Mel Watt

Mr. WATT

Mr. WATT. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. WATT

Mr. WATT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for yielding time. I walked in on the last two speakers, neither of whom said anything I disagree with, except that I can't support the bill because of the pay- for that is in the bill. I'm convinced that we should repeal the medical device excise tax. I think it's driving jobs and innovation offshore, and a lot of that is happening in my congressional district. I also think it is counterproductive to talk about doing it and paying for it in the way that has been proposed in this bill. And I will therefore unfortunately not be able to support the bill as it is written today and introduced because of the manner in which it's being paid for. I don't think there is anything complicated about this. We need to find a more acceptable way to do what I think a lot of us agree needs to be done, which is to repeal the medical devices tax. But this is not the way to pay for it, and we must find an acceptable pay-for. I thank the ranking member for yielding time.

Mr. WATT

Mr. WATT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to make sure that we acknowledge in the Congressional Record the 70th Anniversary of a group of African- American World War II Navy Veterans known as the B-1 United States Navy Band. The B-1 United States Navy Band was formed in 1942 and was comprised of talented African-American musicians, many of whom were from North Carolina, who were among the first African-Americans to serve in the modern U.S. Navy in roles other than kitchen staff positions. Most of the Band's approximately forty-four original members were affiliated with North Carolina A&T State University, which is located in Greensboro, North Carolina in my congressional district. The Band was stationed at the U.S. Navy's Pre-Flight Training School in Chapel Hill, North Carolina and provided musical entertainment to pilot trainees during World War II. In 1944 the Band was transferred to sea duty in Hawaii and continued to perform for military personnel and civilians for the duration of the war. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in saluting the members of the B-1 U.S. Navy Band for their service to our country and to join me in commemorating the Band's 70th Anniversary which will be celebrated on April 14, 2012 on the campus of North Carolina A&T State University.

Mr. WATT

Mr. WATT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Of course I'm not from Virginia, I'm from North Carolina, but that happens to me and Bobby Scott all the time. We get confused with each other, States and personalities, because we sit beside each other in Judiciary and we're good friends. So I'm never insulted when anybody does that to me. I dare say that if folks are watching this proceeding on C SPAN or at home they're wondering, Who in the world is John Sullivan? And I think that's probably the highest commendation that we can give to John Sullivan as a Parliamentarian, because if he had been involved in any kind of controversy or one side or the other in this institution had accused him of misinterpreting rules, then people would know that there's a Parliamentarian that's basically the referee in this institution that both sides have to respect in order for the institution to work effectively. There has been no controversy--I mean, that the people outside know about. We know inside our institution that the Parliamentarians are dealing with controversial rulings, close rulings, trying to figure out what the precedents are for what we can do and cannot do, what has been done this way in the past and, therefore, represents a precedent for us to be able to do it in the future. But outside, nobody has ever heard of John Sullivan because there has been no controversy, and that's a great thing to have said about him. He has been absolutely even-handed. You've heard the word ``nonpartisan'' because this is a position that you cannot be or take the Republican side or the Democratic side. You've got to call the rules as you see them. There's nothing worse than at the end of March Madness, at the end of the game, one team saying that the referees influenced the outcome of the game. So that's a high mark for John Sullivan. When he replaced the prior Parliamentarian, Mr. Johnson, I thought surely we would go into some level of chaos; but the only difference I've ever been able to distinguish between him and Mr. Johnson is that he can't throw a baseball like our prior Parliamentarian did. If he can, he hadn't told me about it. I just wanted to take this moment to express our gratitude. He's been a tremendous mentor--well, you can't call him a mentor--teacher of those of us who have been in this institution, who have tried to abide by the rules and go to the edge and not violate the rule, but knowing full well that we'll get absolutely nonpartisan advice and counsel from the Parliamentarian about how to do things when we don't know how to bring them to the floor, and about how to maintain the decorum and respect of every single Member in this House. I thank him for his friendship and the role that he has played in making our institution a much, much better place to live and work.

Mr. WATT

Mr. WATT. Mr. Speaker, one of the few important accomplishments of the 112th Congress thus far has been the passage of the America Invents Act, a comprehensive reform of the United States patent system which was signed into law by President Barack Obama on September 16, 2011. There's little disagreement that patent reform was long overdue, and even those who voted against the bill recognized how important it was to the American inventor and to American innovation to update and streamline the patent system. Our country has always respected and admired inventors. As young children, we were taught about famous inventors such as Thomas Edison, Alexander Graham Bell, Henry Ford, and many others. Frequently overlooked in the discussion of important inventors, however, have been the accomplishments of African American inventors. Until this year's publication of the children's book, ``What Color is My World? The Lost History of African-American Inventors'' by basketball legend Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, we've done little to teach children about the outstanding contributions African American inventors have made to innovation. I therefore would like to use this time during Black History Month to pay tribute to some of the many, many contributions African American inventors have made. I'm not the first Member of this body to take to the floor of the House to acknowledge the long legacy of inventiveness in the African American community. On August 10, 1894, Representative George Washington Murray, the only African American in the House of Representatives at the time and himself the holder of eight patents on agricultural implements, read the names of 92 African Americans who held patents and described the inventions on the House floor. Had time allowed, Representative Murray would likely have highlighted the achievements of even more patent holders--inventors such as Thomas L. Jennings, a free person of color and one of the earliest African Americans to patent an invention, who in 1821 was awarded a patent for developing an early drycleaning process to remove dirt and grease from clothing. Or James Forten, another freeborn man who invented a contraption to handle the sails on a sailboat. Or Judy W. Reed, the first known woman of color to receive a patent, who created an improved dough kneader and roller. Or Henry Blair, an inventor who received utility patents on a seed and cotton planter. If Representative Murray had continued to be a Member of Congress, he would, no doubt, have come to the floor of the House many more times to brag about African American inventors and to acknowledge the major significance of their inventions. He would have reported that by the year 1900, African Americans had patented 357 inventions. And I'm certain that he would have been especially moved to share with this body that by the early to mid-20th century, African American inventors had obtained patents for innovations in countless industries, including medical, chemical, aviation, automotive, grocery, cosmetic, and apparel. For example, Garrett Morgan invented the gas mask to protect firemen and other rescuers from breathing smoke and poisonous gas when entering dangerous fires and other situations, and he was also awarded a patent for the three-way electric traffic signal. Charles Drew created a method to mass-produce blood plasma, which led to the formation of blood banks to store plasma for victims of life-threatening emergencies. Unfortunately, he bled to death following an automobile accident which occurred in my native State of North Carolina, and his injuries were too severe for the process he invented to be used to save his life. Frederick McKinley Jones was the first African American member of the American Society of Refrigeration Engineers. He developed a means to refrigerate perishables being transported long distances. Jack Johnson, who was best known as the great African American boxer, received two patents: one for an improvement to the monkey wrench and the other for a theft prevention device for vehicles. I suspect that my good friend and our colleague Representative Darrell Issa might be surprised to learn that Jack Johnson, an African American inventor, developed a device to prevent people from stealing cars long before Representative Issa got into the business. I encourage my colleagues to look at the books on African American invention. Mr. Speaker, one of the few important accomplishments of the 111th Congress thus far has been the passage of H.R. 1249, the ``America Invents Act,'' a comprehensive reform of the United States patent system which was signed into law by President Barack Obama on September 16, 2011. H.R. 1249 authorized the transition from a first-to-invent process to a first-to-file process for obtaining a patent, expanded the prior user rights defense and addressed to some extent (although not to my satisfaction) the diversion of fees collected by the Patent and Trademark Office to the general fund. There is little disagreement that patent reform was long overdue and even those who voted against H.R. 1249 recognized how important it was to the American inventor and to American innovation to update and streamline the patent system. Our country has always respected and admired inventors. As young children we were taught about famous inventors such as Thomas Edison, Alexander Graham Bell, Henry Ford and many others. Frequently overlooked in discussions of important inventors, however, have been the accomplishments of African-American inventors. Until this year's publication of the children's book, What Color is My World?: The Lost History of African American Inventors, by basketball legend Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, we've done little to teach children about the outstanding contributions African-American inventors have made to innovation. I would, therefore, like to use this time during Black History Month to pay tribute to some of the many, many contributions African-American inventors have made. I am not the first member of this body to take to the floor of this House to acknowledge the long legacy of inventiveness in the African- American community. On August 10, 1894, Rep. George Washington Murray, the only African-American in the House of Representatives at that time and himself the holder of eight patents on agricultural implements, read the names of ninety-two African-Americans who held patents and described their inventions on the House floor. Had time allowed, Rep. Murray would likely have highlighted the achievements of even more patent holders, inventors such as: Thomas L. Jennings (1791 1859), a free person of color and one of the earliest African-Americans to patent an invention, who in 1821 was awarded a patent for developing an early dry-cleaning process to remove dirt and grease from clothing; James Forten, another free born man who invented a contraption to handle the sails on a sail boat; Judy W. Reed (the first known woman of color to receive a patent), who created an improved dough kneader and roller; and Henry Blair, an inventor who received utility patents on a seed and cotton planter. If Rep. Murray had continued to be a member of Congress he would no doubt have come to the floor of the House many more times to brag about African-American inventors and to acknowledge the major significance of their inventions. He would have reported that by the year 1900 African- Americans had patented 357 inventions. And I am certain that he would have been especially moved to share with this body that by the early to mid-twentieth century, African-American inventors had obtained patents for innovations in countless industries, including medical, chemical, aviation, automotive, grocery, cosmetics and apparel. For example: Garrett Morgan (1877 1963) invented the gas mask to protect fireman and other rescuers from breathing smoke and poisonous gas when entering dangerous fires and other situations and he was also awarded a patent for the three-way electric traffic signal. Charles Drew (1904 1950) created a method to mass-produce blood plasma which led to the formation of blood banks to store plasma for victims of life-threatening emergencies. Unfortunately, he bled to death following an automobile accident which occurred in my native state of North Carolina and his injuries were too severe for the process he invented to be used to save his life. Frederick McKinley Jones (1893 1961) was the first African-American member of the American Society of Refrigeration Engineers. He developed a means to refrigerate perishables being transported long distances. Jack Johnson (1878 1946), best known as the great African-American boxer, received two patents, one for an improvement to the monkey wrench and the other for a theft-prevention device for vehicles. I suspect that my good friend and our colleague Rep. Darrell Issa might be surprised to learn that Jack Johnson, an African-American inventor, developed a device to prevent people from stealing cars long before Rep. Issa got into the business. Norbert Rillieux (1806 1894) invented a sugar processing evaporator that provided a safer, cheaper, and easier way of evaporating sugar cane juice and made the refinement of sugar more efficient. It is still used for the production of sugar, gelatin, condensed milk and glue, among other things. Annie Minerva Turnbo Malone (1869 1957) was the first African- American beauty entrepreneur to manufacture a line of beauty products for African-American women. In the late 1800s and the early 1900s she manufactured and sold her products door-to-door. Mme. C.J. Walker, who is often credited with starting the African-American beauty business, was actually one of her sales agents. Dr. Lloyd Augustus Hall (1894 1971), a pioneer in the area of food chemistry, developed preservative chemicals that were used to keep food fresh without sacrificing flavor. In the 1930s he introduced ``flash- dried'' salt crystals that revolutionized the meat packing industry. Percy Lavon Julian (1899 1975) developed synthetic cortisone, which provided cheaper relief from rheumatoid arthritis. In 1954 he founded Julian Laboratories to research steroids and in 1961 he sold his company to Smith, Kline and French. By the start of the 21st century and on into the present day, African-Americans have also been awarded patents in many other categories, including the technology and engineering fields. For instance: Dr. Mark Dean holds more than twenty domestic patents and was a key developer of computer architecture for IBM. Dr. George H. Simmons obtained a patent for creating a fiber-optic extension of an optic local area network and another for designing a system to eliminate the unwanted pulses in a dial pulse stream on telephones. Dr. James E. West is the well-regarded co-inventor of foil-electret transducers, which are the devices used to change sound into electrical signals and are used in items such as lapel microphones, hearing aids and portable tape recorders. Lonnie Johnson invented the popular ``Super Soaker'' water gun. I could go on ad infinitum about these and countless other examples of African-American ingenuity, but my time is limited. So I will instead encourage you to investigate for yourselves and learn more about the unique role that African-American inventors have played in the rich history of American inventiveness. For that purpose I direct you to an outstanding book called The Inventive Spirit of African Americans by Patricia Carter Sluby which details the many examples I have discussed, as well as many other outstanding innovations and patents by African-Americans. It is probably the most thorough and best researched and written history of African-American inventiveness available today. I also direct my colleagues to Kareem Abdul Jabbar's recent book written especially for children, entitled What Color is My World?: The Lost History of African-American Inventors. I commend these resources to my colleagues as we honor the exemplary achievements of African-Americans during Black History Month and throughout the year.

Mr. WATT

Mr. WATT. I thank the gentleman from Michigan for yielding time. I regret that I have to be the skunk at the party today in opposition to this bill. While I support innovation on the Web, I do not support it at the expense of consumer privacy. I believe we've rushed this bill to the floor without sufficient development and, consequently, without giving any thought to its implications for consumer privacy. The bill would amend what is widely considered to be one of the strongest protections of consumer privacy records in the United States, the Video Privacy Protection Act, without receiving testimony from a single privacy expert. It also ignores the impact this bill may have on State laws providing similar or greater protections. At a time when we know that technology that's pervasive and invasive has become almost commonplace, our responsibility as policymakers is not to surrender to technology and to sacrifice the values that we have held dear since the founding of this Nation. Technology and privacy are not incompatible. We can and should promote technological innovation while simultaneously preventing the unwarranted, uninformed dissemination of personal information. This bill falls short of that objective. The supporters of this bill point to the widespread sharing already taking place over the Internet, but they neglect to publicize the privacy lawsuits, some of which are still pending, against those video and music sites that permit their users to share their playlist. The Video Privacy Protection Act was not only a reaction to the publication of Judge Robert Bork's rental records during his nomination proceeding to the United States Supreme Court. The committee report also noted where an attorney obtained video records in a custody dispute to demonstrate that the father was unfit to have custody of his children based largely on his video rental records. Many of the lawsuits today reflect consumer concerns with precisely this type of abuse and misuse of rental records and other equally private information. The stated purpose of the bill is to respond to the new commercial video distribution landscape by empowering consumers to do more with their video consumption preference, including sharing names of new or favorite TV shows or movies on social media in a simple way. But when you really peel away the layers, you have to ask yourself one question: Who does this bill benefit? It really doesn't benefit the consumer. The consumer already has the capacity to share his or her video preferences online however she pleases. The bill instead benefits companies by relieving them of the burden of protecting consumer records by getting a one-time universal consent to disclose users' viewing history in order to share them on social media sites. But because social media sites are often dynamic, with users' rosters of friends ever changing, a consumer's consent today to allow access to their viewing history is clearly not informed by who will be their friend tomorrow. Today, when online bullying of teens or young adults is increasing and leading to depression or suicide, we should have greater care to ensure that their interests are not cavalierly disregarded. Allowing video service providers to release information as private as a person's viewing history, which clearly shows to the world their loves, likes, and dislikes, should not be done without careful contemplation and consideration. In closing, I would just emphasize that I believe that technological advance and innovation are both extremely important. It is the future of America's economy. I don't question that. However, allowing the release of truly private consumer information in the name of innovation without careful consideration is reckless on our part, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this legislation.

Mr. WATT. I thank the gentleman for yielding once again. And in response to my colleague from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), we have in fact been trying to work out our differences. The problem is that his definition of protecting privacy is not as extensive as my definition of protecting privacy. And I think my definition of protecting privacy is more consistent with consumers, because consumers keep filing these lawsuits to try to protect themselves from the disclosure of their personal information. The Electronic Privacy Information Center, which has been at the forefront of ensuring privacy protections for consumers in the information age, just last week secured a victory for Facebook users when its complaint to the Federal Trade Commission resulted in a settlement requiring Facebook to establish an extensive privacy program. Analytics Company and Web video Hulu.com have been hit with another privacy lawsuit over their alleged use of supercookies to track people. There is case after case after case of consumers' information being used, abused, and misused, and here we are making it easier for that to occur by saying you can give one time--they already have the authority to release the information when they download a movie now, but this will give one-time, universal coverage to release everything that I view on video. And that's inconsistent with what I think is necessary to protect the privacy of people in this electronic age. Now, I understand that there are people who have an interest in this; I mean, there are people who profit from mining this kind of information. But our interest should be in protecting the rights of consumers, protecting them from having this kind of private information--I would think since the original Video Protection Act was about protecting the privacy of Judge Robert Bork and people going into his records to review his video viewing privacy, that my colleagues on the opposite side of the aisle would be the most vigorous in trying to protect this. But here we are giving in to the interests that will make money out of this and exposing our children and our own viewing habits to this kind of intrusive action on our part, and we are doing it without the benefit of any testimony at a hearing to talk about this. We should simply not be doing this. I would like to submit for the Record a letter dated December 5, 2012, from the Electronic Privacy Information Center in which they aggressively oppose this legislation. They say they are a nonpartisan public interest research organization. The Video Privacy Protection Act was passed in 1988, following disclosure of the private video rental records of a Supreme Court nominee by a video rental store to a news organization. There was broad-based support for passage, and the act was signed by President Ronald Reagan. This act is considered a model privacy act in many respects. It is technology neutral. And this bill undermines this Video Privacy Act that was the model act that was designed to protect a Republican nominee to the Supreme Court and was signed into law by a Republican President. And here we are in this Congress getting ready to send a bill over to the Senate-- which hopefully they won't act on; they will save us from our own ineptitude--which would undermine the key provision of the Video Protection Act, which is the right of users to give meaningful consent to the disclosure of their personal information. This blanket consent, according to the Electronic Privacy Information Center--and I agree with them wholeheartedly. The blanket consent provisions transfer control from the individual user to the company in possession of the data and diminish the control that Netflix customers would have in the use and disclosure of their personal information. ``While we recognize that other companies routinely report on the activities of their customers, we note that Facebook users have never been particularly happy about this. The history of Beacon is well known--and also that the routine disclosure of video viewing activities is not something that most Facebook users are clamoring for.'' In fact, Facebook, as we just indicated, just entered into a settlement of a privacy lawsuit. And here we are on the floor of the House saying that we value the business interests more than we value the personal privacy interests of individual citizens. This is a bad idea. It shouldn't be here on the suspension calendar as if it's a noncontroversial clarification of the law. This is a dramatic undermining of the Video Privacy Protection Act. We are doing a disservice to our constituents by giving this authority. They already have the authority to do it on a case-by-case- by-case basis. It may be inconvenient to the companies to get the authority given to them that way, but that's the way it should be given to them, not in some blanket authority that just allows the companies to go in and use this information willy-nilly and without regard to the privacy. I thank the gentleman for yielding again. And I may ask him to yield again depending on what happens--oh, he says he's not going to yield to me anymore. I just think my colleagues should vote against this bill, defeat it on suspension, and let's at least debate it under regular order on the floor of the House or send it back to the committee so we can have some hearings about the privacy implications so we can get this done. Electronic Privacy Information Center, Washington, DC, December 5, 2011. Congressman Mel Watt, Rayburn HOB, Washington, DC. Dear Congressman Watt: Thank you for your request for comments from the Electronic Privacy Information Center (``EPIC'') regarding H.R. 2471, which would amend the Video Privacy Protection Act (``VPPA''). EPIC had hoped to provide comments at a hearing on the bill, but as the sponsors of the legislation chose to push through the legislation without the opportunity for public discussion, we appreciate the opportunity to share our views in response to your request. EPIC is nonpartisan, public interest research organization, established in 1994 to focus public attention on emerging privacy and civil liberties issues, We maintain two of the most popular privacy sites on the Internet--EPIC.ORG and PRIVACY.ORG--and testify frequently in Congress. We have also represented the interests of Facebook users over the years in a wide range of privacy matters. The Video Privacy Protection Act was passed in 1988 following the disclosure of the private video rental records of a Supreme Court nominee by a video rental store to a news organization. There was broad-based support for passage and the Act was signed into law by President Reagan. The VPPA is considered a model privacy law in many respects--it is technology neutral, focusing on the obligations of businesses and the rights of customers in the collection and use of personal information. It makes clear the circumstances when personal information may be disclosed and it provides a private right of action when violations occur. The VPPA makes no specific references to particular technologies. First Amendment concerns are addressed in the Act by recognizing that when the press seeks to publish information, Congress may not limit the rights of the press. However, businesses that collect information from their customers have an obligation to safeguard that information and to ensure it is used only for appropriate purposes. As with most privacy laws, the VPPA contains a consent provision that allows individuals to disclose their personal information to others if they wish. There is nothing in the Act that prevents individuals from so doing. H.R. 2471 would undermine the key provision in the VPPA, which is the right of users to give meaningful consent to the disclosure of their personal information. Such blanket consent provisions transfer control from the individual user to the company in possession of the data and diminish the control that Netflix customers would have in the use and disclosure of their personal information. While we recognize that other companies routinely report on the activities of their customers, we note that Facebook users have never been particularly happy about this--the history of Beacon is well known--and also that the routine disclosure of video viewing activities is not something that most Facebook users are clamoring for. If anything, most Netflix users seem to be unhappy about the company's disregard for its customers. The proposal is particularly surprising in light of the recent decision by the Federal Trade Commission concerning Facebook and privacy, which found that when companies seek to change the privacy defaults of their users, they are essentially engaging in an unfair and deceptive trade practice. That would be the practical impact of this amendment--to take away control of the user's information after the user had subscribed to the service. There is nothing in the proposal that would ``modernize'' the Act; it simply allows Netflix to post more information about the activity of its customers, whether or not the customers would choose to post such information themselves. EPIC would therefore recommend that members of Congress vote NO on H.R. 2471. Users remain free to disclose their video viewing habits if they wish; there is no reason to change the default. EPIC would also recommend a hearing on the legislation so that all views, both for and against, can be presented, and Members are provided an opportunity to fully assess the proposal. Privacy is the number one concern of Internet users today. It would be foolish to adopt an amendment that weakens privacy legislation already in place. Please feel free to contact me if you have any further questions. Sincerely, Marc Rotenberg, President, Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC).

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

Mr. WATT

Mr. WATT. Madam Speaker, later this week, the United States Senate is scheduled to consider the President's nomination of Richard Cordray as the person to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. And while our rules don't allow us to meddle much in the Senate activities, I do want to spend a minute or two just talking about the importance of the nomination and confirmation of Richard Cordray and the importance of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and talk a little bit about the background of why we have a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. The purpose of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is to promote a fair, honest, and transparent marketplace to help consumers compare cost, benefits, and risk of consumer financial products. Consumer financial products are perhaps among the most complicated products that consumers have to deal with; credit card terms, mortgages, and the kinds of things that resulted in a financial meltdown in our economy. Now prior to the passage of the Dodd-Frank Act, there was, in every one of the regulatory bodies, a responsibility to deal with consumer protection. Unfortunately, none of those agencies had consumer protection and education as their highest priority. All of them were looking at--not very well, I will say to you--the safety and soundness of the financial industry, the banks and various components of the financial industry. And generally, they interpreted safety and soundness to be, as long as these institutions are making a big profit, they are safe and sound. And they turned their backs on the interests of the consumer, not knowing that if the consumers purchased a lot of very bad mortgages and got themselves into a lot of very bad financial transactions, that that would cause the whole system to come tumbling down. So when we passed the Dodd-Frank bill, we put into the bill a provision to create the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau so that there would be somebody in the Federal Government, some agency whose sole responsibility is to look out for the consumer; and of course, a number of my colleagues, both in the House and the Senate, have been fighting this whole concept from day one. They don't like the fact that there is a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and they have vowed not to confirm any nominee that the President sends over there to head this agency. The agency is doing good work already, but it needs a director. Despite not having a director, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has launched a number of initiatives, most notably the ``Know Before You Owe'' project which aims to simplify mortgage disclosure forms and helps students better understand the financial aid process and repayment options. These are things that are important to consumers. They don't necessarily make up the focus of financial entities, the big banks, the lenders, but our whole economic system is based on an educated consumer. And when consumers get into bad transactions, we suffer, as we have in this financial meltdown. We have lost more wealth from mortgages being under water than from any other financial kinds of transactions. And if we had had a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau in place when this calamity was taking place, we wouldn't be in the financial mess that we are in today.

Mr. WATT

Mr. WATT. Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to welcome Reverend Dr. Cathy C. Jones as the guest chaplain today for the United States House of Representatives. Since July, 2009, Dr. Jones has served as pastor of Parkwood Institutional CME Church, which is located in my congressional district in Charlotte, North Carolina. Reverend Dr. Jones is a native of Chatham County, North Carolina. She received her associates, bachelor's, and master's degrees from Justice Fellowship International Bible College in Raleigh, North Carolina. In May of 2010, she received her doctorate in Biblical Studies from Justice Fellowship Bible College in Jacksonville, North Carolina. Dr. Jones has been a pastor and served on different committees at the local and district levels during her time with the CME Church. She's married to Theodore Jones and has been blessed with 7 children, 19 grandchildren, and 3 great grandchildren. On behalf of my constituents in the 12th Congressional District and my colleagues here in the House, I thank her for her service to her community and for her prayer this morning.

Mr. WATT

Mr. WATT. I thank the gentleman for yielding time. I haven't heard this said since I've been sitting on the floor listening to the debate, but if anybody has said it, I want to express my agreement with them. We cannot continue to spend more year after year after year than we receive. That is unsustainable, and with that, I cannot argue. However, I disagree that we need a balanced budget amendment to make that point. I have no balanced budget amendment to operate my household. Some years I have borrowed money and gone in debt, and some years I have accumulated a surplus and paid down that debt. I'm sure that's the way every American citizen operates their life, trying to make responsible decisions and not hiding behind some subterfuge like a balanced budget amendment. Being responsible, I went into debt to go to college. It was a wonderful investment because I wouldn't be here today if I had not done that. And I paid that debt back in some years where I generated surpluses in my household--as a result of going to college. I went into debt to buy a house. It's been a wonderful investment. The house has a lot more value now than what I paid for it. It is part of my assets. And one of these days, I'm going to pay that debt off. But I'm still, if you count that, operating in a deficit situation. There are some years that I'm in surplus. There are some years that I'm in deficit. The one thing I do know, whether I'm in deficit or surplus, I count the income, and I count the expenditures. Balancing a budget is not just about how much you spend; it is also about how much you take in. And the government's only source of taking in money is tax revenues. So for somebody to come in here and lecture me about a balanced budget amendment, when they jumped up from discussions and said, I'm not going to talk about revenues in an effort to balance the budget, I'm just going to have you talk about expenditures--that is unacceptable to me. Let's grow up in this institution. Act responsibly and make tough decisions, and we can get out of this deficit situation, and we can pay off the debt. We have proved it. We proved it while I was here in this body. We got to the point that Chairman Greenspan at that time was saying, hey, I'm worried that you're going to pay off the national debt too fast and it's going to be deflationary. Republicans were not in control then. We didn't have a balanced budget amendment then.

Mr. WATT. We didn't have a balanced budget amendment then. We acted responsibly, and not with a single vote from the people who are here lecturing us today and saying they need a balanced budget to stand behind. That's like standing behind my mother's skirt. Grow up. Make responsible decisions. Quit going into wars that we can't afford to pay for and not paying for them. Make some responsible decisions, and you won't need this skirt to stand behind. We don't need this. It's irrational. The American people know it's irrational because they know that balancing a budget is a function of income and expenditures.

Mr. WATT

Mr. WATT. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. WATT. I was rising to claim time in opposition because I am opposed. But if the gentleman is going to yield me time.

Mr. WATT. I thank the Chair. Let me say this: This is kind of an awkward conversation because we did have this discussion in committee. We were advised in committee that the preemption language would be corrected between the committee and the floor. It was revised. And the amendment does take a step in the right direction, so I won't ask for a recorded vote on the amendment, but it doesn't take a step far enough in the right direction because the amendment still preempts States from having the pre-review of these offerings that they now have. Even though it reserves to them the authority to do something about fraud, it does not reserve to them the authority to get involved in the review process. And in that sense, it continues to preempt State law. I want to applaud my friends, both Mr. McHenry and Mr. Perlmutter, for making a step in the right direction, but this still preempts State law, and States ought to have the prerogative to be involved in this. The State of North Carolina, from which Mr. McHenry hails, the Secretary of State is adamantly of the opinion--and I agree with her-- that this amendment does not go far enough. When we get back into the full House and I can offer a letter into the Record, it will note that the North American Securities Administrators Association does not think the amendment goes far enough to protect States' rights. I'm not accusing anybody of bad faith. I think they made a good faith effort to try to find grounds. But this raises the exact issue that I raised in the committee, which was the appropriate place to have done this and made this amendment and debated it and thought it out--in the committee, not on the floor of the House. And when you leave it to just a couple of individuals to work out something between committee and the floor of the House, sometimes it doesn't get to where people would like for it to be. With that, I reserve the balance of my time. North American Securities Administrators Association, Inc., Washington, DC, November 3, 2011. Hon. John Boehner, Speaker, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Speaker: I am writing on behalf of the North American Securities Administrators Association (NASAA) to express my opposition to H.R. 2930, the Entrepreneur Access to Capital Act, which is scheduled to be voted on by the House of Representatives this week. This legislation is well intended, but structurally flawed. While intended to promote an internet-based fundraising technique known as ``crowd-funding'' as a tool for investment, this legislation will needlessly preempt state securities laws and weaken important investor protections. Crowd-funding is an online money-raising strategy that began as a way for the public to donate small amounts of money, often through social networking websites, to help artists, musicians, filmmakers and other creative people finance their projects. The concept has recently been promoted as a way of assisting small businesses and start-ups looking for investment capital to help get their business ventures off the ground. State securities regulators are acutely aware of today's difficult economic environment and its effects on job growth. Small businesses are important to job growth and to improving the economy. However, by placing unnecessary limits on the ability of state securities regulators to protect retail investors from the risks associated with smaller, speculative investments, Congress is poised to enact policies intended to strengthen the economy that will very likely have precisely the opposite effect. If this legislation is enacted in its present form it will prohibit states from enforcing laws designed to minimize the risks to investors. As currently written, H.R. 2930 would only allow states to address investor losses after they occur. Under this scenario, the public will lose confidence in this business funding method, thus, hurting the efforts to make crowd-funding a viable means for raising capital. Preemption of State Law Section 4 of H.R. 2930 would preempt state laws requiring disclosures or reviewing exempted investment offerings before they are sold to the public. The authority to require such filings is critical to the ability of states to get ``under the hood'' of an offering to make sure that it is what it says it is. Moreover, as a matter of principle and policy, NASAA ardently believes that review of offerings of this size should remain primarily the responsibility of the states. As the securities regulators closest to the investing public, and in light of our demonstrated record of effectiveness, states are the most appropriate regulator in this area. State regulators are closer, more accessible, and more in touch with the local and regional economic issues that affect both the issuer and the investor in a small business offering. NASAA sincerely appreciates the effort of Congressman Ed Perlmutter (D-CO) to work with the bill's sponsor to produce a bipartisan amendment that would alleviate states concerns with the preemptive provisions of H.R. 2930. Unfortunately, the Perlmutter-McHenry amendment that was made in order by the Rules Committee on November 2 falls far short of this goal. By simply clarifying that states ``retain jurisdiction . . . to investigate and bring enforcement actions with respect to fraud or deceit,'' the amendment essentially restates the preemptive provisions as they existed in the original bill. The Perlmutter-McHenry amendment fails to address the fundamental concern that states have had with H.R. 2930 since its introduction: the preemption of state authority to review securities prior to their offering. Congress should refrain from preempting state law. Preempting state authority is a very serious step and not something that should ever be undertaken lightly or without careful consideration, including a thorough examination of all available alternatives. In the case of crowd-funding, state securities regulators are not only capable of acting, but indeed, are acting, and Congress should allow them the opportunity to continue to protect retail investors from the risks associated with smaller, speculative investments. Individual Investment Cap One of the fundamental tenets of securities law is that an investor is protected when the seller of securities is required to disclose sufficient information so that an investor can make an informed decision. Post-sale antifraud remedies provide little comfort to an investor who has lost a significant sum of money that is unrecoverable. Any effort to remove or weaken the up-front registration and disclosure process should not happen without adequate alternative safeguards. NASAA appreciates that the concept of crowd-funding is appealing in many respects because it provides small, innovative enterprises, access to capital that might not otherwise be available. Indeed, this is precisely the reason that states are now considering adopting a model rule that would establish a more modest exemption for crowd-funding as it is traditionally understood, with individual investments capped at several hundred dollars per investor. By contrast, H.R. 2930 goes far beyond anything that is being contemplated by the states or traditional advocates of crowd-funding. By setting an individual investment cap of 10 percent of annual income, or $10,000, H.R. 2930 will create an exemption that will expose many more American families to potentially catastrophic financial harm. Given that most U.S. households have a relatively modest amount of savings, a loss of $10,000, in even a single case, can be financially crippling. Aggregate Investment Cap H.R. 2930 would permit businesses to solicit investments of up to $2 million, in increments of $10,000 per investment. Such a high cap on aggregate investment makes the bill inconsistent with the expressed rationale for the crowd- funding exception. A company that is sufficiently large to warrant the raising of $2 million in investment capital is also a company that can afford to comply with the applicable registration and filing requirements. Registration and filing requirements at both the state and federal level exist to protect investors, and any company raising up to $2 million can afford to comply with them. Thank you for your consideration of these important issues. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or Michael Canning, Co-Director of Policy, at the NASAA Corporate Office at (202) 737-0900. Sincerely, Jack E. Herstein, President.

Mr. WATT. Madam Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time, although I won't take it. I want to express my thanks also to Mr. Perlmutter, and to my colleague from North Carolina (Mr. McHenry). As I indicated, they made an effort to move this in the right direction. They, in fact, moved it. This amendment is better than the underlying bill, which totally preempted State law. So it moves in the right direction, it just does not move far enough in the right direction. Because of that--I mean, I'm not going to vote against the amendment. I'm not even going to ask for a recorded vote on the amendment itself. But it will make it necessary for me to oppose the bill itself. And I thought it was important enough for me to come down and express this because there are a significant number of people out there, including a number of State Attorneys General and/or Secretaries of State who believe this does not go far enough. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WATT

Mr. WATT. Mr. Speaker, last Friday, the President signed the patent reform bill; but before the ink is dry on the patent reform bill, the agreement that led to the passage of it that all of the fees that are collected by the Patent and Trademark Office will be used by the Patent and Trademark Office is reneged on in this continuing resolution. This is a job-creating bill, an innovation-creating bill, and because we have been taking the money of the Patent and Trademark Office for years and diverting it to the general fund, we have, in effect, imposed a tax on innovation in this country. The appropriators promised us that they were going to correct this problem, but there is nothing in this bill to address that promise. I don't see how I can support a continuing resolution that does not honor the commitment that was made in our patent reform bill. Just last Friday, the President signed the America Invents Act (AIA), a bipartisan bill that promises to stimulate innovation and create jobs and add fuel to our economy. The AIA created a mechanism for USPTO, beginning in FY2012, to access all of the fees it collects by allowing USPTO to notify Congress that the Office will need the excess fees to support its operations and hire the staff required to reduce the staggering backlog of patent applications. Now, despite this hard fought deal--one which I opposed precisely because it depends upon an annual commitment to honor and implement the deal--the CR before us fails to put the USPTO on the firm, stable footing we all agreed was necessary for it to dig out of the backlog, avoid a tax on innovation, and stimulate job growth. Under the current CR, for at least 7 weeks the USPTO will be held to a spending rate based on last year's FY11 appropriations, a rate that ignores Congress's directive and authorization that the USPTO be able to use the fees it collects in order to support implementation of the act and that those funds not be diverted to pay for wars, government waste and other Federal Government operations. I will resist the temptation to say, ``I told you so,'' because that would not advance the debate or solve the serious problem I have identified before and identify again today. What is most compelling is that ensuring that the PTO has access to all of its funds costs nothing to the American taxpayer. It is, therefore, confusing why we are again facing such a heavy lift to simply give the PTO access to the funds it earns through its operations. But what is clear to me is that, without a provision to ensure adequate funding for the PTO, the bill the President just signed will not serve the important purposes it was designed to serve. This CR does not provide such funding, and I cannot support the CR. I urge my colleagues who say they believe in reducing the tax burden on businesses, large and small, those who fought to ensure that the independent engines of economic growth run at full throttle, I urge them to vote no on the rule and against this CR and work to get the funding the USPTO needs and that this Congress promised it would have.

Mr. WATT

Mr. WATT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to make sure that we acknowledge in our official record an important event that took place on June 14, 2011 in the Gold Room of the Rayburn House Office Building, the award by the World Peace Council of the 2010 World Peace Prize. The World Peace Corps Mission confers World Peace Awards to individuals and organizations that have made significant contributions to peacemaking efforts around the world. This year the Top Honor Prize was given to His Holiness Dorje Chang Buddha Ill and to Hon. Benjamin A. Gilman. The 2010 Roving Ambassador for Peace Award was awarded to the Civil Air Patrol. H.H. Dorje Chang Buddha III is the highest leader of Buddhism in the world. He was recognized for his support of a wide variety of healing and rescue-relief activities around the world, as well as for his art and poetry, through which he has promoted nonviolence, charity and love for humanity. H.H. Dorje Chang Buddha III is the first Buddhist leader to be awarded the World Peace Prize. In his acceptance speech, H.H. Dorje Chang Buddha III said, ``I believe this is not an affirmation of me personally. Rather, it is an affirmation of all human beings who seek happiness, freedom and equality. It is an affirmation of all efforts to selflessly benefit and help others.'' Hon. Benjamin A. Gilman served 15 terms in the United States House of Representatives. He was recognized for championing human rights, fighting world hunger and fighting drug abuse and trafficking. While in Congress he served as Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, as Congressional Delegate to the United Nations, on the Ukrainian Famine Commission and as Vice Chairman of the Select Committee on POWs. He organized successful ``prisoner exchanges'' which freed American citizens held in East Germany, Mozambique, Cuba and several other countries. The Civil Air Patrol is the official auxiliary of the U.S. Air Force. It was recognized for providing disaster relief and emergency services following natural and man-made disasters. The CAP performs 90 percent of continental U.S. inland search and rescue missions as tasked by the Air Force Regional Coordination Center. It was credited with saving 113 lives in fiscal year 2010. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating H.H. Dorje Chang Buddha III, Hon. Benjamin Gilman and the Civil Air Patrol for receiving these awards.

Mr. WATT

Mr. WATT. Madam Speaker, I think this may be the absolute worst resolution I have seen before this House in the 19 years I've been here. It brings to continuing debate a bill that has already been debated yesterday with an amendment, but there is only 1 minute left in the debate. And the change that is being made requires the passage of an amendment to the Constitution of the United States in order to ever raise the debt limit again. The effect of that is that we have 1 minute--we don't even have it, the majority has the 1 minute that's left in the debate. We have no time left in the debate on our side to debate whether we will pass an amendment to the Constitution of the United States that literally holds a gun to the head of the economy of the United States of America. We ought to be ashamed of ourselves legislating in this way. This is a terrible way to legislate to provide for a constitutional amendment. If we're going to do it, we ought to at least debate it in good faith.

Mr. WATT

Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, let me say at the outset that I was a strong supporter in our committee for the creation of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and remained a strong supporter of the bureau and its mission. The reason I did that was because all of these regulators had within their authority a consumer protection initiative. Unfortunately, that consumer protection obligation was subordinate to other obligations that each of the regulators had. So when we started talking about this, I kept saying to them, look, we need a consumer regulator that has as much authority as and the least cumbersomeness of any of the other regulators. So if you're going to create a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, don't give the other regulators authority to reverse them unless you give the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau the authority to reverse the other regulators. Now, if you think that's fair, do it both ways. This is the only agency that ended up with the other regulators, the Federal Reserve, the OCC, the FDIC, having the authority to reverse them; and we were able to restrict it to things that were in their jurisdiction. If it was a systemic risk that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau was creating by promulgating a rule or regulation, then we thought it was fair to have them police what the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau was doing. But I don't know of any reason that we would create a child of an agency to deal with consumer protection when we don't have a child of an agency dealing with other aspects of the regulation in our financial services industry. So for me, this is just about parity. Give this agency equal authority and oomph as the other agencies had. And we are not asking that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau be able to overrule the Federal Reserve when it makes a decision. We're not asking that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau be able to overrule the OCC when it makes a determination. Neither should we be allowing those other agencies, the FDIC, the OCC, the Federal Reserve, to overrule the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau when they are not acting within their authority.

Mr. WATT

Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk that has been made in order under the rule.

Mr. WATT. I yield myself 2 minutes. Mr. Chairman, my amendment to the Legislative Branch bill would decrease funding for the Office of Congressional Ethics, the OCE, by $619,200 and transfer these funds to the spending reduction account. I have offered this amendment because I believe there is a substantial bipartisan consensus, one, that the responsibilities of the OCE are redundant and duplicative of the House Ethics Committee; two, that the OCE's operations are substantially staff driven, and the staff has taken the OCE's mission well beyond what was intended in the statute that created the entity; three, that the procedures of the OCE are unfair and sometimes abusive of the rights of Members of the House; four, that a substantial part of the funds we spend on the OCE waste taxpayers' money; and, five, that using those funds to reduce our debt and deficit would be a far better use. In these difficult budget times, I believe we have an obligation to judge the OCE on the same criteria on which we measure other agencies of the Federal Government. Using those criteria, my amendment proposes to eliminate duplication, demand accountability and adherence to the purposes for which the agency was created, demand fair due process treatment for Members of Congress as we would for other employees in both the private and public sectors, and force us to make a choice about how best to use our over $600,000 of taxpayer funds. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).

Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Honda).

Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Let me just address this whole issue of retaliation. This is not retaliation. This is a better use of the money than the OCE is making of it. There is an undercurrent in this House. Everybody knows that the OCE processes have been unfair, undemocratic, and they have singled people out. It should stop, and we should stand up and say that it should stop. We did not give the OCE the authority to initiate themselves investigations without an outside complaint. They have systematically done that. And to the extent they have done it, we have provided more funding than I think is appropriate, which is why I got the 40 percent as opposed to 100 percent. I want them to continue to go on with the investigations that are out there. And when other people initiate them, they should be allowed to pursue them. But they should not be allowed to initiate on their own witch hunts against Members of Congress. I yield back the balance of my time.