Cliff Stearns

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Madam Speaker, I rise today to address the troubling results of a report that was just released last Friday by the Congressional Oversight Panel on the Troubled Asset Relief Program, TARP. In summary, the 50-page report indicates that our United States Treasury has overpaid by about $78 billion in order to implement the largest private sector bailout in American history. In fact, the study directly states that, ``Treasury paid substantially more for the assets it purchased than their current market value.'' How much more? Our Treasury purchased assets worth about $178 billion for $254 billion. That is a direct and unnecessary transfer of our taxpayer dollars to private financial institutions that utilize reckless investment strategies. Thus, the Treasury has essentially shortchanged taxpayers to the tune of $78 billion and has not acted as a good steward of our taxpayers' funds. To be sure, former Secretary Paulson looked the American people in the eye and assured us that the taxpayer investment in the TARP program was sound, and we would be given full value in return for our investment. In a public statement to the American people in October, Paulson said of the TARP program, ``This is an investment, not an expenditure, and there is no reason to expect the program will cost taxpayers anything.'' Unfortunately, Paulson's statement couldn't be further from the truth. The first $350 billion in TARP funds was spent in haste, and we have nothing to show for it but waste. And the reason for this waste? The use of standardized documents that hindered Treasury's ability to address differences in credit quality among the capital infusion recipients. Furthermore, our Treasury has also failed to explain its reasoning for subsidizing some banks more than others, leaving taxpayers and Congress in the dark. To add more fuel to the fire, Neil Barofsky, the Special Inspector for the TARP program, came out last week and stated: The government needs to beef up its oversight and fraud prevention mechanism in regard to the TARP program. He stated, ``The Troubled Asset Relief Program represents a massive and unprecedented investment of taxpayers' money, designed to stabilize the financial industry, but the long-term success of this program is not assured.'' American taxpayers are rightly infuriated. Our Treasury has yet to even adopt baseline fraud prevention standards for the TARP program. Additionally, there is a noticeable lack of oversight language included with the TARP capital infusion contracts. Special Inspector Barofsky strongly cautions that oversight language is needed in all TARP contracts, particularly with big banks like Citicorp and Bank of America, and automobile companies like Chrysler and General Motors. Given this troubling investment situation, I am skeptical of how the next $350 billion will be spent. Looking back to October when former Secretary Paulson came to Congress with a 2\1/2\ page double-spaced document ceding himself total authority to spend $700 billion in taxpayer dollars, I suppose it is not entirely surprising to find out that $78 billion has been wasted. The bailout plan was weak from the very beginning. It was Congress that had to step in and demand oversight and transparency of Paulson's TARP program. And what we ended up getting was a proposal for self- regulation, with Paulson and former Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke as two of only five members of an oversight board charged with monitoring their own actions. What we really need is oversight by only those who are independent of the administration and that do not have ties to the Wall Street banking community. So today on the House floor, I echo the sentiments of the Congressional Oversight Panel, which stated, ``If TARP is to garner credibility and public support, a clear explanation of the economic transaction and the reasoning behind any such expenditure of funds must be made clear to the public.'' Our Treasury has less than 30 days to act together before the next report is released, and hard-working taxpayers deserve to hear that their investment has not been made in vain.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. I also agree with you. I would like to have had the opportunity to have marked up this bill. Unfortunately, we did not mark up this bill, and I had six amendments--Mr. Barton and I, Mr. Blunt and Mr. Walden--and they were not accepted. It would have made the bill, I think, improved. I rise in strong opposition to this bill because, for over 2 years, we have been promoting February 17, 2009 as the date of the DTV transition. Industry and government have prepared and have spent billions of dollars. When you look at some of the statistics from Mr. Boucher, he is using the Nielsen rating. Well, that Nielsen rating does show that a large percentage of Americans are ready to go, and most of the statistics he has collected are from a survey that is a month old. So, in this case, it has changed, and another 1 million people have already gotten coupons. Frankly, a change in the date engenders skepticism among Americans, confusion and a distrust of the government because here they are again delaying something when they said for over 2 years that we are going to have an effective date. So, for that reason, I think we should move ahead with the date and defeat this bill this afternoon. There are lots of broadcasters who have spent all of this money preparing, and now they have unbudgeted expenditures from the private sector that are going to have to be used. At this particular point in our economy, which is weak, to have to take these unbudgeted amounts of money and find this new money to make this transition is going to be a hardship for these folks. So a delay is not necessary. All we need to do is to give the manufacturing distribution cycle any short change of notice that they need, give them a little bit more money, and we can continue. The public is not served by delaying this because, in the end, the analog spectrum that is available could be used for first responders. Many, many carriers have already invested nearly $20 billion in spectrum auctions, and they have been promised the deployment of innovative, new, next-generation, wireless, broadband services. Now, these, our Nation's first responders, direly need and they deserve the spectrum. They paid for it. So why can't we give it to them? Why are we delaying this another 3 or 4 months? It is only because there is a perceived problem when there is really no perceived problem. As Mr. Barton on the ranking side here has pointed out, there was a demonstration project in Wilmington, North Carolina, in which 99 percent of the people were happy. There's always going to be a segment that are not happy. And on that note, we all were involved with the inauguration here. We know we thought that it was going to go perfect; yet a lot of our constituents could not get through to their seats because the metal detectors broke down. Now, the question I have for the Democrats, if we had the inauguration in place and it turned out about 3 or 4 percent of the people could not get through because of metal detectors, would you have shut down the swearing in of the President because of it? No, you would not have. Any great event will continue, and there's always going to be a small percentage, but you can take care of those, just like they took care of it in Wilmington, North Carolina, in the demonstration which was totally successful.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. I thank the gentlelady for yielding. First, I rise in opposition to this rule and in strong opposition to the underlying bill. Let me say to my colleague from New York, we have spent over 2 years planning for this date of February 17, 2009. All the broadcasters, all the engineers, all the people that put up the towers, they are all ready to go. In fact, PBS pointed out that if they delay, it's going to cost them $22 million. That's just the tip of the iceberg. The hearings we've had were to determine how to run the program and give the Department of Commerce the money they need to implement the coupon program. But we never had a hearing on this bill. That's why I submitted six amendments to the Rules Committee yesterday. It would vastly improve the final product. In fact, as Mr. Issa pointed out, with the people that supposedly need the coupons, the $250 million allotment back in January, back in December, would have taken care of this problem. But, for some reason, it was not taken care of. But we have never had a hearing, not one, on delaying the digital TV transition. We have had hearings, I agree, on how to implement the program, but not delaying and what the implications are. And, incredibly enough, this bill has never gone through any kind of markup where we could air out some of the contentious issues: What is it going to cost the broadcasters, the people implementing the towers, and so forth? Now, a Member on that side talked about national security and about delaying in reference to 9/11. Madam Speaker, I submit for the Record a letter from the National Fraternal Order of Police. The National Fraternal Order of Police has come out strongly against this delay. And why would they come out against this delay? That is because this delay could mean that national security, the first responders, would be affected, would not have the information they need, and could not notify citizens in the case of an emergency. But none of the six amendments I offered on behalf of my colleagues, Mr. Blunt, Mr. Walden, and Mr. Barton, were accepted. And so, really, we had no opportunity to make this bill better. So when we transitioned on February 17, June 12, or whatever it is going to be, and you have no guarantee that this will be the last delay, we have to realize that, to put into perspective, it is going to cost money, it is going to increase our risk for first responders. And, when you think about it, no matter what date you establish, there is always going to be somebody who doesn't get the message. In fact, the demonstration project in Wilmington, North Carolina in September to see if it would work was 99 percent effective. So the question I would have for you: If the demonstration project was so effective in September, 5 months later surely it is going to be effective on February 17, 2009. Tens of thousands of people will not lose their television because the coupons would be available. I urge defeat of the rule. National Fraternal Order of Police, Washington, DC, January 23, 2009. Hon. Nancy P. Pelosi, Speaker of the House, House of Representatives, Washington,

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chair, with America facing a 7.2 percent unemployment rate, record low consumer confidence, and country's worst economic downturn since the beginning of World War II, our nation needs a real economic stimulus 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 $604 billion in new spending and $212 billion in tax cuts for a total cost of $816 billion over the 2009 to 2019 period. While this plan is aimed at quickly injecting government cash into the economy, only 15 percent, or $93 billion, of the spending will occur during this fiscal year and only 37 percent of the spending would occur in fiscal year 2010. This means that over half of the plan's spending will occur starting in 2011, hardly a quick injection into the lagging economy as promised by the Democrat authors. What is clearly evident is that much of this money will not be spent in the next two years to stimulate the economy and that billions of dollars in pork barrel spending will go to constituencies important to the Democrat party. This is far too important of an economic time to play political games and return election favors in the form of government funding. Our country needs a real economic stimulus package. Included in this Democrat spending spree are longstanding liberal spending priorities. What does $50 million for the National Endowment for the Arts, $400 million for climate change research, $650 million for the Digital-to-Analog Converter Box Program and $1 billion for the Census have to do with creating jobs? The Democrat bill won't stimulate anything but more government and more debt. The slow and wasteful spending in the House Democrat bill is a disservice to millions of Americans who want to see this Congress take immediate action to get this economy moving again. Many have looked to our economic history to provide guidance during this difficult time, particularly to the New Deal instituted by President Franklin Roosevelt. Unfortunately, what many economists have found is that New Deal principles are stale ideas that do not translate into economic stimulus 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 2018 and the Dow would not reach its high of 2007 until sometime in 2032. Secondly, many economists note that during the Great Depression the U.S. 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 taxes, holding company taxes and `excess profits' taxes. When all of these tax increases are taken into account, 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 percent of GDP, is considerably larger than any deficit during the Great Depression, the highest was 5.9 percent of GDP in 1934. The federal debt grew by more than $2 trillion in the last two years, and may grow by another $2 trillion in 2009. 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. The cascade of bailouts began in March of 2008 with the collapse of investment bank Bear Stearns. The Federal Reserve stepped in when Bear Stearns lost significant liquidity and lent another large investment firm--JPMorgan--$29 billion to buy up Bear Stearns and its liabilities. This was quickly followed by legislative recognition of the housing and foreclosure crisis and, subsequently, the Treasury's forced rescue of out-of-control GSEs Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac which has put taxpayers on the hook for trillions worth of risk. 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 MG 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 $23.4 billion of these TARP funds, which has been allocated to bail out automobile manufacturers such as General Motors and Ford. This type of government intervention in the private sector is unprecedented and has put us on a precarious path to socialism. The new Secretary of the Treasury, Tim Geithner, is now poised to spend an additional $350 billion as part of a second installment of TARP funds as reports are coming out that executives such as John Thain, have used these funds to hand out $4 billion in bonuses to fellow executives, $1 million to renovate his office, and $1,400 for the purchase a new personal waste basket. Due to the lack of transparency and accountability of how the first $350 billion was spent, and the fact that banks have not made it easier to get loans and the credit markets have not thawed as expected, I voted against the TARP Reform and Accountability Act, H.R. 384, and in favor of a resolution, H.J.RES.3, disapproving of the release of these additional funds. Given the massive amount of money the federal government has spent on bailouts since March of 2008 along with the ever-rising 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. Mr. Chair, enough is enough, turn off the government spigot of federal funding into non-simulative debt spending. It is time for this Congress to pass a real economic stimulus that will give tax relief to hurting American businesses, create long term sustainable job growth, and provide real permanent tax relief to American families.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Madam Speaker, how much time do I have left?

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

Mr. STEARNS. Madam Speaker, if I may continue, the distinguished chairwoman of the Rules Committee has indicated that this point of order would eliminate debate and not offer the opportunity to Members to really discuss the rule at all. But I would like to say to her, and she was in the Rules Committee when I came out to present my amendment, when the Energy and Commerce Committee marked up that portion of the stimulus package, we were in session for 12 hours. During that time we had six amendments accepted on the Republican minority side. It turns out that all six of these amendments were agreed to unanimously by the majority. When the bill went to print and when I went to the Rules Committee, I found my amendment was not included, and neither was the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Murphy's or Mr. Blunt's. Three of the amendments were not included, and we questioned how could this be that out of a full markup of Energy and Commerce Committee, we passed six amendments and only three were put in. Yet the Speaker's office had a sheet, a fact sheet, which indicated that all six amendments were put in the bill and all six of these amendments show the bipartisan-ness of this stimulus package. Now I think what happened on the Energy and Commerce Committee happened in the Ways and Means Committee and it happened in Appropriations Committee. So this, in fact, stimulus package is not bipartisan. Reading from the Office of Speaker Nancy Pelosi, her fact sheet of January 27, 2009, she says this is a bipartisan, open and transparent legislative process. It is not, Madam Speaker. The amendments that came out of Energy and Commerce, 50 percent were dropped arbitrarily, capriciously, without any comment from the minority. Now one of those amendments, which was mine, indicated if you are going to give federal subsidies for COBRA, which is unemployment compensation for individuals in America, why give them to people who have a net worth of $1 million or $100 million? There was no threshold in this bill. So, I basically said, if you're going to give COBRA subsidies, that is you're asking to have the taxpayers pay 65 percent of the COBRA for anybody unemployed, including a man who, for example, left Lehman Brothers or Bernie Madoff; all those people who, under the Democrats' position in the stimulus package, would be able to apply for COBRA subsidies and have the taxpayers in my home county have to pay for their health benefits. They are asking the taxpayers to pay 65 percent almost indefinitely. And I basically said this should not apply to people that are making $100 million, $10 million, or have a net worth of that amount. And, Mr. Waxman, who is the chairman of the Energy and Commerce, was kind enough to say, I agree with you, and that should be part of the bill. So my amendment was agreed to.

Mr. STEARNS. Madam Speaker, I raise a point of order against consideration of the rule because the rule contains a waiver of all points of order against the provisions in the bill and amendments made in order by the rule and, therefore, it is in violation of section 426 of the Congressional Budget Act.

Mr. STEARNS. Madam Speaker, I rise to make a point of order against consideration of the rule.

Mr. STEARNS. I'd be glad to yield.

Mr. STEARNS. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished ranking member of the Rules Committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier).

Mr. STEARNS. Madam Speaker, it's clear she has no response to the rhetorical question: Why were amendments that were agreed upon in the Energy and Commerce dropped capriciously and arbitrarily from the print. And I think we will just let that as a question remain in the House of Representatives and point out to all the Members that when the Speaker puts out a sheet, a fact sheet, in which she says it's a bipartisan bill, it's open and transparent, well, that obviously is not true. There's no one on the Democrat side here this morning to explain how amendments that were agreed upon in Energy and Commerce were dropped, and perhaps the same was true of the Ways and Means, and also the Appropriations Committee. And, for those Members, like myself, who came up and asked why my amendment that was accepted was not included as an amendment to the stimulus package, and the distinguished chairwoman of the Rules Committee cannot even answer the simple question of why were amendments not included, when in fact they were passed overwhelmingly in Energy and Commerce. With that, Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. STEARNS. Madam Speaker, thank you very much. I will be using most of my arguments from the Congressional Budget Office cost estimate dated January 26, 2009. The CBO and the Joint Committee on Taxation estimated that enacting the provisions in division B would reduce revenues by $76 billion in fiscal year 2009, by $131 billion in fiscal year 2010, and by a net of $212 billion over the 2009-2010 period. So combining the spending and revenue effects of H.R. 1, the CBO estimates that enacting the bill would increase the Federal budget deficit by over $170 billion over the remaining months of the fiscal year 2009, by $356 billion in the year 2010 and $174 billion in 2011, and it continues on, $816 billion over the period 2009 to 2019. There is a wide range of Federal programs here which increase the benefits payable under the Medicaid unemployment compensation nutrition assistance program, and the legislation would also reduce individual and corporate income tax collections and make a variety of other changes to tax laws. This is basically an unfunded mandate. CBO anticipates that this bill would have a noticeable impact on economic growth and employment in the next few years. Following long- standing congressional budget procedures, this estimate does not address the potential budget effects of such changes in economic outlook. But the point that the CBO is making is that this is a huge unfunded mandate, particularly in the Medicaid and unemployment compensation and nutrition assistance program. So with that, Madam Speaker, in light of the provisions in the bill and the amendments made in order by the rule, are, therefore, in violation of section 426 of the Congressional Budget Act, I do, Madam Speaker, raise this point of order. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. STEARNS. Yes, I'll be glad to yield.

Mr. STEARNS. I thank the distinguished Member. That is absolutely true. And I think, as he clearly points out, I think we should really ask the distinguished chairwoman of the Rules Committee, why were, in this case, three amendments that were agreed upon in Energy and Commerce, why were they dropped from the print? And, perhaps if she can't, then I think really the Speaker, whose office this fact sheet came from, should clearly tell us why she dropped amendments that were passed through the democratic process here in the House of Representatives of the United States of America. Yet, they have a fact sheet saying they are still in here. She uses the word ``bipartisan'' when you can't say it's bipartisan if, in my case, my amendment is not in there. It was agreed upon. And others in the Energy and Commerce, their amendments are not here as well. So I would be glad to yield time to the distinguished chairwoman of the Rules Committee to find out why these amendments, after they were passed overwhelmingly in the Energy and Commerce Committee, are not in the print. The distinguished chairwoman of the Rules Committee, does she wish to answer?

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

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, can I ask how much time is left on both sides?

Mr. STEARNS. I thank my distinguished chairman, and I also give Mr. Boucher my condolences and sympathy on the death of his mother. I rise in strong opposition to this bill. And I want to tell my colleagues that I had the opportunity to ask President Barack Obama a question 3 hours ago on this very debate. And I asked him, I said, Mr. President, in light of the fact that you have a stimulus package that you're pushing and you want to create more jobs, then certainly broadband and digital television and third and fourth generation wireless will do just that. And he agreed. And I said, Then why would you want to delay the transition when we have spent all this money, billions of dollars, to publicize the date? We're going to waste all this time and money, and it's going to create a hardship for the broadcasters and so many other people. We should go ahead with this transition. He said, Well, well. I said, Now, if it's a question of money, Secretary Gutierrez sent a letter last year indicating $250 million would take care of anything; so it's not a question of money. So the President said, Well, I agree with you, it's not a question of money, but it appears to be some kind of administrative or accounting problem that we need to fix. Well, I said to the President, I said, Mr. President, we had a demonstration project in Wilmington, North Carolina, in which we had a transition, and it turns out almost 99 percent of the people were satisfied. So the demonstration project in Wilmington, North Carolina, showed that we could transition back in September in Wilmington. Surely, we can transition February 17 in the United States. I liken this to a football stadium. Just bear we with me for this metaphor, this example. Let's say you have a large stadium with 90,000 people in it, and it actually takes 92,000 people. Well, it turns out at the front door, the door is locked. By chance a nail is caught in the door, and there are 2,000 people, just 2,000 people out there that can't get into this championship game. And the coin is tossed, they're ready to go, the lights are there, the televisions are going, everybody's roaring, they're waiting for the kickoff; and suddenly they say we've got to stop the game because these very few people, maybe 1 percent, maybe 1\1/2\ percent, can't get in the stadium; so we're going to stop the whole game because of those people. And that's what we have here. That is the analogy. We're delaying legislation on a very, very small amount. And, frankly, the demonstration in Wilmington, North Carolina, showed that we are ready to go. Mr. Obama has made it a priority to make the government work for the people. So now in his first decision in his administration and this Congress, we're saying delay, delay, delay. We're going to delay and put a placeholder on this, and then the consumer is going to have to hold off. And by delaying 115 days, we are sending, I think, the wrong message to the people who are trying to put this in place. So if you look at the players on the field, they're ready to go. All the stakeholders are ready to go. I urge you to defeat this.

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to give time to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Terry) 2 minutes.

Mr. STEARNS

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

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

Mr. STEARNS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I am also pleased that our data privacy resolution could be considered on the floor today, and I would like to thank, obviously, Mr. Price of North Carolina, for introducing this important resolution, as the lead cosponsor on the Republican side. I am glad to be able to support it. As well as Chairman Barton from the Energy and Commerce Committee; Mr. Markey, the former chairman of the Telecommunications Committee; and, Mr. Radanovich, who will speak later, for their support as well. My colleagues, this resolution supports the designation of January 28 as National Data Privacy Day. As ranking member of the Communications, Technology, and Internet Subcommittee, I am especially concerned about the challenges that all of us face today protecting the privacy of personal sensitive information. Most of our work product and personal records are now, obviously, digitally stored, as well as transferred. The timesaving convenience of instantaneous communications means we all rely heavily on the Internet and the latest state-of-the-art technology in our simple daily interactions. And, more often than not, all of our electronic communications leave behind a digital fingerprint that opens the potential for abuse if the information is in the wrong hands. That is why it is pertinent that we, as representatives of the American people here in Congress, take the simple initiative to draw awareness to the importance to protecting sensitive personal information, including financial and health records, from misuse and theft. Consumers must be vigilant in protecting their data. They have a personal responsibility, and they must be cautious with whom they do business with. Likewise, we must continue to ensure that legitimate businesses which collect and store U.S. consumer personal data will respect the privacy of those consumers at all times and employ the necessary protections to safeguard that data. Data security is not a new issue. We examined this problem related to data breaches in the Energy and Commerce Committee as far back as the 109th Congress that were spurred by breaches at data brokers affecting millions of our citizens. We learned that State laws created numerous notice requirements that were to inform the customer of these breaches, but it is unclear, Madam Speaker, how many data breaches occurred before those laws took place. The problem continues to affect countless Americans every year. In fact, there are estimates of data breaches since 2005 that indicate that as many as 251 million records have been exposed or compromised. That is due to these breaches. The result is often credit card fraud or, worse, identity theft, which can require time, money, and energy from consumers to repair their good name and, obviously, restore their credit history. Furthermore, universities all across this Nation have had names, photos, phone numbers, and addresses of their students and staff compromised or stolen. Sensitive technology companies such as Science Applications International Corporation and Boeing have also had data security breaches. Breaches have also occurred in large financial institutions such as Bank of America and Wachovia Bank. Also, in the private sector a single stolen computer at Ford Motor Company exposed the names and Social Security numbers of 70,000 current and former employees, and hundreds of hospitals have had the personal information of their patients compromised. Breaches are pervasive in government agencies such as the IRS, the Federal Trade Commission, the FDIC, the State Department, the Department of Veterans' Affairs, the Department of Justice and Energy, and the U.S. Navy. Of course, the list goes on. Clearly, the resolution we are considering tonight is timely. Just last week we were reminded again of how pervasive this problem is with the announcement of Heartland Payment Systems, a credit card processor, that over 100 million personal records were compromised. This could be, to date, one of the largest known security breaches in our Nation. Thus, Madam Speaker, highlighting problems such as this to Americans will increase their awareness and encourage them to exercise more diligence and care in protecting their personal information today. So I thank my colleagues for their support and recognition of the importance of data privacy and the benefits of designating January 28, 2009, as National Data Privacy Day, and I look forward to generating support in my home State of Florida for this important initiative. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. STEARNS

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

Mr. STEARNS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I thank my colleague from Iowa for his generous comments, for his very perspicuous and insightful observations and his personal commendation, particularly in light of the fact that now I have the great honor to represent the University of Florida. And I stand today with a great deal of humility because I have been on this floor a couple times before obviously when they won the national basketball championship, that is this National Championship twice, and they have won now this second football National Championship, twice in 3 years. So I am very, very honored to represent the university and to ask my colleagues obviously to consider this resolution. On the evening of January 8, the Florida Gators won their second BCS National Championship title, two in the past 3 years. But, my colleagues, they faced a very tough opponent: the Oklahoma Sooners. I think we all know how powerful a football program that is. We had our star quarterback, as mentioned by the gentleman from Iowa, Tim Tebow. He led the way and the Gators won the game 24-14. The Gators' defense was able to hold Oklahoma, the highest-scoring team in modern football history, to only 14 points and 363 yards. This was 40 points and 199 yards below their season average. Furthermore, my colleagues, Florida's defense held the Sooner quarterback, and this is the same quarterback that was the Heisman Trophy winner, Sam Bradford, to the third lowest number of passing yards of the season and his first two-interception game since October. On offense, as mentioned, Florida quarterback Tim Tebow showed why he is the best dual threat quarterback in college football by finishing with 231 passing yards and 109 yards of rushing, the third highest ground total by a quarterback in a BCS title game. Mr. Tebow is also just the fifth player since 1950 to win two national titles and the Heisman Trophy. Gators wide receiver/running back Percy Harvin was also instrumental in the Gators' victory over the Sooners by running nine times for 122 yards, catching five passes for 49 yards, and scoring a touchdown himself. Together, Tebow and Harvin made history by becoming the first set of teammates to each rush for 100 yards or more in the same BCS National Championship game. With back-to-back basketball championships, 2006 and 2007, along with national football titles in 1996, 2007, and 2009, it's clear why the city of Gainesville is now called the ``City of Champions.'' While the University of Florida clearly has an outstanding athletic program, I would be remiss today if I didn't mention a few of the university's notable academic accomplishments. The University of Florida is one of the four largest universities in the United States and is also one of the largest research universities, housing more than 150 research centers and institutes. It's been the recipient of hundreds of millions of dollars in research grants and is home to the world's largest citrus research center. UF is also currently partnering with Spain to create the world's largest telescope, which will be located in the Canary Islands. The university's latest endeavor is the building of a brand new 50,000-square-foot research center which will focus on treatment and cures for diabetes, cancer, and genetic research. Now, notably, the University of Florida contributes almost $6 billion each year to Florida's economy and is responsible for the creation of 75,000 jobs. And, finally, my colleagues, I am proud to report the University of Florida has been ranked 5th among all the universities in the Nation by Kiplinger's magazine's ``Top 100 Public Colleges,'' with the university's 2005 incoming freshmen class having an average of over a 4.0 GPA and a 1306 SAT score. UF is also proud to have a high number of scholar athletes on its campus, and this is very impressive, boasting an 89 percent graduation success rate for all of its athletes. So today, Madam Speaker, I'm pleased to congratulate Coach Urban Meyer and all the Gator football players and coaches for their incredible accomplishments and for representing the University of Florida and the State of Florida with honor and integrity. It's been a continuous honor to represent this fine university in the United States House of Representatives. I would like to conclude by commending the University of Florida for being one of the premier athletic and academic institutions in the country and to thank all the Gator fans worldwide for their longstanding support and pride in their team, and I look forward to more exciting football and basketball seasons, particularly football. Go Gators.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Madam Speaker, once again I come to the House floor to honor the accomplishment of the University of Florida Gators. On Thursday night, the Gators won their second BCS national football championship in the past 3 years by beating a very good Oklahoma team 24-14. Add to this the back-to-back basketball championships in 2006 and 2007, Gainesville is quickly becoming known as the ``City of Champions.'' In their hard-fought victory, the Gators' defense was able to hold Oklahoma--the highest scoring team in modern football history--to 14 points and 363 total yards. On offense, Tim Tebow showed why he is perhaps the best quarterback in the history of college football by finishing with 231 yards passing and 109 yards rushing. Tebow becomes just the fifth player since 1950 to win two national titles and the Heisman Trophy. I congratulate Coach Urban Meyer and all of the Gator football players for their incredible accomplishments. Go Gators.