Cliff Stearns

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Madam Speaker, I rise today to express my reluctant and continuing opposition to the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act, H.R. 1424--a bill that was hastily crafted, inadequately vetted, and has now been made worse by an infusion of tax extenders and narrowly targeted earmarks, costing taxpayers $812 billion as reported by the Congressional Budget Office. This new bill is still flawed because its basic premise is that taxpayers have to take over these toxic loans from ailing institutions, and Secretary Paulson is still granted the unprecedented authority to purchase almost any troubled asset or financial instrument he deems necessary, effectively allowing him to become a financial dictator. Tax expert Ryan Ellis has rightly stated that with this bill, ``Congress is giving a member of the executive branch virtually unlimited power for the entire economy.'' The bill today is very similar to the legislation that was voted down only a few days ago, but this time it contains frivolous add-ons. With the exception of the necessary increase of the FDIC insurance limit to $250,000, which I am happy to see included, this bill leaves little to be desired for American taxpayers. To be specific, the Senate version of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act that we are voting on today contains both energy and non-energy related tax extender language, targeted earmarks, and mental health parity legislation--provisions which have no business being placed into a bill which is meant to rescue our economy from a financial meltdown. The mental health parity bill that has been thrown into the 440-page Economic Stabilization Act federally imposes more financial responsibility on employers who are already struggling to pay for their employees' health insurance, and will come at an additional cost of $3.8 billion dollars. Further, the bill we are voting on today contains narrowly targeted earmarks which are being described as ``tax relief provisions.'' Buried within this 440-page bill is a temporary increase in the amount of rum excise tax revenue paid to Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands; a 7-year recovery period for motorsports racetrack property; an economic development credit for American Samoa; tax benefits for fishermen and those who suffered from the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill; and even an exemption for certain wooden arrows used by children. These provisions cost millions of dollars and are not paid for under this bill. Also included are nearly $42 billion in tax increases over ten years on oil and gas production, unemployment insurance, and investment income. Madam Speaker, a bailout is still a bailout no matter which way you try to paint it. The American people understand full well that these targeted tax relief provisions were added for the sole purpose of winning votes, and today we are not voting on a clean bill. I firmly believe there are viable, alternative ways to solve our deep-rooted financial problems without having to utilize a taxpayer- funded bailout strategy. Under this bill we have no way of determining how the Treasury Secretary will choose to price the toxic assets he will buy, and pricing them too low or too high will have serious repercussions. Some of our Nation's top economists along with my own colleagues have proposed far better solutions that would protect taxpayers and shore up our markets without rewarding Wall Street's bad behavior and putting us on a precarious path toward Socialism. I have personally proposed providing low-interest loans to these struggling financial institutions combined with giving taxpayers warrants so that they too can gain from any potential upside in our markets. I also support expanding the FDIC to cover all transaction accounts and put in place an oversight board that is separate from the Congress and the administration. The issue of a lack of adequate oversight to protect taxpayers is truly worrisome. Former Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich, points out that a plan which relies on the sole authority of the former chairman of a major investment bank to distribute billons of taxpayer dollars to struggling private sector companies will inevitably lead to corruption and crony capitalism. Further, Harvard political history professor Julian Zelizer has said of Paulson's unprecedented new powers: ``It ranks with the top list of delegations of power, especially since there's some flexibility for Treasury in deciding what to do with all of this money. You don't like to give power over finance and taxes to people who are not democratically accountable like Congress is.'' In a matter of 1 week we have gone from a 2\1/2\-page bill, to a 109- page bill, and now to a 440-page bill, but no matter the increase and attempt at improvement, the bill is still inherently flawed. I think it is unfortunate that we haven't taken the necessary time to more carefully consider our options and to re-evaluate some of the more troubling financial trends that have directly contributed to this historic crisis For example, I question why Congress hasn't addressed the issue of Credit-Default Swaps, CDS--a $62 trillion, unregulated market that threatens to be our next financial crisis. Warren Buffett describes these insurance-like contracts that promise to cover losses on securities in the event of a default as ``financial weapons of mass destruction.'' The CDS market is spiraling out of control as we speak, and the Chairman of the SEC has started to ask Congress for the immediate authority to begin regulating Credit-Default Swaps which are intrinsically linked to subprime loans and exotic securities, but Congress has not acted. Certainly, the challenges that lie ahead of us are numerous and great. We are in the middle of a financial crisis of epic proportions, and I do hope the bill we are voting on today helps to shore up our markets and provide stability, but reluctantly I must oppose it. This legislation has been forced upon us by Secretary Paulson, and I question his ability to objectively implement the Treasury plan given his close ties to major investment banks and Wall Street. Surely Paulson's 25 years spent at Goldman Sachs and eventually becoming its chairman represents an overt conflict of interest. Given the fact that taxpayers are getting toxic goods and there is no real reform of the Community Investment Act which has forced banks to make loans to people who have questionable credit and cannot afford to pay their mortgage back, I am voting against this bill, and I pray and hope the future will afford us a chance to craft a better bill on behalf of the American people.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 669, I was ``unavoidably detained.'' Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Madam Speaker, I rise today to address the historic vote we are holding on the largest government bailout in our Nation's history. I do want to applaud the legislation we have on the floor, because it is much improved from the 2\1/2\-page document put forth by Secretary Paulson. However, while I commend my colleagues on their bipartisan efforts to improve the bill and insure better protections for American taxpayers, I still have strong reservations. Our Nation faces a growing financial crisis that deserves strong Federal intervention, and I had hoped to support a proposal to shore up our Nation's financial markets while protecting taxpayers. However, I believe this legislation takes the wrong course in supporting troubled financial institutions while simultaneously exposing taxpayers to excessive risk. To begin, this bill comes with a $700 billion price tag which will be paid for by the American people. Billions of taxpayer dollars are going to benefit an indiscriminate number of private financial institutions that utilized reckless investment strategies. Even more troubling than the cost of this bailout is a provision that allows foreign banks to participate in the Treasury's purchase plan. Under this bill, a foreign bank, such as the Bank of China, could sell a portfolio of toxic assets to a U.S.-headquartered investment bank and then that bank could sell those same assets to the Treasury Department. Unfortunately, this bill deals exclusively with the asset side of these troubled institutions and does not address the key issue of liability. Furthermore, it is very possible that we will still face the risk of a run on our banks. Having gone through the Savings and Loan crisis as a freshman Member of Congress in the 1980s, I can better understand ways we can address this financial crisis. In putting forward $700 billion in public funds, I would like to see Congress pursue a more deliberative process in identifying the ills affecting our financial markets. We need to hold hearings and call in the best financial and economic experts in the Nation and take a careful look at our alternatives. One plan I recommended was providing low-interest loans to these institutions combined with giving warrants to taxpayers so that they too can gain from any future upside. Furthermore, we should expand the FDIC to cover all transaction accounts and put in place an oversight board that is separate from the Congress and the administration. It is troubling that under this bill the Treasury will be ceded vast powers. Secretary Paulson and successors will decide how $700 billion in taxpayer dollars will be spent, and may buy not only mortgages and mortgage-backed securities, but also any other financial instrument he deems necessary. And while the bill does set up an oversight board, Mr. Paulson would be one of the five members of the Board monitoring his own actions. Thus, if Mr. Paulson wishes to use his authority to buy financial assets not linked to mortgages, he can do so after consulting with the Fed Chairman, but he does not need his approval or the approval of the Oversight Board. Granting a single person this much power over our financial future is not acceptable in a democracy. The bill also gives the SEC Chairman the ability to suspend the accounting rules that require banks to report on the market value of their assets if he believes it is in the best interest of the public. The bill also allows the Government to purchase troubled assets from pension plans and local governments and small banks that serve low and middle-income families. This expands the intended scope of the bill to allow the government to buy the toxic debt of States, cities and municipalities in places like Detroit and Chicago. This begs the question--who is going to make the basic decision on what cities, States and municipalities are going to be rescued? However, the heart of the problem of the bill we are considering today is that the Government should not be deciding the winners and the losers. The investors who made mistakes should be held responsible, and those who navigated the Federal distorted market should be rewarded for their wisdom and prudence. If we, as Americans, believe in the viability of the free market system, we should allow it to work by not perpetuating a continuing bailout strategy that places immense risk on the shoulders of American taxpayers.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Madam Speaker, pursuant to the Republican Leadership standards, I am submitting the following information for publication in the Congressional Record regarding district funding requests as part of H.R. 2638, Consolidated Security, Disaster Assistance and Continuing Appropriations Act. 1. Florida Army National Guard, Regional Training Institute (RTI) Phase IV at Camp Blanding, FL (Department of Defense, Army National Guard). This project is to complete construction of the RTI at the Camp Blanding Training Site, FL. The readiness of the Florida Army National Guard and Air National Guard in general will be affected if the school cannot adequately accomplish its mission to train soldiers. The student quota continues to grow with the need for new training requirements. The new campus will serve the full-time mission of the RTI. The completion of the new campus will allow the school to accept all projected students and to provide the support needed to run the regional school. The new campus will provide the school with the area required to adequately perform its essential mission. It will house, feed, teach, and train all students attending the institute; students are from all fifty states and territories. The school averages 800 students per cycle. 2. Research Support for Nanoscale Research Facility at the University of Florida (RDTE, Navy). The State of Florida, at the University of Florida, has completed the $30M Nanoscale Research Facility to serve as a nexus of interdisciplinary research in nanoscience and technology development. This research facility will provide a scientific forum for research efforts among the Colleges of Engineering, Medicine, Liberal Arts and Sciences, Veterinary Medicine, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, and the Particle Engineering Research Center. 3. Weapons Skills Trainer (OM, Army National Guard). The Florida National Guard has been deeply involved in the Global War on terrorism. More than 8,000 of the 12,000 soldiers and airman in Florida have served on active duty since September 11th and the commitment will continue. Under new mobilization guidelines, soldiers and airman must be fully trained on individual weapons tasks before reporting to their mobilization stations. The Weapons Skills Trainer is a proven system that will increase readiness and substantially reduce training costs. 4. Accelerating Treatment for Trauma Wounds (RDTE, Army). The Army's Medical Advanced Technology program supports applied research to develop materiel that improves survivability and assures better medical treatment outcomes for warfighters wounded in combat and military operations other than war. One area of emphasis is on the development of novel treatments to minimize tissue damage and accelerate restoration of function. The project goal is to evaluate doxycycline gel for its ability to accelerate healing of open wounds among injured U.S. Army soldiers at Walter Reed Army Medical Center when used in conjunction with other good-wound care practices. 5. Marion County Emergency Operations Center (FEMA, Department of Homeland Security). Marion County needs to upgrade its current EOC facilities by adding approximately 27,000 sq. feet to the existing building. This will include a new 911 Dispatch Center and supporting office and technology space for the Sheriffs Office, EMS, County Fire Department, and City of Ocala Fire Department. The upgrade also includes a new room for the Marion County Emergency Operations Center along with office and technology space.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, there is a double standard that is occurring in the wake of the largest government bailout in history. Warren Buffett yesterday announced he will invest $5 billion in Goldman Sachs, the investment bank at which the Secretary of Treasury Paulson used to be the CEO. The struggling investment bank is attempting to raise capital and has wooed Buffett into his plan by offering his company preferred shares in return's for Buffett's bailout investment. And herein lies the double standard. The Treasury Secretary, who happens to have close ties with Goldman Sachs, wants authority to use taxpayer dollars to bail out private financial companies, including his own firm, while taxpayers will get nothing at all in return but bad debt. If taxpayers are going to get stuck bailing out bad debt, shouldn't they get some kind of Buffett deal as well? Clearly this government bailout is fraught with nothing but double standards and conflicts of interest.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. That is very kind, and Dr. Filner knows how much I respect him and have enjoyed working with him on the Veterans' Committee. We have been on trips together, and both our wives appreciate each other and understand our friendship. I think I made my points. The only thing I would say to him, is he advocating that we give veterans benefits to soldiers in Vietnam who are not U.S. citizens? Is he suggesting that new program this afternoon, that we go back and identify all those veterans in Vietnam who are now Vietnam citizens, not U.S. citizens, that may have been pro-America back then?

Mr. STEARNS. If the gentleman would yield, I would just add to that, it is 66 out of 66 because the overview of the Filipino Veterans Benefit Study showed that we authorized $200 million in 1946 for the Filipinos. So actually you are correct, but the United States Government has already done this so this bill here is seeking to do something which has already been done.

Mr. STEARNS. Madam Speaker, I request such time as I may consume. Let me start out in this discussion of this bill, H.R. 6897, that Mr. Filner from San Diego has done a very exceptional job in his assiduous efforts to pass this bill. I admire him for his efforts. I don't all together agree with him, and I will point to that in my speech, but this in no way implies that his efforts aren't appreciated for the Filipinos who fought for us in World War II and for those Filipinos who receive money who are not U.S. citizens because of this bill. I would have to point out that he has said there are no benefits provided for the Filipino veterans. I have here an Overview of Filipino Veterans' Benefits, a report that indicates that, in fact, in 1946, $200 million was authorized to give them benefits. So his statement is not entirely accurate. We do have a report of Congress that shows money was authorized, $200 million in 1946 was worth a lot of money. I think we should put that in perspective before we start discussing this further. As pointed out, it is a lump sum payment to Filipino veterans of World War II subject to appropriations. Now, think about that for a second. There is no money in here authorized for this. This is subject to appropriation. They have to find the money. We don't know where this money, roughly $200 million, is going to come from. I don't agree with the notion frequently put forth that there was a breach of promise put forth to the Filipino veterans by the United States Government, and that we must make some sort of belated payments to them for their service during World War II. The Congressional Research Service, as I pointed out, has provided an excellent objective and nonpartisan report on the Filipino veterans benefits from World War II. It does not, as I pointed out, support the breach of promise theory that we often hear from my distinguished chairman and also, from a lot of Filipino veterans groups. Both the United States and the Philippine Governments are already providing benefits to many Filipino World War II veterans, so they are already getting benefits. This bill is significantly different from the legislation that was previously marked up last July, H.R. 760, the Filipino Veterans Equity Act of 2007, and it also differs from the original language of the Senate-passed version of S. 1315. Both bills utilize funding from overturning the court decision in Hartness v. Nicholson to, among other things, pay pension benefits to Filipino veterans of World War II. At least in that case they did attempt to find some money. So they had a legitimate way to get money to pay for this. That is not true in this bill today. It has taken out discretionary spending left to the appropriators, and the appropriators don't know where they are going to get the money either. It's apparent from the legislation before us that my distinguished chairman took pause before moving forward. He listened, and this is a credit to him, he listened to the veterans service organizations who opposed the bill, his original bill. He listened to his colleagues on the Veterans' Affairs Committee, and then he carefully drafted the bill that we have before us today. It does not take money away from any other veterans group to pay for these funds, and it makes the payment of the lump sum subject to appropriation. This bill would authorize a payment of $15,000 for World War II Filipino veterans who are United States citizens and $9,000 for those who are not citizens of the United States and live in the Philippines. I appreciate the committee accepting our ranking member, Mr. Buyer's amendment to the bill, which provides that payment of the lump-sum benefit would be final and constitute a complete release of any claim against the United States by those recipients that are covered under this legislation. However, World War II Filipino veterans would continue to receive benefits already awarded. During discussions of the previously mentioned Filipino veterans equity bills, which utilized offsets from overturning the Hartness decision, Ranking Member Buyer had staff contact the various veterans organizations regarding the use of these funds. The American Legion, AMVETS, and NAUS, strongly opposed using the Hartness funds to provide for the Filipino veterans. That was then, that was back then. While their positions vary regarding overturning the Hartness decision, there are other organizations such as the Paralyzed Veterans of America, the Military Officers Association of America and the Gold Star Wives of America, believe that there are many higher priorities than additional benefits for Filipino veterans of World War II. Why don't we talk about some of those higher priorities, because this is what the veterans service organizations feel strongly about. If you are going to give this money to the Filipinos, what about the higher priorities of these other people? How about improvements to the Specially Adaptive Housing Grant, the PVA; improvement to the Specially Adaptive Automobile Grant, PVA, increases to the mileage reimbursement rate, PVA and MOAA; increases in supplemental insurance coverage for disabled veterans, MOAA; increases to the DIC rate for American surviving spouses, GSW; increases to the maximum death benefit pension for the surviving widow of a veteran not entitled to a VA compensation, GSW. Why, I would think, would we give $200 million for Filipino veterans who are not even U.S. citizens while not providing a priority for these? Obviously, there are many, many higher priorities that we as a Nation at war should be meeting. We should be devoting our available resources to meeting the needs of our veterans and the returning warriors that are coming back from Afghanistan and from Iraq. Now, during last Wednesday's markup session, Mr. Buyer, the ranking Republican member of the full committee offered, and then he had to withdraw, a second amendment to this bill, which would have authorized $198 million to fund the VA veterans small business loan program that was terminated in 1986. Think of that, we could have, instead of this bill, we could have had the VA veterans small business loan program reenacted for all these veterans coming back from Afghanistan and from Iraq. Surely they could use this to help create jobs and start their own companies and provide for jobs for more Americans. The program authorized VA to either guarantee a loan made by a vendor or make a loan up to $200,000 for a veteran-owned small business. Sounds like a good idea to me. The original program gave preference to disabled veterans, and Mr. Buyer added a preference for members of the National Guard and Reserves, who have been ordered to active duty in support of the global war on terror. Each of us on this committee has veteran constituents who are also small business owners, and many of these veterans are members of the Guard or Reserves. Unfortunately, one of the prices many of these dedicated citizen soldiers have paid is being forced to close their small businesses, or at least seeing their small businesses decline significantly while they are serving on active duty. Obviously this program for small business loans that was terminated in 1986 was good and could have been done at a higher priority than the bill we have this afternoon. So, simply said, by authorizing a loan program for veteran-owned small businesses, we would have been responding to that unintended consequence of their willingness to serve their Nation. While the amendment was withdrawn due to procedural issues, it received such strong interest among the committee members that Mr. Buyer plans to introduce the amendment as a bill, just simply, later this week. We will all have a chance to vote on it, and I encourage any interested Member to contact either the VA Committee, Republican staff, or to cosponsor Mr. Buyer's bill. We should be looking for ways to better assist our Nation's veterans, obviously, and I know you and everybody in this chamber agrees with that, to help returning warriors, instead of settling these questionable claims. I urge my colleagues, when they consider to vote for this bill, to consider the priorities of all the veterans. I, for one, in good conscience, have trouble supporting the passage of this bill, particularly in light of what we are seeing here this week, with the Treasury asking to raise the debt ceiling, asking for $700 billion for Wall Street. There are so many higher priorities for our Nation's veterans and for this bill. As I pointed out, we don't know where the funding for this bill is going to come from. With a price tag of almost 200 million, it's all subject to appropriations. I conclude by saying while Filipinos of U.S. citizenship living in the United States will receive $15,000, we are giving $9,000 to Filipino veterans who are not citizens of the United States. If you take $9,000 based upon the cost of living in the Philippines versus what it is here in the United States, the Filipino veterans at $9,000 are getting a huge sum of money. I can't, in good conscience say that this bill has a high priority than the ones we are talking about, and so I urge my colleague carefully look at this and to take into account the Overview of the Filipino Veterans Benefits report that shows they were authorized money of $200 million in 1946. Indeed, I think if you look at the priorities, you will see there are other priorities we should consider first. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. STEARNS. The time is yours. So I appreciate your consideration here. Actually, you might answer that question.

Mr. STEARNS. This is sort of a compliment in a way. H.R. 760, which you offered, was for roughly $1.4 billion, as I recollect, give or take. This bill is for $198 million. So you are to be commended in your perseverance for trying to pass the bill, you have reduced the amount from $1.4 billion to $198 million. But I would say to you in all respect, is this the timing that you want in the middle of a possible financial meltdown in America? That you want to give funds, taxpayer funds, to people in the Philippines who are not U.S. citizens? I just wonder whether the timing is appropriate here in Congress.

Mr. STEARNS. Madam Speaker, I have no further speakers, so I yield back the balance of my time. General Leave

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Madam Speaker, I request as much time as I may consume. I rise in support of this bill, S. 1315, as amended, the Veterans Benefit Enhancement Act of 2008. It's a modest bill. But it would enhance veterans insurance and housing benefits and improve benefits and services for transitioning for servicemembers. The manager's amendment to this bill would remove the language in the original Senate-passed bill that would have overturned a decision made by the United States Court of Appeals for veterans claims in the case of Hartness v. Nicholson, that held VA must pay a special monthly pension benefit to severely disabled, elderly, homebound and poor wartime veterans pursuant to a law enacted in 2001. I'm pleased that this detrimental provision that would have impacted our most vulnerable veterans, has simply been removed from this bill. That's good. The manager's amendment also removes all mandatory spending provisions in the Senate-passed bill that would have utilized the funding that would have been available if the disabled veterans no longer were to receive their special monthly pensions. Now, what remains is a bill that is a compilation of numerous veteran benefit provisions. Among these, I'd like to highlight just a few that will benefit our servicemembers and our veterans. This bill would ensure that severely disabled servicemembers can receive structural alterations to their homes prior to discharge from active duty. Right now, even if they know they are going to be discharged, they must wait until discharge to receive this very necessary housing benefit. This bill would expand SGLI to include certain members of the Individual Ready Reserve for the first time. It would allow the termination or suspension of cellular telephone contracts upon the request of servicemembers undergoing deployment outside the United States. That is good. And finally, Madam Speaker, the legislation would improve the administration of veterans' education and employment programs and of the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. Madam Speaker, passage of this manager's amendment will provide improved benefits to our Nation's veterans. These heroes have sacrificed so much for our Nation's, freedom and we must ensure that their needs are met. So I urge my colleagues to support the bill as amended. I yield back the balance of my time. General Leave

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, it is also with great concern that I come before my colleagues to address a financial crisis of epic proportions. Our Federal Government has taken drastic measures mainly in the form of a taxpayer-funded bailout in an attempt to put a stop to the complete deterioration of our financial system. Just this weekend, the administration composed a comprehensive bailout to relieve private sector financial institutions and banks of their toxic mortgage assets to the tune of 700 billion taxpayer-backed dollars. This plan increases our excessively high national debt to $11.3 trillion while also allowing foreign banks, which hold U.S. mortgage debt, to benefit from the billions provided by this bailout. This plan constitutes the largest government bailout in history, yet it does nothing to protect the taxpayers. The Secretary of Treasury will have unlimited authority to purchase the most toxic of assets from any number of solvent, private sector financial institutions. Furthermore, this plan comes in the wake of last week's $85 billion bailout of major insurance company American International Group and the Treasury's $200 billion bailout of out-of-control GSES Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Mr. Speaker, these bailouts come at a great price and expose American taxpayers to vast financial risk. Through these bailouts, our Federal Government is effectively risking hard-earned taxpayers' dollars to protect private sector companies that utilized reckless investment strategies with little regard to the consequences. Clearly, our financial and regulatory structures have failed us, and now the looming question on everybody's mind is, who is next? Mr. Speaker, bailout after bailout is not a strategy, and it is certainly not a sustainable cure to our financial ills. These bailouts are an assault on American capitalism and have introduced a large degree of financial hazard into our economic system. As an elected official, I am worried about this weekend's comprehensive bailout plan that gives the Secretary of Treasury unprecedented authority and virtually no oversight, aside from having to submit semiannual reports to Congress. This is unacceptable, and we must do something to protect taxpayers before adjourning this Congress. Several years ago I became concerned with the financial picture of both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, when as a member of the oversight subcommittee of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, I participated in the Enron hearings, and learned of the fraud and abuses perpetrated through accounting procedures. Moreover, I heard how Freddie Mac had also misapplied the Financial Accounting Standard Board's (FASB) standards for derivatives and hedging in its financial statement. In 2003, as Chairman of the Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection Subcommittee, I held hearings on FASB accounting standards, including a hearing on Freddie Mac's fraudulent accounting practices. I planned on holding additional hearings on Freddie Mac's restatement, and developing legislation on accounting standards when jurisdiction over FASB was suddenly stripped away from my subcommittee and transferred to the Financial Services committee--seemingly the result of intensive lobbying efforts on Freddie's part. I firmly believe, my colleagues, we need to establish congressional oversight of the Treasury, perhaps in the form of a commission that can monitor the transfer of this money, so that we may have better accountability and transparency as the government proceeds in bailing out company after company. Additionally, we need better regulatory structures, and we should institute immediate controls to prevent massive short-selling of stocks which only further corrodes the market. And, further, we must ensure that the CEOs of these solvent, private companies do not walk away with millions of dollars in severance packages at the expense of taxpayers. Why not give taxpayers warrants for the upside in these companies that are being bailed out by taxpayers so that they benefit from this sacrifice? Unfortunately, this plan would put taxpayers at a risk for losses that belong to those companies that recklessly sought profits-- profits for the stockholders and executives through dividends, salaries, bonuses and presumed stock appreciation. I stress to my colleagues today, this is not a case of partisan politics. Our constituents' 401(k)s are at risk. The nationalization of private assets is inherently un-American. As free enterprising Americans, we need to let our markets determine the winners and the losers, not the United States Treasury. Economists say we are in the midst of the greatest financial crisis since the 1930s, and yet the Democratic leadership intends on ending this 110th Congress on Friday. Mr. Speaker, we have more work to do. We should not adjourn this Congress until we have a set of real solutions to work with, and these solutions should not involve risking any additional taxpayer dollars. I firmly believe that our Congress has a bigger role to play in ensuring that bailout and bankruptcy are not words the American people get used to hearing. We owe at least that much to the people who put us here. The plan developed this weekend puts taxpayer dollars at risk with little or no benefit to those who pay the taxes, and I stand here today to firmly oppose it. The Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. is a likely candidate to seek a taxpayer-funded ``loan'' or bailout from the government. This is particularly worrisome, given the fact that the FDIC exists for the sole purpose of insuring the deposits in our Nation's banks. If the FDIC's insurance fund continues to slip as bank failures persist, we may be facing another Treasury rescue.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Madam Speaker, the title of my 1-minute is called ``Taxpayers Sacrifice All and Receive Nothing.'' The plan that developed this weekend for a comprehensive bailout of private sector financial institutions put taxpayers at risk with little or no benefit to those who pay the taxes. This plan will put taxpayers at a risk for losses that belong to those companies that recklessly sought profits, profits for the stockholders and executives through dividends, salaries, bonuses and presumed stock appreciation. Instead, taxpayers who assume this risk should also enjoy an equity premium that goes beyond the return of their funds with interest for this bailout. The taxpayers, after being awarded interest from their funds, as if they had invested in bonds, should have warrants as an equity kicker to sweeten their deal, giving them premium for their risk. Any institutional lender would demand as much and more. In this way, the taxpayers could share in the upside success of the companies that they rescue.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, House Resolution 1287 would provide commendation to the Honor Flight Network, its volunteers and donors for enabling World War II veterans to travel to our Nation's Capital to see the World War II Memorial created in their honor. Honor Flight Network was initially conceived in 2004 by Earl Morse, a physician's assistant and retired Air Force captain, to simply honor veterans he has taken care of for the past 27 years. Its sole purpose was to fly veterans to Washington, D.C. to visit the memorials dedicated to honor their sacrifice. Today, Honor Flight Network has flown more than 800 World War II veterans to the memorial. It is a grassroots, nonprofit organization, and currently operates successfully in 30 States. My office has been involved in setting up three of these special honor flights for World War II veterans, and in June of 2007 I had the pleasure of partaking in one of these events myself. The Honor Flight Network relies on support from volunteers and the funding from donors. These individuals help us to honor our veterans in return for all they have sacrificed to make this a better world. Without the support of our volunteers, we would not be able to provide our heroes with the opportunity to fly to Washington, DC to see the memorial created in their honor. In reviewing the current legislative priorities for the Honor Flight Network, it is evident that their efforts have continued to supply support and recognition to World War II veterans through democracy. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support House Resolution 1287. Madam Speaker, I have no further speakers and yield back the balance of my time. General Leave

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

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

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I also with my colleague from California rise in support of Senate bill 2339, a bill that was brought out recently to designate the Veterans Affairs Outpatient Clinic in Alpena, Michigan as the Lieutenant Colonel Clement C. Van Wagoner Veterans Affairs Clinic. As pointed out by Dr. Filner, this is a very exceptional individual. Serving in the Army during World War II, LTC Van Wagoner was in combat for 600 days. He was severely wounded on five different occasions and was only one of 32 survivors of the 1,800 soldiers who landed with the 1st Infantry Division at Omaha Beach on D-day. And many of us in this body have been to Omaha Beach. I was there in the 50th anniversary and saw the number of graves there and saw the arduous task involved. And we saw the film that also showed the amount of work, the number of people that fought and the people who survived. And this is one of them. LTC Van Wagoner continued to serve his country even after World War II in the Michigan National Guard until he retired in 1967. Now, among the honors he received for his service was the Combat Infantry Badge. That is saying something for him right there. But he also received seven Bronze Stars, seven, four Silver Stars, and obviously five Purple Hearts because being in combat for 600 days and continuing to serve his country, it is not altogether surprising that he would continue to be wounded. So this is an extraordinary individual. And this bill before us today is naming this clinic after him. I would say to my colleague from California, perhaps in the future, under our Veterans' Affairs Committee's rules for bipartisan naming policy for facilities, it would appear that next year we perhaps should reorganize the committee for the 111th Congress and revisit the naming policy, because obviously I think this person should be named under it, but I think under the strict guidelines we've established, it is not quite clear that this would be a naming facility for him. But under the circumstances, this fellow is very well qualified. I would just remind the chairman that we need to do that. Mr. Speaker, our actions to approve this bill today will send it to the White House for signature. I urge my colleagues to approve this measure. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise today in support of H.R. 1594, a bill to designate the Department of Veterans Affairs Outpatient Clinic in Hermitage, Pennsylvania, as the Michael A. Marzano Department of Veterans Affairs Outpatient Clinic. I appreciate the efforts of my colleague Phil English, and obviously Congressman Jason Altmire who just recently spoke, and their efforts to push this legislation. Obviously this is a very important symbolic piece of legislation, and I think it reminds us of what occurred. I will defer to Congressman English for further comments on this legislation in a few moments. As pointed out, Marine Sergeant Michael Marzano, a servicemember from Mercer County, Pennsylvania, was killed in action on May 7, 2005, while deployed in service to his Nation in Iraq. Reports from the field indicate his bravery and leadership while protecting a hospital, and many lives were saved due to his sacrifice. Sergeant Marzano was the first marine from Mercer County to give his life for freedom in Iraq. Mr. Speaker, this legislation has strong bipartisan support and also support from the local and State veterans communities, as well as support from the entire Pennsylvania delegation. As pointed out, I thank Chairman Filner and also Ranking Member Buyer for foregoing the existing criteria to move this legislation expeditiously forward. It is right that we honor the memory and service of a warrior such as Michael Marzano by naming the Department of Veterans Affairs Outpatient Clinic in his honor. So I urge my colleagues to support the bill, which is H.R. 1594. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. English).

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers at this time. I do want to thank Mr. English for his presentation, his arduous work in getting this to the floor expeditiously, and, obviously, Chairman Filner and Chairman Buyer for their efforts too. Mr. Speaker, I yield back my time. General Leave

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I rise also in support of H.R. 5736, a bill to designate the Department of Veterans Affairs Outpatient Clinic in Gadsden, Alabama, as the Colonel Ola Lee Mize Veterans Clinic. I will shortly, as has been pointed out by the chairman, recognize the bill's primary sponsor, Mr. Robert Aderholt of Alabama, for him to more fully discuss Col. Mize's contributions to our Nation. They are indeed very impressive. While serving as a master sergeant during the Korean War, his company was defending an outpost when the enemy launched a heavy attack. Sergeant Mize rescued a wounded comrade at a listening post and returned to the main position where he established a defensive position and in turn inflicted many, many enemy casualties. Taking the offensive, Sergeant Mize held off the enemy attacks. He organized an effective counterattack and directed artillery fire. He was awarded the Medal of Honor for his valorous conduct and unflinching courage, upholding the most noble traditions of our military service. Mr. Mize's military career did not end just in Korea. In the early 1960s, Mr. Mize joined the Army Special Forces, better known as the Green Berets. He spent another 20 years in the Green Berets, including time spent commanding the Special Forces School at Fort Bragg. And he served nearly 4 years of duty in Vietnam where he was shot three times. Col. Mize retired from the military after Vietnam, having been awarded a number of decorations in addition to the Medal of Honor. So it's altogether right that we honor one of our Nation's heroes by naming this facility in Gadsden, Alabama after him. At this point I yield as much time as he may consume to the author of the bill, Mr. Aderholt of Alabama.

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I'm also pleased to be here in support of this bill, H. Res. 1335, a resolution celebrating a 120-year partnership between the Federal Government and the State veterans homes. My colleagues, following the Civil War, a number of States independently established State veterans homes in order to meet the large needs of the veterans that were indigent, a lot of them were disabled. They returned from the war, but they were unable to establish a livelihood for themselves, earn enough money. They needed care. And these were veterans who sacrificed their lives in support of their country and were severely disabled and in need of help. While the Federal Government operated national homes for disabled Union soldiers, the total number of veterans needing care was simply overwhelmingly. So in August, 1888, Federal sharing was formally authorized to help alleviate the burden that was placed upon the States. In 1952, the National Association of State Veterans Homes was established to help move this along. Their primary mission is to ensure that each and every eligible United States veteran receives the benefits, services, long-term health care and respect which they have earned in their service to their country and their sacrifice for our country. Working through a Memorandum of Understanding with the Department of Veterans Affairs, the organization also ensures that no veteran is in need or distress, and that the level of care and service provided by State veterans homes meet or exceed the highest standards we have in our health care system today. Today, State veterans homes are one of the largest long-term providers in this country. In the State of Florida, for example, we currently have six State veterans nursing homes. We expect another one to open in St. Augustine in 2009. This is important because Florida is a State with ever-increasing veterans coming in, and we need to provide for them. There are currently 135 State veterans homes throughout the United States with more than 30,000 total beds. The service these organizations provide to our Nation's veterans is obviously invaluable. And I commend the State veterans homes on their 120-year partnership with the government to provide care to our veterans community with a very high standard. I urge my colleagues to support this wonderful bill.

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