Cliff Stearns

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chair, on rollcall No. 379, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.'' personal explanation

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Madam Speaker, the late Senator Daniel Moynihan published a paper on defining deviancy down in which society lowers its standards whereby unacceptable conduct becomes acceptable. I recently heard from a number of my constituents about the abusive attack on Governor Sarah Palin's 14-year-old daughter. I also read about this and was just as upset as they were. Governor Palin and her 14-year-old daughter had attended a Yankees game and David Letterman told a totally inappropriate joke about them. I recall that last year, David Shuster made an inappropriate comment about Chelsea Clinton, the daughter of Bill and Hillary Clinton. The president of NBC apologized and suspended Shuster from the network. The Palin family received a belated apology a week later. I hope the host, David Letterman, realizes that children should not be the targets of sexually charged jokes. We must not allow the unacceptable to become the acceptable.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that I be removed as a cosponsor of H.R. 2254.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chair, while our constituents are losing jobs and homes, H.R. 2410 would use borrowed money to increase funding by one- third in a single year for State Department operations, for the UN regular budget, and for the Peace Corps. It would increase the State Department's basic salary and operations account by 35%. It would add 2,200 new Foreign Service Officers, 20 new government entities, and 48 new reporting requirements. Without requiring any reform, it would authorize all UN arrearages and volunteers the U.S. pay $100 million more for peacekeeping next year beyond what the UN is currently charging us. The reported bill also embraces a controversial social agenda, including provisions that could allow abortion promotion. Attempts at the full committee mark-up to affirm the genuine empowerment and protection of women and girls around the world was soundly rejected. In addition to problems with what the bill includes, many deserving Republican amendments were excluded from the reported version. One of those was a funding amendment I have offered which caps any account increases at 3.7 percent over current year levels. This reasonable 3.7 percent increase is the average rate of inflation for 2008. By taking this measured, responsible approach, my funding amendment would produce a single-year cost savings of 2.82 billion dollars in 2010, as compared to the Majority's bill. In short, H.R. 2410 is an irresponsible bill on policy and funding levels.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, as President Obama begins to wade into the Israel-Palestinian conflict, he must remember who our friends are. Israel is America's most reliable and only democratic ally in the Middle East. Yet in his speech last week in Cairo and in statements by his administration, President Obama seems only to want to pressure Israel, while not requiring similar concessions from the Palestinians and other Arab states. Starting with the British Partition Plan in 1937--when they were offered the western part of Palestine--then again to the U.N. Partition Plan in 1947, to the Camp David talks in 2000, and most recently in December of 2008, the Palestinians have rejected every plan to divide the land into independent states. Each time their answer was ``no.'' No outside party, President Obama included, can arbitrarily impose a peace agreement, nor can peace be achieved by setting conditions on just one party, Israel, which has been willing to take the necessary and difficult steps towards peace and consider compromise.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Good morning, Madam Speaker. I rise today to ask a simple question that is on every American's mind; what has been done by this administration and this Congress to fix the troubled economic system we have today? While this administration continues to pour trillions of dollars into a flawed financial system, continues to have Washington bureaucrats take control over failed businesses, and continues to appoint czar after czar to exercise government control over our free market system, the question still remains, Madam Speaker, what has this administration done to fix this broken system, and is it working? Government control is not the answer, as our European neighbors have figured out recently and spoken through their elections to change their left-leaning programs and political regimes. This economic crisis was created by a flawed system, a system that is in need of structural reform. However, the administration's answer to this glaring problem is to continue to throw more money, taxpayers' money, at the problem, which essentially increases this country's unsustainable debt and increases Federal bureaucratic control over all of our private institutions. This country must stop the taxpayer-paid-for corporate welfare from being handed out and simply return this economy to what has worked for over 200 years, a system that rewards people who take prudent risks and punishes those who take irresponsible risks. We must return to being a frugal Nation, one where the Federal Government balances its budget, encourages savings, and reins in the $12 trillion worth of debt. This Nation can no longer afford one more loan from China as our credit rating teeters on the brink of failure. This structural reform begins with the executives that are tasked with running these institutions, banks, and corporations. What this economic crisis has taught us is that these CEOs care more about their stock options, even at the expense of hiding fraudulent assets and taking bogus risks to inflate their P&L statements. Government-guaranteed bailouts and guaranteed bonuses allow these individuals to escape their poor decisions and sidestep the economic hardship that their risky choices have created for the average American family. I believe this starts by giving investors and shareholders more transparency into what occurs in corporate boardrooms. Shareholders and investors need greater access to information to allow their confidence in company governance determine where their investment capital is best allocated. In addition, investors, regulators, and the American people need greater transparency into the daily operation of Wall Street. It is nearly impossible for one to find information or records of a corporation's credit default swaps--who owns them, who backs them, who has issued these complex financial tools? Vital information like this will help to prevent corporations from concealing this information in their books, what they owe and how much debt they really are in? The same can be said with regard to the subprime mortgage securities, what are they worth now? Furthermore, Madam Speaker, there is no such thing as ``too big to fail.'' These institutions must realize that every time they make an irresponsible decision or a risky bet, the Federal Treasury will not come to their financial rescue. Financial bailouts are a slippery slope and set a dangerous precedent. When the Federal Government begins to arbitrarily pick winners and losers, fairness, equality and the free market are tossed out the window, as evidenced by Bear Stearns' government bailout and Lehman Brothers allowed failure. This administration, the Federal Reserve, and the Federal Treasury must release their TARP records and disclose in full how the bailout money has been spent, who the money has gone to, and the reason why some received help and others were allowed to fail. This money belongs to the taxpayers; we have a right to know. For these and other reasons, I am calling on this Congress and the administration to have a series of comprehensive hearings to determine what exactly happened, who was at fault, what is the best way to restructure this flawed system, and how are the taxpayers going to get their money back from these bailouts? Status quo is not acceptable, and neither is bailout after bailout, leading to Federal bureaucratic control of our institutions and our banks. It is time we find answers to these problems rather than continue to throw good money after bad.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Madam Chair, on rollcall No. 308, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 285 I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.''

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Madam Speaker, let me thank the gentleman from Tennessee, the Chairman of the Committee on Science and Technology, for his hard work and his kindness and for letting me have this bill on the floor so promptly. I also thank my colleague from Florida for his introduction and kind words. This legislation, which I introduced with my good friend Chairman Gordon, obviously congratulates the IEEE on its 125th anniversary and recognizes May 13, 2009, as the IEEE Engineering the Future Day. My colleagues, IEEE is a renowned international not-for-profit professional organization whose core purpose is to foster technological innovation and excellence for the benefit of humanity. As mentioned, with more than 210,000 members in the United States and more than 375,000 members in over 160 countries, the IEEE is the world's largest professional society for the advancement of technology. Their membership includes engineers, scientists and other professionals whose technical interests are rooted in electrical and computer sciences, engineering and related disciplines. The IEEE as we know it today was formed by the merger of the Institute of Radio Engineers, which was founded in 1912, and the American Institute of Electrical Engineers, which was founded on May 13, 1884 by renowned inventor and distinguished entrepreneur Thomas Edison. Other notable past presidents of the IEEE and its founding institutions include well-known scientists Alexander Graham Bell, Charles Steinmetz, Lee De Forest, William Hewlett and Ivan Getting. The IEEE's name was originally an acronym for the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers. Today the organization's scope of interest has expanded into so many related fields that it is simply referred to as the letters IEEE. Through its global membership, IEEE is a leading authority on areas ranging from aerospace systems, computers and telecommunications to biomedical engineering, electric power and consumer electronics, among others. Most IEEE members are electrical engineers, computer engineers and computer scientists, but the organization's wide scope of interest has attracted engineers in a lot of other disciplines, including mechanical and civil engineering as well as biologists, physicists and mathematicians. The IEEE's constitution defines the purpose of this organization as, quote, scientific and educational, directed toward the advancement of the theory and practice of electrical, electronics, communications and computer engineering, as well as computer science, the allied branches of engineering and the related arts and sciences, all encompassing. My colleagues, in pursuing these goals, the IEEE serves as a major publisher of some 144 scientific journals and magazines and a sponsor of more than 300 conferences annually. It is also a leading developer of industrial standards that support many of today's products and services, with an active portfolio of nearly 1,300 standards and projects under development in a broad range of disciplines, including electric power and energy, biomedical technology and health care, information technology, information assurance, telecommunications, consumer electronics, transportation, aerospace, and most importantly, nanotechnology, the wave of the future. IEEE also develops and participates in educational activities such as accreditation of electrical engineering programs in all of our institutes of higher learning in this country. To foster an interest in the engineering profession, IEEE serves student members in colleges and universities around the world with more than 1,600 student branches in almost 500 student branch chapters at colleges and universities in 80 countries. The goal of the IEEE educational program is to ensure the growth, the skill and knowledge in the electricity-related technical professions and to foster individual commitment to continuing education among IEEE members, the engineering and scientific communities, and, of course, the general public. As mentioned by the distinguished chairman, I am an electrical engineer. I was a member of IEEE in college, and I'm now presently a member. I was an aerospace engineer in the Air Force, a captain in the Air Force during launching of satellites from Vandenberg Air Force Base. I'm very proud of the background I have. It sometimes helps me in trying to understand the intricacies in analysis here in Congress. So I urge my colleagues to join me and recognize the simple and powerful contributions and impact the IEEE has in this country and its members and engineering and technology professionals who have made accomplishments here in the United States and continue to support their goals and ideals of IEEE engineering, the future day, on May 13, 2009. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 243 I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.''

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Madam Speaker, with $590 billion or 84 percent of the authorized troubled asset relief funds having already been handed out to Wall Street, the TARP Inspector General, Neil Barofsky, issued a 250-page report that recommended transparency and that all TARP recipients be made to detail how they will use bailout dollars and safeguard a new mortgage rescue effort against scams. But 84 percent of the funds have already been given away. To call for greater transparency at this stage in the game is well beyond a day late and a dollar short. However, what is encouraging is that the Inspector General, amid reports of rampant fraud, has realized and embraced his legal power and has instituted 20 criminal investigations and six audits. In addition, he has begun to ask tough questions and look into who, quote, sought to influence decision-making by Treasury or bank regulators. Bold and encouraging words as The New York Times reported that Secretary Geithner has more than cordial relationships with many of the TARP recipient CEOs.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, presently the majority is developing their own energy legislation through the Energy and Commerce Committee. I serve on the Subcommittee on Energy. We have had several hearings and many, many witnesses, including Vice President Gore. This legislation is entitled the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009. But, my colleagues, it imposes a massive national energy tax on every single American, especially those who are low income and elderly individuals. Now, if reducing carbon dioxide, creating jobs and promoting domestic energy sources were truly their objective, then nuclear energy should be a central component, you would think, of this legislation. But it is not. Nuclear power already provides the United States with over 20 percent of its electricity, and 73 percent of its CO2-free electricity. When it comes to affordable, near-term reductions of CO2 and other atmospheric emissions, the importance of nuclear energy cannot be overstated. Like wind and solar energy, nuclear energy is emission free, which means CO2 free. However, unlike wind and solar, nuclear energy can provide vast amounts of power on a constant basis. Wind and solar certainly have a role to play in America's energy mix, but in order to obtain clean, CO2-free energy, it seems that such a major piece of legislation should address the regulatory and policy issues that obstruct new nuclear energy power from being developed in the United States. But what makes nuclear energy potentially transformational is its simple versatility. Today, the Nation primarily uses nuclear energy for electricity generation. Electric power production amounts for roughly 40 percent of America's total energy production. Nuclear accounts for 20 percent of electricity here in the United States. But clean, affordable nuclear power can also be used to produce energy for industrial applications, and even for transportation, which accounts for 21 percent and 29 percent of U.S. energy consumption, respectively. For example, some reactor types could be used in the chemical industry for plastics production and for refinery operations, all of which use vast amounts of carbon-based energy to produce heat which is necessary for their industrial activities. Nuclear energy could also be used to produce synthetic fuels that could run America's cars. While these technologies are not commercially viable today, they are the types of things that could be possible, if the Federal Government would develop a regulatory and policy structure that was more conducive to growth in the nuclear energy industry. Nuclear energy is also a jobs creator. According to The Nuclear Energy Institute, the nuclear industry has created more than 15,000 jobs in recent years, all without even beginning construction on a new nuclear power plant. These include jobs in the sciences, manufacturing and construction sectors that private investors have created as they prepare to meet future construction demand. Once construction begins, up to 2,000 workers will be required to build each new plant and approximately 600 will be needed to operate it. The energy bill being developed focuses too much on the process of energy production, rather than on the product itself. For example, it creates a renewable energy standard that mandates only certain types of limited energy production, such as wind and solar. This approach artificially eliminates energy sources, including those that have not even yet been invented. If CO2 reduction is truly the objective, then maximizing America's nuclear resources should be a top priority. In fact, as Secretary of Energy Chu testified at one of our hearings, nuclear energy should be part of this legislation. France uses nuclear energy to produce almost 80 percent of the electricity they have, and also they have developed methods to reprocess the waste. In fact, they have been so successful that almost all of the waste product has been reprocessed. Japan and Canada have also successfully developed nuclear energy. So, my colleagues, the priorities we need to establish require a major restructuring effort from Congress and the administration that emphasizes market-based reforms that ensure long-term regulatory stability and policy predictability. Most importantly, these reforms can be done without additional cost to the taxpayers. Without such an effort, the billions of dollars of private capital needed to expand America's nuclear capacity will simply not be invested. These private investments will ultimately be what is needed for the Nation to achieve real reductions in CO2 emissions and create a new, clean energy economy.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Madam Speaker, the selective release of memos on the enhanced interrogation methods of the previous administration has made us less safe. Four former CIA Directors, as well as the current Director, advised against releasing these memos. As ex-CIA Director Michael Hayden recently said, ``If you look at these documents that have been made public, it says `Top Secret' at the top. The definition of `Top Secret' is information which, if revealed, would cause grave harm to the United States' security.'' Furthermore, General Hayden said that the use of these interrogation techniques against these terrorists made us safe. The release of the top secret memos were motivated by politics, pure and simple. They were designed to embarrass, not to protect. So much for President Obama's promise to look forward, not backward. These memos never should have been released. As another former CIA Director, Porter Goss, recently wrote, ``We can't have a secret intelligence service if we keep giving away all the secrets.''

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of the thousands of people in the Sixth Congressional District of Florida who stood together and told this administration and this Congress to turn off the taxpayer-funded spigot of government bailouts. These hardworking Americans made their point loud and clear; they do not want to see our Nation bankrupt from a fiscal policy that ignores the free market principles this country was founded upon and attempts to spend its way out of record-breaking debt through increased government control and expansion of inefficient bureaucratic power. Let me go ahead and read an excerpt from their 4-page declaration that over 1,800 people from my hometown, Ocala, signed on April 15, tax day. ``We raise our voices against the arrogance and the ruinous policies of our government, a government that ignores We the People, a government that drowns us in debt, a government that forsakes the free enterprise system that has driven the engine of the greatest economy on Earth in favor of a relentless march towards socialism designed to subvert the worth of the individual and encourage the intrusion of government into all aspects of our lives.'' Madam Speaker, I will submit the entire ``Tax Tea Party Declaration'' for the Record. And also, I have a petition signed by over 2,000 people in Ocala, Florida, demonstrating their commitment to ending this bad economic policy. Like those who attended rallies in Starke, Trenton, Gainesville, and Orange Park, I have not and will not support bailout after bailout as sound economic policy. It is unconscionable for this administration and this Congress to continue committing good money after bad. In October of 2008, the U.S. Government committed an astounding $700 billion in public funds to failing private financial institutions through the Troubled Asset Relief Program, TARP. However, just last week, the TARP Special Inspector General reported that the total cost of TARP will cost the American taxpayer between $2.4 trillion and $2.9 trillion. It is evident that we can no longer allow government bureaucrats such as Timothy Geithner and Henry Paulson to use their position and the taxpayer-funded Federal Reserve to act as a safety net for their partners on Wall Street when they fail due to incompetence and unchecked greed. I am a strong believer in free markets. And inherent in that economic model is that not every person or idea makes money. It is time for Wall Street to understand this unmistakable tenet and not rely on the Federal Reserve and the American taxpayer to continue to save them when their gambles accumulate into significant losses. Anna Schwartz, co-author along with Milton Friedman of ``A Monetary History of the United States,'' viewed by many as the definitive account of how U.S. monetary policy turned the stock market crash of 1929 into the Great Depression and which Ben Bernanke, the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, has called the ``leading and most persuasive explanation of the worst economic disaster in American history,'' contends that the Treasury, through its actions, has prolonged this crisis. Let me quote here on this board: ``They should not be recapitalizing firms that should be shut down. Rather, firms that made wrong decisions should fail. You shouldn't rescue them. And once that is established as a principle, I think the market recognizes that it makes sense.'' As true capitalists, these titans of Wall Street should understand the risks and rewards of a free market economy and be allowed to fail like the rest of Main Street when they make foolish or risky decisions. Many economists look to the past to predict economic futures; it is a tested way to learn from past mistakes and avoid making them in the future. Looking to the past, we discover that Henry Morganthau, FDR's Treasury Secretary, gave this very important quote in May of 1939 during the Great Depression. He said, ``We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. I have just one interest, and now if I am wrong, somebody else can have my job. I want to see this country prosper. I want to see people get a job. I want to see people get enough to eat. We have never made good on our promises. I say, after 8 years of this administration, we have just as much unemployment as when we started, and enormous debt to boot.'' This current economic policy of bailout after bailout and colossal government spending is just plain wrong, Madam Speaker, and the American people know it. When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for like-minded patriotic citizens to rally as one against the powers that threaten to alter, diminish and destroy this country we love, proper respect for the opinions of our fellow citizens requires that we should clearly state the grievances that impel us to gather at this Ocala tea party to protest peacefully, but passionately in the tradition of our forefathers whose Boston Tea party resonated around the world. The history of the present government of these United States is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having the effect of establishing an unacceptable tyranny over the citizens of these states. Let the facts be self- evident and speak for themselves . . . and let these grievances be heard in the halls of power in 2009, just as they were heard in the palace of Britain's King George the third, as they thundered forth from the text of the Declaration of Independence on July 4th, 1776. Be it resolved on this 15th day of April, in the year 2009, at the Great Ocala Tea Party in the Town Square in Ocala, Florida, that just as our forefathers at the Boston Tea Party protested tyranny at the hands of the British Crown and taxation without representation, we hereby raise our voices against the arrogance and the ruinous policies of our own government . . . a government that ignores the will of ``We The People'' . . . a government that drowns us in debt . . . a government that forsakes the free enterprise system that has driven the engine of the greatest economy on earth, in favor of a relentless march toward socialism designed to subvert the worth of the individual and encourage the intrusion of government into all aspects of our lives. Let the word go forth from this time and place that we are freedom loving Americans who cherish individual liberty, our constitution and all that this nation has stood for over 233 years. We love our country, and we are here to take it back! Let us hereby resolve that we have had enough of massive government driven bailouts using our money! Stop spending money we do not have! This is not your money, this is our money, and we demand you stop the madness! We have had enough of so-called economic stimulus plans that falsely promise we can spend ourselves back to prosperity! We have had enough of trillion-dollar spending schemes being passed without congress or the people knowing what is in them. This is taxation without deliberation and we will not tolerate it! We have had enough of the out of control government spending that is mortgaging our future and threatening our very way of life! We have had enough of both major parties being arrogant and unresponsive to the people they were elected to serve! We have had enough of seeing money taken unfairly from honest hard working Americans through excessive taxation and redistributed to individuals who have not earned the money! We have enough of capitalism being targeted as the problem instead of the solution! We have had enough of government being called the solution, when government is the problem! In every stage of these oppressions, we have petitioned for redress in the most humble terms. Our repeated petitions to our elected officials have been answered only by repeated injury, if, in fact, they have been answered at all. A government so arrogant and unresponsive to its people is unfit to be the ruler of a free people. We, therefore, the people of the United States of America, in general congress assembled, here in the Town Square of Ocala, Florida, on this 15th day of April, in the year 2009, do, in the name and by the authority of the good people of this city and nation, solemnly publish and declare that we are a free people, in this free and independent state, and that we have the power to demand that our government cease serving its own interest, and whatever political and ideological agendas it may be pursuing, and become the Government Of The People, By The People, and For the People to which we are entitled as Americans. And that for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on divine providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall Nos. 200 and 201, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on both. Amendment No. 9 Offered by Mr. Roskam

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Madam Speaker, our Federal Government has taken drastic measures in the past 6 months, mainly in the form of taxpayer-funded bailouts, in an attempt to put a stop to the complete deterioration of our financial system. Trillions have been spent and companies such as AIG have been deemed ``too big to fail.'' But the Wall Street bailouts have proven to not be a sustainable cure to our financial ills. These bailouts constitute an assault on American capitalism and have introduced a large degree of financial hazard into our economic system. The nationalization of private assets is inherently un-American. With all the money we have spent thus far, we should have been able to stem much of the economic collapse--but we haven't. We have failed to grasp the root of the problem--the unregulated, out-of-control derivatives market. The recent disclosure that AIG will pay out $165 million in bonuses to employees of their Financial Products division--the very unit that made bad bets on toxic mortgages and credit default swaps--is wrong. The Federal Government owns 80 percent of AIG and the Treasury and the Federal Reserve has infused more than $170 billion in taxpayer bailout money trying to rescue this company. As these recent events demonstrate, the administration's plan of recovery by bailout is not working. Bailout after bailout is not a strategy. It's a formula for waste, fraud and abuse of taxpayer funds. The Federal Government has spent an exorbitant amount of money trying to rescue the economy but it appears to have had little effect. Beyond the $700 billion for TARP funds, the government has made commitments of more than $9 trillion and has spent $2.2 trillion. And there is very little oversight of this money as the case of the AIG bonuses makes clear. This begs the question: What are we getting for our money? Clearly the real cause of the financial crisis is more than just the bursting of the housing bubble, since over 90 percent of all homeowners are current on their mortgages. A closer look at the root causes of the crisis reveals flawed incentive structures and an inadequate regulatory system that allowed the derivatives market to spiral out of control. Specifically, the credit default swap market is completely unregulated and it helped spread the risks generated by subprime mortgages to investors and financial institutions around the world. In the U.S. alone, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency reported the amount of outstanding credit derivatives from reporting banks to be $16.4 trillion just a year ago. Among the G10 countries--the United States, the U.K., Belgium, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Sweden plus Switzerland--the amount of outstanding credit default swaps is about $57 trillion. Many have called credit default swaps and the larger derivatives market the true culprit in the global financial crisis. Derivatives trading also helped to contribute to AIG's near collapse and it seems as if no amount of money can save AIG at the moment, yet the company has been deemed ``too big to fail.'' However, no one has defined what ``too big to fail'' means in the real world. Beyond just credit default swaps, the Bank for International Settlements--the world's oldest international financial organization headquartered in Basel, Switzerland--reports the total outstanding amount of over-the-counter derivatives to be $684 trillion. This large amount of outstanding derivatives demonstrates the world financial system could be in a huge amount of additional trouble during this worldwide economic crisis. Since over-the-counter derivatives are negotiated between parties and not on an exchange, the risk of the contract falls on both of the parties. So if one of the parties is not able to meet the terms of the contract, the first party stands to lose as well. With $684 trillion of outstanding money, we are playing with very hot fire. As these statistics show, this is a problem not just in the United States but around the globe. So what is the solution? Let's break up these firms and sell the pieces off or separate the toxic loans and let the free market correct the economy as it was designed. The viable portion of these massive financial institutions can still be salvaged. However, we need to examine their asset sheets to determine how deeply involved each company is in the derivatives market. There are better options than endless bailouts and the nationalization of private assets in this country. We must put an end to throwing trillions at the wrong source of the problem.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. My colleagues, here are some facts. Last month, the Senate unanimously approved an amendment that would stop these bonuses. It was an amendment by Olympia Snowe of Maine and, of course, Ron Wyden from Oregon. They had that in the bill. They went to the conference. The conference stripped out that amendment, bipartisan amendment, by Senator Chris Dodd, a Democrat from Connecticut. All of you know that. Now Mr. Rangel is here on the floor saying he knew nothing about this conference report. Yet the amendment by Senators Snowe and Wyden was stripped out by Senator Dodd. And I find it very difficult, Mr. Rangel, that you knew nothing about this amendment that was stripped out, explicitly exempting bonuses agreed to prior to the passage of the stimulus bill. How in the world can you say you knew nothing about it? I've got the exact language from Senator Dodd talking about his amendment which stripped out the amendment of Senator Snowe and Senator Wyden. The fact is Republicans have a plan to include 100 percent of these bonuses. I ask Mr. Rangel: Why didn't you take 100 percent of these bonuses? The American people have a right to know what the administration knew, and when they knew it. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my outrage at the AIG taxpayer- funded executive bonus giveaway and Senator Dodd's and the Obama Administration's potential implication in ensuring AIG would be able to hand out hundreds of millions of taxpayers' dollars to executives who ran AIG into the ground contributing to a global economic crisis. Insurance company AIG--which has been deemed ``too big too fail''-- has received $170 billion in federal bailout money, yet this money has done little to stabilize the company. And now, millions of Americans awoke to news yesterday that their taxpayer dollars intended to prevent AIG from collapse are being funneled to AIG executives in the form of ``bonuses.'' The most unfortunate part of this story is that a senior member of the Senate Democratic party offered an amendment allowing this to happen. The utter abuse of taxpayer dollars that we have seen through the TARP program due to lack of transparency and Democrat legislative neglect is staggering. But to know that these bonus payments could have been easily prevented is beyond disheartening. This atrocious abuse of taxpayer dollars must stop now.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, the previous speaker mentioned the outrage about the bonuses to AIG. That's not the real outrage. The real outrage is that taxpayers have given AIG $173 billion, and this amount of money was then used to funnel out to other financial institutions. After months of government stonewalling, on Sunday night AIG officially acknowledged where most of the taxpayer funds had been going. Since September 16, AIG has spent $120 billion in cash, collateral, and other payments to banks, municipal governments, and other derivative counterparties around the world. This also includes $20 billion to European banks. We never intended for this money to go overseas; the taxpayers thought it was going to AIG. This list also includes American charity cases like Goldman Sachs, which received $13 billion. This comes after months of claims by Goldman Sachs themselves that they did not need the money. Then why take it? Mr. Speaker, that's the real AIG outrage.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. I'm here to support the Fair Tax. The current U.S. Tax Code is too big, too complicated, and benefits too many special interests, and must be replaced with a code that is fair and encourages savings and investment. This code has been amended tens of thousands of times, my colleagues, and it's grown to over 60,000 pages, possibly more. For this, and many other reasons, I rise in support of the Fair Tax and urge my colleagues to consider this new tax simplification program. The Fair Tax will eliminate Federal income taxes, corporate income taxes, payroll taxes, capital gains taxes, the alternative minimum tax, and the death tax, and replace it with a flat, simple and efficient consumption tax. Mr. Speaker, Ronald Reagan hit the nail on the head when he described the government's basic view of the economy as: ``If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. If it stops moving, subsidize it.'' Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, this burdensome view taken by our government has resulted in the current problem we face today, where citizens and business owners across this country devote billions of hours and billions of tax dollars just to navigate the process of paying their Federal income tax. A simpler Tax Code may have prevented former Senator Daschle or current Secretary of the Treasury Geithner the embarrassment of having to explain their failure to properly pay the taxes due to the complicated IRS tax system. I know many of my constituents in the Sixth Congressional District are aware of how this simple tax reform will work when implemented. They have written numerous letters to me and voiced their support at many town meetings. I thought I'd take a moment this afternoon to lay out the basic principles of this legislation for those who are not familiar with the Fair Tax. The Fair Tax will do away with all Federal taxes such as income tax, the death tax, as I mentioned, all the way down to the estate tax. Basically, many Americans with low incomes will receive a check at the beginning of each month from the Federal Government that will cover the cost of the consumption tax on necessary goods, thus increasing the purchasing power of low-income individuals and completely avoiding any unintended tax increase on their purchasing power. Furthermore, a study conducted by Harvard economist Dale Jorgenson illustrates that roughly 22 percent of the retail price of an item is the direct result of the cost our current Tax Code places on a product through payroll taxes, business taxes, business taxes, compliance costs, and other taxes. Therefore, by paying an additional consumption tax, we will be able to fund our entire government, and the taxpayer can keep 100 percent of his hard-earned paycheck. This would lead to increased savings, increased investment, and Americans, not the Federal Government, would decide how to best utilize their wealth. In addition, Mr. Speaker, the Fair Tax, through its simplicity, will provide transparency to the Federal budget and Federal spending here in Congress. Each time the government claims a needed tax increase to fund runaway spending, as we do, and government expansion, or special district funding requests, the American citizen would be directly affected by this irresponsibility and would be aware of it immediately through the transparency of the Fair Tax system instead of hidden tax increases and budget gimmicks that our government institutes today. So now, my colleagues, it is time to get rid of this complicated, inefficient, and unfair tax. Now is the time to institute transparency, efficiency, and, finally, fairness in our Tax Code. Now, for those of us in Congress and perhaps throughout the Nation who are skeptical, I have a suggestion for them, an approach that I think would be possible. Why not take Washington, D.C. as a demonstration project to see if it would work here in Washington, D.C.; allow all residents of this city to pay no Federal taxes, and institute a fair consumption tax, and this consumption tax would be collected by the city and then sent to the Federal Government. Then we could see how it would work and discern its advantages and disadvantages. The Fair Tax I think ultimately would prove to be very useful, and I urge my colleagues to stand for real change and support this fair solution.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, in determining his pick for the new head of the SEC, President Obama called for a ``shift in ethics on Wall Street'' and then subsequently announced his selection of Mary Schapiro for the SEC chairmanship. The irony of this selection is hard to miss, especially given Schapiro's reputation for favoring brokers and the securities industry over investors. As head of the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Ms. Schapiro completely missed both the mortgage crisis and the Madoff $50 billion Ponzi scheme defrauding hundreds of unknowing investors. Furthermore, Ms. Schapiro's record as a regulator demonstrates she has seldomly pursued tough action against big Wall Street firms who, we all know, have atrociously abused our regulatory processes. And while President Obama has openly stated that ``the regulators who were assigned to oversee Wall Street dropped the ball,'' he has picked Schapiro, someone who was ``asleep at the switch,'' to steer the reform of the SEC. Which leaves me with the question: What was he thinking?

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, the omnibus spending bill is not an example of change here in Congress and continues the Democrat's spending spree in the first 2 months of the 111th Congress. Even a record $1.4 trillion budget deficit has not stopped Congress' culture of spending on special projects. While families and business owners are cutting back and bringing their budgets under control, Congress, under Democrat leadership, is spending and earmarking as if nothing has changed. Here are a few highlights of the bill that is being debated in the Senate right now. There is an 8 percent discretionary spending hike. After passing an unprecedented massive spending bill that is the largest this country has ever seen, the Democrat leadership ushered through this House an omnibus bill that will give a staggering 80 percent increase to discretionary programs when coupled with a $1 trillion stimulus package. This bill will contribute to a permanent $2,000 per household tax hike for every household. It contains 9,300 special funding requests, projects that cost nearly $13 billion. Now, the argument is made that Members have a right to make these special district funding requests, but I, for one, would gladly place a moratorium on all district funding requests until the economy is corrected. Let me say again, this omnibus spending bill increases discretionary spending by 8 percent when less than 3 weeks ago Congress and the President, under Democratic leadership, ran through a massive stimulus package where the same discretionary programs received much of the unprecedented $1.1 trillion in government spending. Now, counting those funds, this omnibus spending bill will institute an 80 percent spending increase for those programs in 2009 from $378 billion to $680 billion. This spending increase by the Democratic Party is unprecedented in American history. The domestic spending programs which the omnibus focuses on have not been cut in the past decade; in fact, they have only increased from 2001 through 2008. These programs grew 23 percent faster than inflation, including increases for education at 35 percent, health research at 37 percent, and veterans benefits at 54 percent. It is apparent that during these fiscally challenging times these programs could have survived without some of these large increases. Regrettably, the omnibus bill does not offset this new spending. It does not attempt to cut spending or institute reductions in inefficient or duplicate or worthless government programs. And let me just give you further example, Mr. Speaker, where some savings could be made; $55 billion in annual program overpayments, $60 billion for corporate welfare, $123 billion for programs for which government auditors can find no evidence of success; $140 billion in potential budget savings identified in the CBO Budget Options document. Program duplication: There are 342 economic development programs; 134 programs serving the disabled, they're all duplicate; 130 programs serving at-risk youth, these are duplicate; and there's 90 duplicate early childhood development programs. While some of these programs may be important, I find it hard to believe that each of the 342 economic development programs paid for by the American taxpayer, each and every one is vital to the American people. This has been identified, all these programs that duplicate. Unfortunately, taxpayers should not expect change in the future. The administration and the Democrat party have already signed into law a large expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Program, putting middle class children who already have private health insurance on taxpayer-funded, government-run health care programs; weakened the 1996 welfare reforms in the $1.1 trillion stimulus package; and instituted permanent government growth in the areas of education, infrastructure and Medicaid. Last year, President Bush signed an executive order stating that Federal agencies must ignore earmarks that appear in nonbinding conference reports and instead implement only those in the bill text itself. That executive order currently remains in effect. President Obama, who campaigned on ending politics as usual in Washington, could strike a blow to the earmark culture in Congress by simply leaving this executive order in place. Doing so would eliminate all earmarks that Congress has not incorporated by reference into the omnibus bill text. He should go one step further and veto any omnibus bill that explicitly has earmarks. In the past six months, Congress has enacted a $700 billion financial bailout and a $1.1 trillion stimulus. I say it is time to end the culture of pork, and stop spending money that our children will have to pay back in the future.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Madam Speaker, pursuant to the Republican Leadership standards on earmarks, I am submitting the following information regarding earmarks I received as part of the FY 2009 Omnibus. Requesting Member: Congressman Cliff Stearns Bill Number: FY 2009 Omnibus Account: Cooperative State Research Education and Extension Service, SGR Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Florida Citrus Mutual Address of Requesting Entity: P.O. Box 89, Lakeland, FL 33802 Description of Request: I have secured $1,217,000 for Florida Citrus Mutual. The funding will be used to improve technologies for treatment and detection, methods of movement and containment, and means to control and eliminate these devastating citrus diseases. After two unprecedented, devastating hurricane seasons in 2004 and 2005, APHIS determined in January 2006 that eradicating citrus canker from Florida is no longer feasible. As a result, the scientific community work is working to find disease resistance and/or a cure for these diseases. In addition, in 2005, USDA-Animal Plant Health Inspection Service (USDA-APHIS) detected citrus greening in Florida. Greening is another severe citrus disease that must be addressed to ensure the sustainability of the industry. I certify that neither I nor my spouse has any financial interest in this project. Requesting Member: Congressman Cliff Stearns Bill Number: FY 2009 Omnibus Account: Department of Justice, OJP--Byrne Discretionary Grants Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Alachua County, FL Address of Requesting Entity: 12 SE 1st Street, Gainesville, FL 32602 Description of Request: I have secured $550,000 for Alachua County, FL. The funding will be used by Alachua County to manage offenders with co-occurring mental illness and substance abuse disorders. Alachua County proposes an integrated, coordinated continuum of care using evidence-based practices where there will be ``no wrong door'' to enter treatment. Persons will be assessed and provided with a level of treatment consistent with individual need. This innovative approach could prove to be an effective keystone to alleviate jail overcrowding by reducing the recidivism rate that is prevalent with offenders suffering from a mental illness compounded by drug abuse. I certify that neither I nor my spouse has any financial interest in this project. Requesting Member: Congressman Cliff Stearns Bill Number: FY 2009 Omnibus Account: Department of Justice, COPS Law Enforcement Technology Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Lake County, FL Address of Requesting Entity: 315 W. Main St., Tavares, FL 32778-3813 Description of Request: I have secured $150,000 for Lake County, FL. The funding will be used by Lake County for a 800 MHz Radio System to serve the public safety needs and Emergency Operations Center of the County. An 800 MHz radio system will allow for the coordination of Lake County's emergency response services. The project would allow for the first time portable radio communications across the county. After the recent tornados that struck the County February 2, 2007, and in previous years Hurricanes, having an 800 MHz radio system will better equip the County's public safety personnel to respond and offer assistance. The project is supported by both the Sheriff's office and the municipalities in Lake County. I certify that neither I nor my spouse has any financial interest in this project. Requesting Member: Congressman Cliff Stearns Bill Number: FY 2009 Omnibus Account: Corps of Engineers, Construction Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Jacksonville Port Authority Address of Requesting Entity: 2831 Talleyrand Avenue, Jacksonville, FL 32206-0005 Description of Request: I have secured $3,349,000 for the Jacksonville Port Authority. The funding will be used to increase the Corps of Engineers' capability for completing Phase II dredging of the federal ship channel to the Talleyrand Terminal. Prompt completion of this deepening project, which began seven years ago, is critically important to meet the needs of fully loaded cargo ships and for the continued commercial viability and operational safety of the Jacksonville Port. Navigation safety issues will be addressed in the vicinity of the Chaseville Turn where docked oil tankers are in close proximity to vessels attempting to navigate the restricted turning area. I certify that neither I nor my spouse has any financial interest in this project. Requesting Member: Congressman Cliff Stearns Bill Number: FY 2009 Omnibus Account: Small Business Administration Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Central Florida Community College Address of Requesting Entity: 3001 SW College Rd, Ocala, FL 34474- 4415 Description of Request: I have secured $100,000 for Central Florida Community College. The funding will be used to support an initiative to identify growth industries compatible with the research strengths of the University of Florida and the workforce training strengths of Central Florida Community College and Santa Fe Community College. The educational institutions, in cooperation with regional economic development entities, would develop a strategic plan to recruit and/or expand identified industry groups, such as those related to the bio- medical industry at the University of Florida. I certify that neither I nor my spouse has any financial interest in this project. Requesting Member: Congressman Cliff Stearns Bill Number: FY 2009 Omnibus Account: Department of Education, Higher Education Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Central Florida Community College Address of Requesting Entity: 3001 SW College Rd, Ocala, FL 34474- 4415 Description of Request: I have secured $238,000 for Central Florida Community College. The funding will be used by Central Florida Community College for expansion of the Public Policy Institute. The Public Policy Institute (PPI) of Marion County was established in 1999 as a non-profit, non-partisan citizen-based organization to provide a careful analysis of the issues and trends that shape and affect public policy. Its mission is to give the community a sense of hope and optimism by creating a broad base of community involvement in identifying, researching, and establishing dialogue on community issues, and then in recommending and helping to implement timely solutions. I certify that neither I nor my spouse has any financial interest in this project. Requesting Member: Congressman Cliff Stearns Bill Number: FY 2009 Omnibus Account: Department of Transportation, Airport Improvement Program Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Jacksonville Aviation Authority Address of Requesting Entity: P.O. Box 18018, Jacksonville, FL 32229 Description of Request: I have secured $722,000 for the Jacksonville Aviation Authority. The funding will be used to make taxiway improvements at Cecil Field. The project consists of the 2,000 foot parallel Taxiway Echo east of existing Runway 18L/36R and the 500 foot Taxiway A-1 connector, along with the 120,000 square foot apron. These improvements will open new areas of the airport east of the existing runway for new economic development and job creation. I certify that neither I nor my spouse has any financial interest in this project. Requesting Member: Congressman Cliff Stearns Bill Number: FY 2009 Omnibus Account: Department of Transportation, Transportation, Community, and System Preservation Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Marion County, FL Address of Requesting Entity: 601 SE 25th Ave., Ocala, FL 34471 Description of Request: I have secured $475,000 for Marion County, FL. The funding will used for construction of 9.2 miles of a new 4- lane, rural, divided roadway (Belleview Bypass) and improvements to State Road 35 (Baseline Road) in the Belleview area. The new managed access 4-lane roadway begins south of the City of Belleview at US 441 and loops around the city on the east to tie into Baseline Road north of the city at 92nd Place. Improvements to Baseline Road begin south of this intersection and include reconstruction of this 2-lane road to a 4-lane divided arterial up to CR 464. I certify that neither I nor my spouse has any financial interest in this project.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Madam Speaker, with America facing an almost 8 percent unemployment rate, record low consumer confidence, and this country's worst economic downturn since the beginning of World War II, our Nation needs a real economic stimulus package that will give tax relief to hurting American businesses, create long-term sustainable job growth, and provide real permanent tax relief to American families. What this country does not need is the Federal Government increasing our national debt to record levels, burying our children and our grandchildren under a mountain of debt. This Democrat spending plan is simply not stimulative. According to CBO, the plan includes over $600 billion in new spending. There are some tax cuts, but of the $816 billion in the program, the majority is for new spending, from 2009 to 2019. While this plan is aimed at quickly injecting government cash into the economy, only 15 percent of the spending will occur during this fiscal year, and only 37 percent of the spending will occur in fiscal year 2010. This means that over half of the plan's spending will occur starting in the year 2011, hardly a quick injection into the lagging economy as promised by the Democrat authors. Many have looked to our economic history to provide guidance for us today during this difficult time. Particularly, they've looked at the New Deal under President Roosevelt. Unfortunately, what many economists have found is that the New Deal principles are stale ideas that do not translate into economic stimulus for our economy in the 21st century. First, the Great Depression began in 1929 and did not end until 1940. And the stock market did not return to the level of September 3, 1929, until 1954. If today's economy were to go through a similar recovery, we would not fully escape the current recession until the year 2018, and the Dow would not reach its high of 2007 until the year 2032. Secondly, many economists note that during the Great Depression the United States did not actually have much of an expansionary fiscal policy. As Tyler Cowen stated in the New York Times article, The New Deal Didn't Always Work, Either, ``Under President Herbert Hoover and continuing with Roosevelt, the Federal Government increased income taxes, excise taxes, inheritance taxes, corporate income tax, holding company taxes and `excess profits' taxes. When all of these tax increases are taken into account, the New Deal fiscal policy didn't do much to promote recovery.'' This legislation is also an unprecedented expansion of the nation's debt burden. The U.S. is projected to have a $1.2 trillion deficit in FY 2009 even without the enactment of any stimulus legislation. As a percentage of GDP, the projected FY 2009 deficit (8.3% of GDP) is considerably larger than any deficit during the Great Depression (the highest was 5.4% of GDP in 1934). The year 2008 could easily be defined as the year of the bailout. The months have passed in a torrent of troubling government ``rescues'' of private sector financial firms. Those bailouts have come at a great price and have exposed American taxpayers to vast financial risk. And in a financial crisis, such as the one we are now facing, bailout after bailout is quite simply not a good strategy for recovery. Since October of 2008, the U.S. Treasury has committed $350 billion in public funds to private financial institutions, many of which have utilized reckless investment strategies, through the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP). Specifically, insurance giant AIG has received $40 billion, Citigroup--which just tried to spend $50 billion on a luxury corporate jet--has received $20 billion, an additional $20 billion has been given to the Federal Reserve, and $250 billion has gone to large national banks in the form of direct capital injections. Even more troubling is the $23 billion of these TARP funds, which has been allocated to bail out automobile manufacturers such as General Motors and Chrysler. This type of government intervention in the private sector is unprecedented and has put us on a precarious path to socialism. Given the massive amount of money the Federal Government has spent on bailouts since March of 2008, along with the ever-increasing debt level, it is unconscionable to continue committing good money after bad. This money belongs to the American taxpayer, and now, more than ever, we must rein in this out-of-control government spending for our future generations who will have to pay back this irresponsible debt accumulation. Madam Speaker, we need to turn off the government spigot of Federal funding into non-stimulative debt spending. It is time for Congress to pass a real economic stimulus package that will give tax relief to hurting American businesses, create long-term sustainable growth, and provide real permanent tax relief to American families.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this wasteful, unfocused, and massive government-spending bill. It is true that our country is in the middle of a severe economic downturn and economists on both sides of the financial debate agree that the current housing market and lack of available credit are at the root of this problem. Yet, Democrat leaders in the House and Senate decided to strip this legislation of an obviously stimulative $15,000 homebuyer tax credit, in favor of a $5 billion earmark to make federal buildings ``green.'' This is one of many glaring examples that this bill is not about stimulating the economy; it is about expanding the Federal Government in a time of crisis. I believe White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel characterized this democrat-spending bill best when he said, ``You never want a serious crisis to go to waste. And what I mean by that is an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before.'' In a rush to capitalize on our country's economic situation the other side of the aisle has used fear and pronouncements of imminent catastrophe to fulfill their wants and achieve their goals of government expansion, longstanding liberal spending policies, and political payback. Many have looked to our economic history to provide guidance during this difficult time, particularly to the New Deal instituted by President Franklin Roosevelt. Looking to the past we discover that Henry Morgenthau, Jr., FDR's Treasury Secretary, gave this quote in May of 1939 during the Great Depression. ``We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. And I have just one interest, and now if I am wrong somebody else can have my job. I want to see this country prosper. I want to see people get a job. I want to see people get enough to eat. We have never made good on our promises. I say after eight years of this administration, we have just as much unemployment as when we started. And enormous debt to boot.'' Unfortunately, what many economists have found at present and in the past is that New Deal principles are stale ideas that do not translate into economic stimulus in the 21st century. To find further confirmation that unfocused infrastructure and public works projects fail to stimulate a recessive economy one need only look to Japan during the 1990s. Like this country's current situation, Japan in the late 1980s experienced the bursting of a real estate bubble. To combat the economic situation, the Japanese government embarked on a colossal spending spree pouring trillions of taxpayer dollars into wasteful roads, bridges and infrastructure projects. Japan finally came out of its economic tailspin, but many economists contend that it was not infrastructure spending that caused the economy to recover, but rather an intensive cleanup of the banks, and a growing export sector that boosted the country. According to a February 5, 2009, New York Times article, ``Among Japanese citizens, the spending is widely disparaged for having turned the nation into a public-works-based welfare state and making regional economies dependent on Tokyo for jobs. Much of the blame has fallen on the Liberal Democratic Party, which has long used government spending to grease rural vote-buying machines that help keep the party in power.'' For these, and many other reasons, I regret that I cannot support this unprecedented big government grab for citizen reliance on the federal government. History shows that the best way to encourage an economic turnaround, preserve jobs, and spur widespread economic growth, is to ensure that job-creators face a lower tax burden. It is evident that this country needs to lower its corporate and small business tax rates, and provide tax relief to middle-class families. What this country does not need is a scatter shot approach of federal spending that will only increase the debt burden on future generations and create government dependence, while doing nothing to stimulate or create meaningful long-term job growth.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the distinguished gentleman from Michigan, John Dingell, has now become the longest serving Member of the U.S. House of Representatives. While Mr. Dingell's service to this Congress is worth recognition alone, his many accomplishments ensures that he will go down as one of the most influential members in the history of Congress. John Dingell's service to this body started all the way back in 1938, when he served as a Page. Later on, he served in the United States Army leaving with the rank of Second Lieutenant. In 1955, Mr. Dingell was sworn into office to succeed his father and began a remarkable and productive career as a Member of the House. In 1981, Mr. Dingell's tenure as the top Democrat on the Energy and Commerce Committee began and continued until this very year. I have served with Mr. Dingell on the Energy and Commerce Committee for 16 years. In all that time, he always treated Republicans with respect even when we vociferously disagreed, which was fairly often. He was always fair and willing to work to find common ground. He is a true model for all of us to follow. Mr. Dingell has received so many awards and so much recognition in his career, that I do not have time to list them all. So I'll highlight a few. He has received recognition from the NAACP for his avid support of civil rights and from the NRA for his support of the Second Amendment. In addition, Mr. Dingell has been Congress' most outspoken and tireless advocate for the American automobile industry, which is a key component of our nation's economy and of particular importance to the district he represents. In closing, let's all honor John Dingell for his vigorous and unflagging support for this institution and for his long and productive tenure in Congress.