee markup addressed many of my concerns. Language was added that explicitly states that the relevant section shall not be construed to require every feature and every function of every device or service to be accessible for every disability. So that the record is clear regarding the intentions that underlie this bill, I want to offer some guidance to the FCC regarding the way it should view several key provisions in this legislation. First, my colleagues, the bill creates a new achievable standard to guide manufacturers' and service providers' efforts to provide accessibility to the disabled. Under section 255 of the Communications Act, telecommunications services and equipment must be accessible if the provision of accessibility is ``readily achievable.'' As introduced, H.R. 3101 proposed moving to a significantly higher standard under which accessibility would be required unless it imposed an ``undue burden.'' The ``achievable'' standard we adopt today is a compromise, a very simple compromise, very important compromise, between these two positions. The committee also recognized that it is not necessary for a manufacturer or service provider to make every piece of equipment or service accessible, if it offers or directs such person to functionally equivalent accessible alternatives to the equipment or service in question. This was a source of concern and confusion by many Members, and contention, early in the legislative process. And I'm pleased that this bill we are considering today resolves this issue by adopting clarifying language that makes this point in a clear and unambiguous manner. Finally, my colleagues, the bill before us also recognizes that advanced communication services and applications may be offered by third parties, and that manufacturers and network operators should not be held responsible for ensuring these third party advanced communication services comply with the act. Thus, section 2 makes clear that no person is liable for a violation of this Act to the extent that such person transmits, routes or provides intermediate or transient storage for content or communications, or provides an information location tool used to obtain access to content or information. These are the details that make for a sound bill. As I said previously, this legislation is not perfect, but it is much, much improved due to the hard work of industry and the disability community who came together, and the staff on both sides of the aisle. This legislation, Mr. Speaker, goes a long, long way to ensuring that people with disabilities can utilize all the new and exciting products, services and applications in the years ahead. I urge its passage. And for those veterans coming home, this will ensure that you have access to those new financial programs, those new video devices, those new devices that are going to make your life a lot easier. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I just want to speak briefly and sort of follow up with the gentleman from Massachusetts when he displayed in his hand the iPad. I think it's a good example of what Apple has done with the iPad and how they voluntarily went about to help the people who are impaired by sight and hearing. They took the necessary steps to make certain that their product and their applications are acceptable to all people. For example, when you look at the iPad, all of us think it's sort of, in a way, revolutionary. It gives you, at a touch of the fingers, an opportunity to go through and look at newspapers and magazines, to go on the Internet, to check your email effortlessly. It's sort of using technology that's breakthrough. Is it possible that this breakthrough technology could help people who are disabled? Absolutely. For example, Mr. Speaker, the iPad comes with a screen reader, support for playback of the closed caption content, and other innovative universal access features. This was done right out of the box. Apple did this voluntarily. These features make iPad easier to use for people who have vision impairment, are deaf or hard of hearing, or if they have a physical or learning disability. In addition, the iPad includes VoiceOver, a gesture-based screen reader for the blind. Instead of memorizing keyboard commands or pressing tiny arrow keys, you can simply touch the screen to hear a description of the item under your finger, then double-tap, drag, or flip to control the iPad. VoiceOver speaks 21 languages and works with all of the applications built into the iPad. Let me repeat that. The VoiceOver speaks 21 languages and works with all the applications built into the iPad--a phenomenon. Apple also enables software developers to create applications for iPad that work with VoiceOver. Furthermore, every iPad can display subtitles and closed captioning for the deaf and hard of hearing when playing movies and podcasts that support it. Movies and podcasts with closed captioning are available on the iTunes Store, and can be downloaded directly to iPad or synced to the iPad using iTunes. It is important for my colleagues to remember that a company like Apple included these features without any government mandate. This suggests that the broader market could be providing better access to people with disabilities than it does today. This bill will go a long way towards doing that. The FCC should remember, when they come asking for comments, when they have responses, and they have an advisory committee that's all involved with this, the key for the FCC is for them to be flexible in their response so that industry, like Apple did with the iPad, has the flexibility to develop the most sound and comprehensive ways to help our disabled today. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. STEARNS. In conclusion, I think, as has been pointed out by Mr. Markey, this is a historic day. Twenty years ago, the Americans with Disabilities Act passed. I voted for it, I supported it. I think many people in my district and many of my friends have children who have disabilities. It's important that these individuals do not feel left out. I think the eloquent arguments that we had 20 years ago are no less important today, particularly in light of the fact that the veterans that are coming home from Iraq and Afghanistan are coming home with disabilities that will impair them. And they're in their twenties. These are young men and women that want to work. And for many of them, they'd like to go back to their team, but they can't. They must find employment. They must, in many ways, adjust and transition. How much better will it be if they can use the Internet, if they can use the wireless devices that we have? And not to mention the myriad of new devices that are coming out. How important is this for them? Very important. So, today, I join with Mr. Markey and others to commend him for his hard work here and his effort, and I urge all my colleagues to support this bill. With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, when Congress passes a 2,000 plus-page bill, it's not all that surprising to find objectionable items tucked away in the pages. Such is the case with the Dodd-Frank financial reform legislation. This bill creates many new financial regulatory offices for the very same Federal regulators who failed to foresee the financial collapse in 2008. With this bill, Congress is giving the American people the gift of more bureaucracy with: an Office of Financial Research, a Financial Stability Oversight Council, 20 Offices of Minority and Women Inclusion, a Federal Insurance Office, an Office of Fair Lending and Equal Opportunity, an Office of Investor Advocate and Ombudsman, and a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. It goes on and on with new czars. Note that the problems with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are not even addressed. Yet these agencies were the cause of this economic crisis. So this bill is nothing more than a stimulus for more government.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, with the U.S. unemployment rate steadily hovering around 10 percent, Americans continue to ask, ``Where are the jobs?'' The answer to this crisis from congressional Democrats and the Obama administration is, higher taxes, increased government spending, and more government regulation. The passage of ObamaCare, cap-and-trade in the House, and financial regulation has created an atmosphere of tremendous uncertainty, especially among small businesses, which employ over half of all the private sector employees. Uncertainty, as we all know, is the enemy of growth, investment and job creation. The way out of this recession and towards job creation is enact policies that free up capital, reduce uncertainty, and restore confidence in our economy. We cannot do this if the administration and Congressional Democrats continue to impose costly regulations, higher taxes on job creators, and create uncertainty in the marketplace.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Good morning, Mr. Speaker. With the United States unemployment rate steadily hovering around 10 percent, Americans are continuing to ask, ``Where are the jobs?'' The response to this jobless crisis from congressional Democrats and the Obama administration seems to be focused on higher taxes, increased government spending, and more government mandates and regulation. All of this has led to great uncertainty in the business community, especially among small businesses which employ over half of all private sector employees. In a recently released letter, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce explains how the current policies of the administration and congressional Democrats are not working. The high spending and high tax agenda has created an atmosphere of uncertainty. As the Chamber's letter correctly states, ``Uncertainty is the enemy of growth, investment, and job creation. Through their legislative and regulatory proposals--some passed, some pending, and others simply talked about--the congressional majority and the administration have injected tremendous uncertainty into the economic decision-making process and business planning. This is why banks are reluctant to lend and why American corporations are sitting on well over a trillion dollars. It is why America's small businesses and entrepreneurs, the engines of innovation and job creation, are starving for capital and are either struggling to survive or simply unable to expand. In the process, we are also eroding our competitive position globally, as other nations take steps to cut taxes, reduce regulations, and restrain the appetites of big government. For all of these reasons, the known and unknown costs that come with expanding operations and adding to payrolls in the United States are simply perceived to be too high.'' As the Chamber's letter highlights, the continued expansion of the Federal Government into all areas of our economy is stunting economic growth and prohibiting private sector job creation. The Democrats' congressional agenda includes one piece of job-killing legislation after another. The new health care law includes thousands of expensive and burdensome mandates and hundreds of billions of dollars in business taxes and penalties. It contains thousands of pages of new regulations to be followed by individuals, employers, health care providers and States. The House passed climate change bill, the cap and trade bill, would create nearly 1,500 new regulations and mandates and carry a price tag of well over a trillion dollars, according to the Chamber. Furthermore, the Environmental Protection Agency is engaging in an unprecedented level of regulatory action by moving forward with 29 major economic rules and 173 major policy rules. The list keeps going. The recently passed financial regulatory reform legislation creates 243 new formal rule-makings by 11 different Federal agencies, 47 studies and 74 reports. It is really no wonder American businesses are hesitant to expand and hire. In addition to the regulatory uncertainty, the Federal Government's appetite for spending needs to be controlled. American families and small businesses are simply making tough choices in this economic climate but Federal spending continues to soar. The Federal Government is spending $31,000 per household, the highest ever, and running up a $1.5 trillion deficit in 2010, the largest deficit since the end of World War II. Recent yearly budget deficits have reached unprecedented levels, accounting for 11 percent of the GDP. By comparison, the historical average budget deficit is only 2.9 percent of the GDP. In 2008, publicly held debt as a percentage of the GDP was about 21 percent, nearly five points below the post-war average. Under President Obama's budget, this figure would more than double to 90 percent of the GDP by the year 2020. This continued structural debt poses serious economic risks to this country. As the Chamber's letter notes, ``By crowding out available capital for business expansion and eventually triggering increases in interest rates and inflation, rising deficits and debt add to uncertainty, inhibit growth, and smother job creation.'' The way out of this recession and toward job creation is to get Federal spending under control and enact policies that free up capital and encourage businesses to grow. We need to reduce uncertainty and restore confidence in our economy. We cannot do this if the administration and congressional Democrats continue to impose more and more burdensome mandates and increase taxes on job creators. It's time to reduce the unnecessary meddling of the Federal Government and let the American entrepreneurial spirit flourish.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, as the owner of the New York Yankees, George Steinbrenner was known for his bravado. But to the people of my district, he was known as a gentleman horse farm owner and community leader. He had a tremendous impact on north central Florida. In 1969, he bought the 850-acre Kinsman Stud Horse Farm in Ocala. He was an active horse breeder and a successful local businessman. He also owned the Pinstripes Ramada Inn in Ocala. In addition, Mr. Speaker, he became one of the largest benefactors in the University of Florida's history. He built the George Steinbrenner Band Hall, and he helped found the large animal and equine programs at the University of Florida veterinary school. While most of the tributes to George Steinbrenner rightfully focus on his ownership of the New York Yankees, the people of north central Florida feel we have lost a great friend and a good neighbor.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Madam Speaker, I submit the following letter from my good friend Gene Jewett, who shares his thoughts on the phenomena of talent and the recent visit from Paul McCartney who received the Gershwin Award from the Library of Congress. Dear Friends, Recently, Sir Paul McCartney visited Washington where he exhibited his musical prowess for the politically powerful, initially at the Library of Congress and then at the White House. In the course of his performance on the first night, he revealed the process by which he had written one of his most famous tunes, one where the melody had come to him in a dream, a refrain that he was fortunate enough to recall. For days, he hummed the tune (randomly entitled ``scrambled eggs'') to his band mates and everyone else in his greater circle of musicians, all in an attempt to determine whether it was a product of his own musical software or a reflection of a tune he had previously heard for which he was serving as a mere psychic conduit. When he finally accepted the song as his own, he re-dubbed it ``Yesterday'' and the rest is history. Over 3000 singers have recorded the song, a number which marks it as a continuing star in the firmament of pop music. His story caused me to reflect on the phenomena of talent, particularly as alluded to by Malcolm Gladwell in his book, ``Outliers.'' In this book, there's a central premise that suggests that great achievement is derived from spending at least 10,000 hours honing one's craft. Specifically, it uses as an example Paul McCartney and the Beatles playing in the clubs of Hamburg where they purportedly refined their songs. Notwithstanding the fact that the ``Hamburg'' Beatles played cover songs which could have encouraged them to write their original tunes, the more simple truth points to what McCartney observes in himself as some mystical talent with which he has been gifted, something for which he has no explanation. The difference between the Beatles and thousands of other bands can be found in these ``gifts'' of unusual talent. Not to be too grand, but the book ``the 100: A Ranking of the 100 Most Influential People in History'' by M.H. Hart is a primer for the study of people with extraordinary talent and abilities. For example, Genghis Khan was a late bloomer and certainly had no training as a military leader, but no one else in military history save perhaps Alexander shows anything close to his record of achievements. And how many in the realm of physics approach the works of Newton, Maxwell and Einstein? I realize this is a leap from Sir Paul, but pure talent, while it surely needs to be developed, is really a gift that defies description. It seems that some things just ``are'' and that's the name of that tune. And upon such random distributions of talent and ability the upward curve of the course of history will continue to remain reliant. Sir Paul, author of over 300 popular songs, also played ``Blackbird,'' a very pleasing and interesting composition. But I was hoping he'd do, ``Fixing a Hole'' as a nod to BP who could certainly use a little mystical talent about now, no?

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Madam Speaker, I would like to submit a letter from my good friend Gene Jewett, who shares his thoughts on the phenomena of talent and the recent visit from Paul McCartney who received the Gershwin Award from the Library of Congress. Dear Friends, Recently, Sir Paul McCartney visited Washington where he exhibited his musical prowess for the politically powerful, initially at the Library of Congress and then at the White House. In the course of his performance on the first night, he revealed the process by which he had written one of his most famous tunes, one where the melody had come to him in a dream, a refrain that he was fortunate enough to recall. For days, he hummed the tune (randomly entitled ``scrambled eggs'') to his band mates and everyone else in his greater circle of musicians, all in an attempt to determine whether it was a product of his own musical software or a reflection of a tune he had previously heard for which he was serving as a mere psychic conduit. When he finally accepted the song as his own, he re-dubbed it ``Yesterday'' and the rest is history. Over 3,000 singers have recorded the song, a number which marks it as a continuing star in the firmament of pop music. His story caused me to reflect on the phenomena of talent, particularly as alluded to by Malcolm Gladwell in his book, ``Outliers.'' In this book, there's a central premise that suggests that great achievement is derived from spending at least 10,000 hours honing ones craft. Specifically, it uses as an example Paul McCartney and the Beatles playing in the clubs of Hamburg where they purportedly refined their songs. Notwithstanding the fact that the ``Hamburg'' Beatles played cover songs which could have encourage them to write their original tunes, the more simple truth points to what McCartney observes in himself as some mystical talent with which he has been gifted, something for which he has no explanation. The difference between the Beatles and thousands of other bands can be found in these ``gifts'' of unusual talent. Not to be too grand, but the book ``The 100: A Ranking of the 100 Most Influential People in History'' by M.H. Hart is a primer for the study of people with extraordinary talent and abilities. For example, Genghis Kahn was a late bloomer and certainly had no training as a military leader, but no one else in military history, save perhaps Alexander, shows anything close to his record of achievements. And how many in the realm of physics approach the works of Newton, Maxwell and Einstein? I realize this is a leap from Sir Paul, but pure talent, while it surely needs to be developed, is really a gift that defies description. It seems that some things just ``are'' and that's the name of that tune. And upon such random distributions of talent and ability the upward curve of the course of history will continue to remain reliant. Sir Paul, author of over 300 popular songs, also played ``Blackbird,'' a very pleasing and interesting composition. But I was hoping he'd do, ``Fixing a Hole'' as a nod to BP who could certainly use a little mystical talent about now, no?

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Madam Speaker, today, I am introducing the ``Access to Appropriate Immunizations for Veterans Act of 2010'' 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. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join with me in cosponsoring the Access to Appropriate Immunizations for Veterans Act of 2010. 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, let me just reiterate what my good friend from Virginia said. The Budget chairman here in the U.S. House of Representatives said, ``If you can't budget, you can't govern.'' Let's take him at his word. I think everybody on this side of the aisle believes that that is very true. It's becoming increasingly clear, however, that House Democrats cannot come up with a budget. American families come up with a budget, but continually Democrats sidestep it and show no progress towards trying to even attempt to create a budget. This Congress has set upon an agenda where it's the first time since 1974 where there will be no budget passed in the House of Representatives. Without a budget, there are no controls in place to rein in this spending. It's a sign that Congress lacks the leadership to set a framework to limit spending or control entitlement growth. Not passing a budget resolution sends a message to the American taxpayers that Congress is not serious about addressing the fiscal crisis we have here and they are unable to meet the challenges of uncontrolled spending. While the Democrat leadership talks a good game, we have yet to see any action.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, recently, Speaker Pelosi sent a letter to her committee chairmen asking all of them to chip away at Federal budgetary spending. In addition, Majority Leader Hoyer recently wrote an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal urging for shared sacrifice to address the budget crisis this country is facing. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, their rhetoric does not match up to reality. Budget Chairman John Spratt even said, ``If you can't budget, you can't govern.'' Let me repeat that. This is what the Chairman of the Budget Committee said: ``If you can't budget, you can't govern.'' I could not agree more. It is becoming increasingly clear, Mr. Speaker, however, that House Democrats cannot budget. American families and small businesses are making tough choices in this economic climate. But Democrats continue to spend and to spend. The Federal Government is spending more per household than ever before and running up a $1.5 trillion deficit in 2010, the largest deficit since the end of World War II. Now, how much is $1 trillion? If you started at day one, at 1 A.D., and spent $1 million every day, you still would not have spent $1 trillion. Despite deficits and debts as far as the eye can see, Democrat leaders do not plan to even pass a budget resolution. Since 1974, when the modern budget process was created, the House has never failed to pass a budget resolution. Speaker Pelosi and Leader Hoyer can send all the letters and publish all the op-eds they want, but it does not change the fact there is no significant or legitimate plan to rein in Federal spending or reduce the deficit by them. The Federal Government now spends over $31,000 per household, the highest ever. Recent budget deficits have reached unprecedented levels, accounting for 11 percent of the GDP. By comparison, the historical budget deficits, a yearly debt deficit, is only 2.9 percent of the GDP in the past. Publicly held debt is expected to climb to $15 trillion by 2020, and when combined with rising interest rates in a post-recovery economic environment, the interest payments on government debt also will skyrocket. CBO projects that the government's annual spending on net interest will more than triple between 2010 and 2020 from $207 billion to $723 billion; just the interest. These deficits are appalling and all more shocking since CBO based these calculations on the complete expiration of the Bush tax cuts, that the alternative minimum tax will never be patched, and that future appropriations would be indexed to inflation. This is something Congress never will do. Since Democrats have taken over Congress in January 2007, the national debt has increased 42.4 percent. While the Democrat leadership talks a good game about addressing spending, we have yet to see any real action by them. The first step is to pass a budget to provide us with a blueprint, a simple road map for deficit reduction. The Balanced Budget Act of 1985 set the target date for a budget for April 15, the same day as Tax Day for most Americans. Unfortunately, the April 15 deadline for enacting a budget resolution has long since passed, and we still have no sign of a budget resolution. The Senate has not passed a budget, and the House has not even begun the simple process. Without a budget, there are no controls in place to rein in spending. It's a sign that Congress lacks the leadership and the willingness to set a framework to limit spending or control entitlement growth. Not passing a budget resolution sends a message to the American taxpayers that Congress is really not serious about addressing the fiscal crisis here, and is unable to meet the challenges of uncontrolled spending and runaway deficits. This entire situation, obviously, is getting out of control. When someone goes for debt counseling, the first step is to cut up the credit cards and live within your means. Congress needs to rein in Federal spending and to start living within its means. The answers are not higher taxes on out-of-work Americans, such as a Value Added Tax. That's why I've joined with my colleagues to send a letter to the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform to not increase taxes through a VAT tax as a means of balancing the budget. High taxes aren't the solution, less spending is. We must reduce the spending of this Federal Government if we are to exercise fiscal responsibility. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, the Democrat leadership continues to talk a good game, but has not yet shown a willingness to act in any significant measure to get our fiscal house in order.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chair, on rollcall No. 262 I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.'' Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Hall of Texas

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, on February 24, 2010--just 3 months ago-- Federal Reserve Chairman Bernanke told Congress that ``We have no plans whatsoever to be involved in any foreign bailouts or anything of that sort.'' Now, Mr. Bernanke has changed his own policy statement by agreeing to revive a Fed emergency lending program that will loan American taxpayer dollars to foreign central banks so they can in turn lend this money out to smaller foreign banks, as reported in the Wall Street Journal on May 10 of this year. This decision comes in the wake of the European Union's agreement with the International Monetary Fund to create a $1 trillion bailout package for the EU in order to deal with that region's ensuing fiscal crisis. The IMF, which is also funded by American taxpayer dollars, will be contributing over =250 million (euro) or $317 million to this overseas bailout in addition to the Fed's dollar-swap loan program. The question, Mr. Speaker, is, why did Mr. Bernanke change his policy? Why are American taxpayers now helping to bail out European countries?

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Madam Speaker, a recent announcement by FCC Chairman Genachowski to impose new, burdensome regulation on the Internet and on Internet transmission appears to me to be a political maneuver to regulate the Internet. Several weeks ago, he indicated he was not going to push for net regulation. Now he is. There is no economic or legal justification for this move and the result will be a freeze in the investment and innovation we have seen over the past 20 years. The Internet is the most powerful platform for innovation ever created and, by his actions, Chairman Genachowski is endangering the Internet's deployment and ultimately its innovation. Our current free-market, pro-investment policies have served us well. In fact, according to the FCC's own National Broadband Plan, 95 percent of all Americans have access to broadband and approximately 200 million subscribers have broadband at home today, up from 8 million just 10 years ago. By comparison, it took 90 years to go from 8 million voice subscribers to 200 million under the old Title II Common Carrier Regulations. Ironically, the chairman's laudable goal of maximizing broadband deployment and adoption will be most harmed by his announcement. Will Rogers once said that, ``Things in our country run in spite of the government, not by the aid of it.'' He was not, of course, talking about the Internet, but his words still ring true today. The rise of the Internet itself is a truly great deregulatory story. What started as a government-run network for sharing research has now exploded into a force for mass communication, entertainment, and commerce, when we turned it over to the private sector and lifted restrictions on its use by commercial entities and the public. The unregulated Internet is now starting to help spur a new technological revolution in this country. Where there were once separate phone, cable, wireless, and other industries providing distinct and separate services, we're now seeing a confluence and a blur of providers all competing against each other for consumers, offering broadband, voice, video services, and much more. The Apple iPod is a perfect example of the confluence of the Internet, the TV, and the computer, which will then be followed by other exciting products. Lines of technology are being blurred all the time. In fact, a few years ago, you had to have separate platforms for each additional individual TV technology. Now, your computer becomes your TV, your TV doubles for your computer, and your wireless device becomes your TV, your computer, your phone, and camera. We will see more of this convergence in the years to come if we remain on the current deregulatory path. However, the FCC appears to want to change course. In response to the FCC's announcement, I introduced a bill today, H.R. 5257--the Internet Investment, Innovation, and Competition Preservation Act--that would prevent the FCC from regulating the Internet or Internet transmission, absent a market failure. My bill would require the FCC to conduct a rigorous market analysis before mandating new network regulations. The FCC would need to prove that regulations are, indeed, necessary. Chairman Genachowski has said on numerous occasions that he wants to make sure that the FCC is the most data-driven agency. Well, let's see the data. Let's see the data showing there's a need for regulation before you do it, Mr. Chairman. With our economy still struggling, now is the worst time to impose new regulations on the Internet and on Internet service providers; yet, this is exactly what the FCC is going to try to do. Communication companies are among the few companies still investing billions of dollars into our economy in these very difficult financial times. Net regulation will discourage investment and innovation precisely when we need it the most, especially in light of our push to increase broadband deployment in this country. The FCC's announcement is a perfect example of how regulations meant to help can actually hurt our policy goals while taking more money out of the American taxpayers' pockets. I am reminded again, Madam Speaker, of another Will Rogers quote when he said, ``Be thankful we're not getting all the government we're paying for.'' Our history of communication policy is rife with examples of the best regulatory intentions going awry. More often than not, advances come despite regulation or, as with our Internet policy over the past couple of decades, from our decision not to regulate.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. I thank the distinguished chairman, Mr. Upton from Michigan. Here we go again, my colleagues. We are going to spend a lot of money and here we have a huge $1.5 trillion deficit. I am a member of the Renewable Energy and Efficiency Caucus. I strongly support, obviously, providing property owners with the education, simple education, incentives for them, and resources to voluntarily improve their homes and save energy. But I have a number of significant concerns with this legislation, including the total cost; also questions about the U.S. Department of Energy, their ability to effectively implement this program; and the fact that the Federal Government will be the one picking technology winners and losers, and not the free market, is also a concern of mine. My colleagues, at a time when we have an increasing national deficit, it's simply irresponsible to add an additional almost $7 billion in spending. Again the word billion. This spending is in addition to the more than $10 billion spent by the American taxpayers to implement a weatherization program. There are also significant concerns regarding the Department of Energy's ability to implement this program, especially under the tight deadlines required in this legislation. In fact, the Department of Energy Inspector General recently issued a report concluding that as of February 2010, of the roughly $4.7 billion DOE, Department of Energy, has awarded in grants to the States under the Recovery Act weatherization program, only $368 million, less than 10 percent, had been used by States for this purpose, and only 30,000 homes have actually been weatherized. This legislation also comes on the heels of the Energy Star fraud that was exposed earlier this month. Countless stories in mainstream newspapers reported the lax standards by which the Environmental Protection Agency approves ``energy efficient'' devices, allowing 15 phony products to pass inspection. Among those products approved were a gasoline-powered alarm clock and an air purifier which is nothing more than an upright fan with a feather duster taped to the top. Those are the things the Department of Energy approved, and you are going to give them almost $7 billion to go and institute and follow along this bill? H.R. 5019 is simply another multi-billion dollar government scheme that picks winners and losers through cash handouts to mostly, in this case, unionized labor at a time when the Federal Government is already running a $1.5 trillion annual deficit. So look at this carefully. We don't need to spend more money to do this. There is a lot of fraud that exists at the Department of Energy. They are lax. So I urge a ``no'' vote.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Madam Speaker, on May 3, the people of Poland celebrated the 219-year anniversary of the passage of the Constitution of May 3, 1791. This Constitution is regarded around the world as Europe's first and the world's second modern codified national constitution, following only the ratification of the United States Constitution in 1788. This is a great day not only for the Polish people but also for freedom loving people around the world. The United States and Poland share similar values and the two Constitutions reflect that shared commitment to liberty for all people. In fact, according to one Polish historian, the May 3 Constitution was ``founded principally on those of England and the United States of America . . . and adapted as much as possible to the local and particular circumstances of the country.'' In addition, historians have pointed out a number of similarities between the two Constitutions, including an advocacy of a separation and balance of powers and a bicameral legislature. Article V of the May 3 Constitution states that, ``the integrity of the states, civil liberty, and social order remain always in equilibrium.'' The United States and Poland share an unbreakable commitment to freedom and liberty. I congratulate the people of Poland on this momentous day. In honor of this special day, I would like to put into the Record a speech given by the President of the European Parliament, Jerzy Buzek, in honor of Polish National Day. Dear Ambassador, Distinguished Guests, Ladies and Gentlemen, I am delighted to be here in this wonderful old building, the Renwick Gallery, in the heart of this nation's capital. Over the past few days, in my capacity as President of the European Parliament, I have been holding discussions here in Washington on issues relating to the European Union. I should therefore like to thank you, Mr. Ambassador, for holding this reception so that we might meet and celebrate together one of the key events in Polish history. A few short steps away lies a park containing monuments to great heroes of freedom and democracy. For the last century and more, it has housed a monument to Tadeusz Kosciuszko, a hero of two nations--Poland and the United States--and a staunch defender of the Polish Constitution of 3 May 1791--Europe's first, and the world's second, such document. This year's Polish Constitution Day celebrations are overshadowed by the tragic events of 10 April, which have shown how important a modern constitution is to Poland, as indeed to any democratic country. During this difficult period, the 1997 Constitution has ensured continuity of government and a stable Presidency in our country. Ladies and Gentlemen, Having joined the European Union, Poland now enjoys a two- fold partnership with the United States: both as a sovereign state and as an important member of a unique community of 27 countries and close to half a billion people. The European Parliament, with its more than 700 directly elected Members, is the most democratic of the EU institutions. I believe that the time has now come for closer relations to be forged between our Parliament and the U.S. Congress. Day-to-day responsibility for doing so will lie with our newly opened office in Washington, which Piotr Nowina-Konopka was recently appointed to head up. In today's world, the partnership between Europe and the United States is an alliance whose importance cannot be overstated. And it is because we are democracies that that alliance should have a parliamentary dimension. The commemoration of 3 May is an appropriate occasion to draw attention to this fact, because constitutions are the supreme expression of parliamentary law-making in the majority of the world's democracies. May this anniversary inspire us, as politicians, to be ever more effective in our efforts to ensure the good of our free nations.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Madam Speaker, last week, the chief actuary for the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services, CMS, issued a troubling report, but it is not at all surprising to many of us who debated the health care bill. The report said that the Obamacare health care bill will increase national health expenditures by $311 billion. That is a deficit. During the debate, many of us said on the House floor that this bill will increase the deficit and expand Federal powers. I would like to take a few minutes to outline some of the problems with the bill by government officials pointing out these problems. First of all, it obviously increases the deficit. CBO projected the cost of the health care bill to be $940 billion and it would reduce the deficit by $138 billion. However, that has been proven to be wrong. There are budget gimmicks in place and it is unlikely that Congress will keep those gimmicks in place. For example, the bill assumes that a 21 percent cut to Medicare's physician reimbursement rate will stay in place. This won't happen. New taxes and mandates will create economic hardship. Businesses will be forced to buy health insurance for their employees or pay a tax for every employee. This will place businesses into a very difficult position, cutting workers, reducing wages, or preventing companies from growing larger if they wish to avoid these costly penalties. With 10 percent unemployment nationwide, is this the right time to create a disincentive for a company to hire more workers? Expanding a broken entitlement creates more problems, not real solutions. For example, in 2014, Medicaid will be expanded to all individuals making less than 133 percent of the Federal poverty level. Half the people covered under the health care bill will be covered because of Medicaid. Unfortunately, most doctors do not participate in Medicaid because the reimbursement rate is far less than the private sector and less than Medicare. So where are these 16 million people going to go to get health care? It bankrupts State budgets through Medicaid expansion. With 16 million new individuals enrolled in Medicaid, States will be on the hook for more Medicaid spending. In the short term, the Federal Government will pay for the expansion of Medicaid, but after 2017, States will have to pick up about 10 percent of the cost. Many States do not have the ability to do this; it will make it more difficult for them. Medicare cuts jeopardize the care of our seniors. Medicare's costs continue to grow and the Medicare Trust Fund continues to be insolvent. So, to fix this problem, the majority cut over $500 billion from Medicare, but rather than using the savings to extend the program, they immediately spent it on expanding Medicaid and creating subsidies for the health insurance exchange. CMS reports 15 percent of hospitals will be unprofitable within 10 years just because of these cuts. It creates an inequity against low-income workers. The employer mandate requires businesses to offer a health plan that meets with the approval of HHS. This will drive up the cost of health plans, and small businesses may not be able to afford a robust insurance plan. CMS' report further points out how many small businesses may cancel their plans because it is cheaper to pay the tax than to provide health insurance. New regulations increase government control over health care. HHS gains an incredible amount of power under this bill. They will now have the power to dictate insurance policies, insurance prices, regulate the insurance market, and control benefits offered in your health care plan. This bill obviously violates the Constitution in the fact that the Federal Government now is mandating that all U.S. citizens purchase a health care plan from a private company as a requirement for lawful residency in this country. This is an unprecedented extension of Federal power, and this is only the beginning. The health care bill was so big and so complex that now we are only learning about the problems and flaws in the law, such as its treatment of veteran health plans or weakening the Medicaid program for new lawsuits from trial lawyers. We need to fix this bill and rein in all the controls and power that have been provided through this bill here in Washington.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, last Friday, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filed fraud charges against investment bank Goldman Sachs for misleading and defrauding investors through their selling of a complex financial product based on toxic subprime mortgages. These charges are serious, but the SEC should have been investigating the abusive practices that contributed to our financial crisis much sooner. American taxpayers could see past Goldman Sachs' smoke and mirrors. American taxpayers could see past Lloyd Blankfein's defense of his company when he said such things as ``We're very important.'' He went on to say, ``I'm doing God's work.'' Americans could see that there were problems on Wall Street well before the SEC was willing to publicly acknowledge it. Now, according to the SEC, Goldman Sachs was approached by one of the world's largest hedge funds, Paulson & Co., which asked the firm to create and market collateralized debt obligations (CDOs) whose values were linked to the value of toxic home loans. With billions being offered, Goldman Sachs obliged and created ABACUS, which the hedge fund then placed bets against, knowing that this new financial instrument was certain to lose value. Then, Goldman Sachs failed to tell ABACUS investors that the very hedge fund that helped to create and assemble the toxic CDOs, was betting against it. ``The product was new and complex but the deception and conflicts are old and simple.'' That's what the SEC's Director of Division Enforcement said. ``Goldman wrongly permitted a client that was betting against the mortgage market to heavily influence which mortgage securities to include in an investment portfolio, while telling other investors that the securities were selected by an independent, objective third party.'' The Goldman Sachs-Paulson & Co. deal closed on April 26, 2007, with the hedge fund paying Goldman Sachs $15 million for structuring and marketing ABACUS to unknowing investors. Unfortunately, however, by October 24 of that same year, 83 percent of the residential mortgage- backed securities in the ABACUS portfolio had been downgraded, and 17 percent were on negative watch. Less than a year later, on January 28, 2008, 99 percent of the ABACUS portfolio had been downgraded. Those who invested in ABACUS lost more than $1 billion. Goldman Sachs' official statement that ``the SEC charges are completely unfounded in law and fact, and we will vigorously contest them and defend the firm and its reputation,'' contrasts greatly with the words of Goldman's CEO Lloyd Blankfein when he publicly apologized in November of last year for the bank's role in some of the activities leading up to the financial crisis. This is what he said: ``We participated in things that were clearly wrong and have reason to regret. We apologize.'' Unfortunately, however, it appears the senior leadership at Goldman Sachs knew months before they even marketed ABACUS to investors that the housing market was about to crash. Goldman's vice president, Fabrice Tourre, who was said to be the man who structured the toxic financial instrument, prepared the marketing materials, and communicated directly with investors, sent an e-mail stating, ``the whole building is about to collapse anytime now.'' He is now taking a break from his position at the firm. The allegations against Goldman Sachs are very serious, and Goldman Sachs has the right to challenge the SEC's civil fraud charges. But the SEC also has a duty to American taxpayers to get the bottom of this and continue to investigate any abusive practices employed by all financial institutions, not just Goldman Sachs. Mr. Speaker, the American people recall that Goldman Sachs was a TARP bailout recipient and one of the few big Wall Street banks that managed to not only benefit from the taxpayer bailout but also to emerge stronger than before. Goldman Sachs received $10 billion in TARP funds, was allowed to convert to a bank holding company in order to gain additional support from the Federal Reserve, and was one of the largest recipients from the $180 billion AIG bailout when it received 100 cents on the dollar in payouts in public funds from the insurance giant. The American public is now an unwilling majority owner in AIG. And with Goldman having received a backdoor bailout with public funds through AIG, it would only be fair to make all of AIG's counterparties, including Goldman Sachs, buy back the CDOs at full price. Goldman Sachs could use the profits they gained from the AIG payments to pay down the billions in public debt still held by AIG. If Goldman Sachs truly has regret for participating in activities leading up to the financial crisis that were ``clearly wrong'' as their CEO has said and apologized, then Goldman Sachs should step up to the plate and make reparations that are owed to American taxpayers.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Madam Speaker, today is Tax Day and as Americans cut yet another check to the federal government, it's time to rise up and say stop. Stop the out of control spending that will saddle our children and grandchildren with a mountain of IOUs. Stop with all the bailouts that leave the American people paying for Wall Street's greed and excess. And we must say stop to the trillion-dollar government take over of health care. Washington spending is now $31,000 per household and in 2008, the publicly held debt was 40.8 percent of the GDP. American families are having a hard time making ends meet, and yet President Obama and congressional Democrats continue to tax and spend without regard. In fact, since January 2009, President Obama and congressional Democrats have enacted into law gross tax increases totaling more than $670 billion, more than $2,100 for every American. When will all of this madness stop?

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Madam Speaker, it's Tax Day in America, and once again millions have gone through the struggle of trying to figure out our complicated tax laws. Our tax code is far too complicated and unwieldy. The IRS' Taxpayer Advocate stated, ``The [Tax] Code has grown so long that it has become challenging even to figure out how long it is.'' A 2001 study put the number of words at 1.3 million. A 2005 report put the number of words at 2.1 million. The Taxpayer Advocate's search of the tax code turned up 3.7 million words. The tax code has more than tripled since 1975. It is estimated that individual taxpayers spent 3.8 billion hours complying with federal income tax laws. The IRS reported that individuals spent $29 billion in 2009 for tax software, tax preparers, and other expenses to filing their returns. We need real tax reform in our country. We need a simplified tax code that ensures that everyone pays their fair share and a tax code that is easily understood without excessive complexities.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in strong support of this bill. As the chairman of the Telecommunications Subcommittee has indicated, this has passed twice before. We are coming here hoping that the Senate will take it up and pass it. It is a very good bill. The gentleman from New York has offered this bill. The bill is called the Truth in Caller ID Act, and obviously it's going to pass overwhelmingly today. Millions of Americans use caller ID to secure greater privacy for their families. Yet as new technologies continue to be developed, a very simple deceptive practice called ``caller ID spoofing'' has simply become a growing problem for consumers and also for businesses. Caller ID spoofing occurs when a caller masquerades as someone else by falsifying the number that appears on the recipient's caller ID display. Now, you say, is this difficult? No, it isn't. Caller ID spoofing can make a caller appear to come from any phone number the caller so desires. Unfortunately, under current FCC regulations, there is no requirement that all callers transmit accurate caller ID information. In fact, there is nothing that prohibits a deceptive manipulation of caller ID. This bill will go a long way in stemming the tide of caller ID spoofing by making it illegal to transmit misleading or inaccurate caller ID information while providing reasonable exemptions for law enforcement activities. Madam Speaker, the increasing use of Internet telephone services has made it easier for people to make any number, any number, appear as a caller ID. In addition, several Web sites have sprung up to provide caller ID spoofing services, eliminating the need for any special hardware. So think of that. Entrepreneurship of these spoofers now has sprung to such a point that they can provide it on their Web sites. Although these caller ID spoofing services promote themselves for use in prank calls or for entertainment purposes only, these services can be easily accessed and used by criminals. Caller ID spoofing has emerged as a useful tool for identifying thieves and other scam artists. In addition, many business functions, from credit card verification to automatic call routing, simply depend on caller ID for security purposes, which spoofing can render useless. So, Madam Speaker, these nefarious actions are the target of this bill. As you can see, this is a serious issue with far-reaching ramifications and implications for both consumers and for all businesses. This is an important bill, and I urge its passage. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Let me just comment a little bit further. The gentleman from New York mentioned some specific examples. There is another example that is used in political campaigns he perhaps knows about where people can use spoofing to call different homes in robo phone banking that calls and go around the congressional district as a fake and wake people up at 2 or 3 in the morning and people think this is coming from someone who it is not, and this has happened on both sides of the aisle. So this would prevent that. So I think it hits a little closer to home when you talk about it in those terms. The other point that has been a concern is why has this bill not passed? I think the question has always been some kind of legal questions, whether there is liability involved for the phone company or anyone that transmits this information to a consumer or constituent through this illegal act of spoofing. And we are able to change that language, through bipartisanship, both sides, to try and make it--for example, if a phone company, not knowing, and how would they know, transmits the information, are they going to be liable for this, to be sued? Well, we worked it out that their not knowing, then they should not be liable for this. So I think that's important that this bill now has language that represents bipartisanship agreement so that the passage of this bill should be assured, I think, this time. So this should be the third and last time we're doing this. And in the end, I think it will be good for Americans to understand that this is an illegal activity and we want to stop it. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I also rise in support of H.R. 3125, the Radio Spectrum Inventory Act. As the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Boucher) mentioned, it's a very important bill, and I urge its passage. This bill offers an opportunity to evaluate all of the frequency bands between 225 megahertz and 10 gigahertz and simply to determine who uses these frequency bands and the purpose for which they are being used. While this bill requires NTIA and the FCC to recommend which spectrum, if any, should be reallocated, Congress ultimately will decide whether reallocation should occur. For Congress to make such an informed judgment, we need a solid set of facts before we do it. So it's very clear that the United States will need additional spectrum to meet the growing demand for wireless broadband, fourth-generation wireless. In fact, we are victims of our own success in this country. The United States currently leads the world in wireless. Wireless providers have used spectrum to provide U.S. consumers with many innovative voice and data services. The number of mobile voice consumers in the United States has surpassed the number of wire line customers. Back in 1996, when we passed the Telecommunications Act, I don't think anybody would have thought that would have happened. And the number of mobile broadband consumers has increased exponentially over the past several years. As customers increase the amount of time they spend on their mobile devices talking, emailing, surfing the net, cell sites become constrained for capacity. As a result, we are facing, in the words of FCC Chairman Genachowski, a ``looming spectrum crisis.'' For example, a voice call requires approximately 10,000 bits per second, while downloading a video requires millions of bits per second. This bill creates a thoughtful, comprehensive process through which Congress can identify whether to reallocate spectrum that is currently underutilized. Current license holders should not fear this process. It will be open and transparent and provide all spectrum users with the opportunity to explain the purposes for which they use spectrum. This is a beginning, Mr. Speaker, not the end of the debate over the future of the spectrum policy in the United States. Now, this is a bill that's very important. You'd almost consider it not only for innovation and for commercial use, but long term, on behalf of national security purposes, too. So don't discount the fact that we are just asking for an inventory. It's something that should be done, and I think anybody who's interested in fiscal responsibility should realize asking for an inventory is the best way to find out what you have and how to use it better. So I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.