Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, in order to pay for a government-run health care plan, Democrats obviously plan to cut Medicare. They call it a ``savings,'' but it is cutting essential programs and services that are now available for our seniors.

I'm particularly concerned about the $117 billion in cuts in the Medicare Advantage program. In my district, there are over 20,000 seniors that are enrolled in Medicare Advantage. You cannot expect that they will continue to have the same level of coverage after you cut this program by $117 billion. Hasn't that been the President's promise all this time? If you like your insurance, you can keep your insurance?

My constituents want to keep their insurance coverage through Medicare Advantage. But cutting $117 billion will cause providers to simply exit the Medicare Advantage program, reducing options for these seniors and preventing them from keeping the insurance of their choice.

Madam Speaker, the Special Inspector General for the Troubled Asset Relief Program, Neil Barofsky, recently released an alarming audit which revealed Secretary of the Treasury Tim Geithner's complete lack of oversight and total mismanagement of American International Group's (AIG) distribution of millions in bonus payments following the company's $180 billion taxpayer bailout.

Just think about this: U.S. taxpayers own 80 percent of AIG, and AIG is using taxpayer money to pay themselves huge bonuses. Let's examine Mr. Geithner's role as Secretary of the Treasury and his role with AIG.

Mr. Geithner, as we will recall, was President of the Federal Reserve of New York prior to becoming Secretary of the Treasury in January of this year. Interestingly enough, on September 29, 2008, during Mr. Geithner's time as president, AIG officials briefed a senior vice president at the New York Fed about the details of AIG's deferred compensation plan, bonuses, and retention payments for its Financial Products group. AIG even e-mailed the New York Fed official copies of its compensation plans. Mr. Geithner was president of the New York Fed at the time the bank knew about the bonuses, and yet he maintains that he was ``not apprised of the specifics.''

Please, Mr. Secretary, just admit you knew about the bonuses and you were just trying to protect your friends on Wall Street at taxpayers' expense.

Now let's fast forward to March of this year. Mr. Geithner is now Secretary of the Treasury, and the news breaks to the American people about AIG--the company that is ``too big to fail,'' and in need of $180 billion in taxpayer bailout--would be distributing $165 million in retention payments to employees of its financial products subsidiary. Now, this unit, I will remind everybody, of course, is the same entity responsible for writing the credit default swap policies that contributed directly to the company's near collapse. Yet again, we have Secretary Geithner claiming that he only found out about the AIG bonuses on March 10, 2009, just 3 days before they were paid.

Please, Mr. Secretary, if a company is in bankruptcy, you don't give out bonuses.

Given that sources at the Federal Reserve have stated that ``Treasury staff was informed that the March 15 bonus payment date was upcoming,'' surely Mr. Secretary, as head of the U.S. Department of the Treasury, you must have known about the payments. It is even harder to believe in light of the Special Inspector General's report which notes ``Federal Reserve Board of New York officials e-mailed the Treasury's internal counsel, legal counsel, the amounts and timing of the AIG financial products retention award'' plan.

So even his legal counsel knew about it.

Madam Speaker, everybody at the Federal Reserve knew about the AIG bonus issue, and officials at the Treasury surely knew. Yet somehow, the head of our Treasury Department and former head of the New York Fed at the time of the AIG bailout, said he was completely in the dark.

Please, Mr. Secretary, just admit you knew all the about the bonuses.

Mr. Barofsky's audit concludes that ``This, coupled with Treasury's subsequent limited communications with the Federal Reserve Board of New York with respect to executive compensation, has meant that the Secretary of the Treasury invested $40 billion of taxpayers' funds in AIG, designed AIG's contractual executive compensation restrictions and helped manage the government's majority stake in AIG for several months, all without having any detailed information about the scope of AIG's very substantial, and very controversial, executive compensation obligations.''

Please, Mr. Secretary.

It should also be noted that former Secretary Paulson was also complicit in the AIG bonus mismanagement. It was under Mr. Paulson's watch, after all, that the government acquired this huge stake in AIG in the first place. And it was Mr. Paulson's decision to bail out AIG, which happened to owe billions to Goldman Sachs, while subsequently letting Goldman Sachs' main competitor, Lehman Brothers, fail.

The American people were rightly outraged when they found out that AIG would be paying out millions in bonuses despite needing a $180 million taxpayer bailout. But it doesn't stop there. The audit also revealed that even kitchen assistants and elevator operators got bonuses over $7,000. So clearly, not all of the AIG bonuses were contractually obligated as the company's executives claim. The headaches just keep coming.

This is what happens when high-ranking government officials such as Mr. Paulson and Mr. Geithner have clear conflicts of interest and are trusted to manage billions in taxpayers' money. Mr. Paulson and Mr. Geithner's close ties to Wall Street are just too close for comfort for the American people and their tax dollars.

Mr. Speaker, I rise this morning to address my concerns as a result of the Special Inspector General for the Troubled Asset Relief Program's audit of the capital injections provided to Bank of America and other major banks through the taxpayer-funded TARP program.

Neil Barofsky, the Special Inspector General for the TARP, revealed yesterday in his official report that high-ranking Federal officials, including former Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and current Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, misled the American people about the true financial state of Bank of America and eight other initial TARP recipients that received over $125 billion in this bailout.

We were told last October that the Treasury Department needed over $700 billion, along with unprecedented and vast new authority, in order to stave off a total collapse of our financial system. They were going to buy the so-called toxic loans. Ten days later, after the bill passed, they changed their strategy and decided to give TARP funds to financial institutions.

We were told last October that this $700 billion would enable the Secretary of Treasury to go and restore liquidity and stability and to our financial system through a series of capital injections into these financial institutions. And, most importantly, we were told last October that the Federal Government was going to inject this money into ``healthy'' financial institutions under the rationale that propping up these ``healthy'' banks would enable them to lend money and unfreeze the credit market so that none of the other major banks and private financial institutions would collapse. Almost exactly a year later, we have found out that the American people were not given the full truth.

The nine initial TARP recipients, which received $125 billion in TARP funds, were actually not the stable, healthy institutions that Mr. Paulson and Mr. Bernanke claimed they were. And, as we all well know today, none of these institutions were able to increase their lending activities.

Bank of America and Citigroup, in particular, actually ended up needing billions more in bailout money than they were initially given. Meanwhile, struggling financial institutions such as Merrill Lynch, which was on the verge of collapse months before the enactment of TARP, were largely ignored until the now infamous and coerced acquisition of Merrill Lynch by the not-so-healthy Bank of America.

Neil Barofsky's audit blankly states that ``By stating expressly that the 'healthy' institutions would be able to increase overall lending, Treasury may have created unrealistic expectations about the institutions' condition and their ability to increase lending.'' The Federal Reserve, along with the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, also described the nine original TARP recipients as ``healthy.'' Privately, however, other Federal regulators and government officials were concerned that some of these institutions were actually in a state of near financial collapse, bankruptcy. These institutions collectively held more than $11 trillion in banking assets, or about 75 percent of total U.S. bank assets, as of mid 2008.

Special Inspector General Neil Barofsky's audit concludes that ``government officials should be particularly careful, even in a time of crisis, of describing their actions in an accurate manner'' and that ``inaccurate statements could have unintended long-term consequences that could damage the trust that the American people have in their government.'' Unfortunately, the real damage has already been done. The American people continually put their trust in high-ranking Federal officials to do what is best for the good of the people in our country. However, the reality is that most Americans, including the majority of my constituents in the Sixth Congressional District of Florida, were already and still continue to be outraged by the $700 billion bailout of Wall Street.

Finding out that they were also misled about the rationale and the criteria in which the Treasury Department, the Federal Reserve and other Federal regulators selected Bank of America and eight other institutions to be the first recipients of taxpayer-funded TARP money does nothing to lessen the concern or infuse confidence into the future decision surrounding financial regulatory reform. Many Americans these days feel like Washington is the problem, not the solution. This is an unfortunate perception that must be changed. Trust in our Federal regulators must be restored in the American people's minds for, as Thomas Jefferson once said, ``Follow truth as the only safe guide and eschew error, which bewilders us in one false consequence after another.''

I thank my colleague, and I thank my Democrat colleague for recognizing this important bill, H. Res. 650. The history of this country and the history of country-western music sort of work together. The motto of the United States is ``E Pluribus Unum,'' meaning out of many, one. It depicts the history and origin of this great country. Now, my colleagues, the history of country music resembles very similar characteristics, with the many styles that are prevalent today. As mentioned earlier, country music can trace its roots all the way back to the folk tradition of the British Isles and the Celts of Central and Western Europe.

However, here in the United States, early immigrants as well as African slaves contributed to a new distinct style that continued to develop through the 18th and 19th centuries. And as mentioned, in 1922, the first

country music performance was broadcast on the radio, and it was a song entitled ``Sallie Gooden'' performed by fiddler, A.C. Robertson. It was clear at that point that America had created a brand new sound, and it started to take off.

And we know that the influence of American country music is pervasive. Its popularity has extended beyond just the southern part of the United States or the Appalachian Mountains to everywhere in America, all over the world, in fact, with large fan bases in Canada and Australia. And there's many substyles of country-western music, like bluegrass, folk and gospel. They've all combined to provide a unique instrumentation of country-western music with powerful vocals to create one of a kind sounds.

As mentioned, Elvis Presley was one of these. Also Garth Brooks. I think most households will recognize those two names. Elvis Presley has all his faithful fans. In fact, he's imitated in Las Vegas all the time, and he has a charitable foundation that works to provide education and care for those in need. And of course, Garth Brooks, with over 128 million records sold, remains the top-selling solo artist in United States history. The live performances of Garth Brooks set the standard for musicians of all styles in all the world. He continues to use the power of his music to help others, in fact, performing a 2008 charity concert to raise money for victims of the California wildfires.

So having knowledge of history makes us more appreciative of what we have today in country-western music. Willie Nelson states that country music is where you tell your life stories. The history of country music is a great story; it's an American story. I should know. I had the opportunity to manage a Quality Inn, a 156-room hotel, and we had a restaurant, and we had a great country-western bar which I named the Ocala Corral. We taught the two-step dance, and I would bring in bands every 2 weeks--and, perhaps if it was a hot band, it would be six weeks--from Memphis, Tennessee.

And I'd bring these talented bands down to Ocala, Florida. We'd teach the two-step. The number of people that'd come in for a special band, when I hit the right country-western music talent correctly, would just storm the hotel. These bands would provide wonderful entertainment and provided a popular spot for country-western music in Ocala, Florida, which is the heart of Florida, really.

So my colleagues, I rise today in honor of country-western music, its heritage, and hope you all join me and celebrate the impact it's had on our American life.

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

Madam Speaker, 8 years ago, in the wake of the worst terrorist attack that we have ever faced in America's history, the United States sent troops to Afghanistan. These troops were sent to accomplish a difficult mission, but an achievable mission, and despite the gains that have been made to date, our mission has not been properly resourced and executed.

As such, 8 years later, the fight rages on and terrorists are still plotting to hijack our planes, blow up our bridges, wreak havoc on our cities, and murder innocent people. So the threat has not changed. Afghanistan remains a crucial theater in the war against terrorism and extremists who seek to destroy our way of life, and it deserves our utmost attention and adequate resources.

To his credit, President Obama recognizes that the war in Afghanistan does need these greater resources, but some within his administration and party are advocating a ``small footprint'' strategy, calling for a reduction in the number of U.S. troops on the ground and a sole focus on al Qaeda only, instead of on the Taliban-led insurgent coalition.

But a ``small footprint'' strategy did not work in Iraq. What did work was a robust counterinsurgency strategy backed by the surge of American troops. In fact, it was this strong presence of American soldiers in Iraq that encouraged Iraqis to come forward with valuable intelligence, which in turn led to more effective targeting of al Qaeda and other insurgent groups.

My colleagues, this can be done in Afghanistan, but it also must include support from our European allies and other freedom-loving countries who desire to rid the world of terrorism.

General McChrystal, the U.S. Commander in Afghanistan, is advocating an expanded military effort within a new counterinsurgency strategy that focuses on protecting Afghans from the intimidation tactics of the Taliban through a troop surge.

General McChrystal is a highly capable and accomplished officer with extensive counterinsurgency experience. Yesterday he warned that we need more forces within the next year and that without them, our mission in Afghanistan will ``likely result in failure.''

When it comes to military strategy, we should listen to those who know firsthand what the situation on the ground is in Afghanistan. But, my colleagues, we must also look at the political infrastructure of Afghanistan and be sure its political leaders are representing the best interests of the Afghan people and that political corruption is eliminated.

It is clear that the Afghan military needs our help--and our numbers. But currently there are only 173,000 men in the Afghan army and police. Compare that with Iraq. In that country, which is smaller and less populated, there are over 600,000 Iraqi army and police. Clearly we need to train more Afghan military personnel.

Unfortunately, though, for the past 8 years Afghanistan has not been a properly resourced war. The new strategy proposed by General McChrystal and General David Petraeus is focused on expanding and improving Afghan forces with better training and embedded advisers and forming a true partnership and trust between Afghan units and American units, with the end goal of growing the Afghan army and police to the point where U.S. troops could be reduced dramatically.

But before we put more American troops in Afghanistan, we need a more deliberate plan with the Afghan military that includes participation by our allies and adequate support from the Afghan people and legitimate political leaders.

The reality of the situation on the ground in Afghanistan is that it would take another 2 years to expand Afghanistan's forces to around 300,000 personnel. Experts suggest at least 360,000 Afghan troops and police are needed to adequately fight the counterinsurgency and to effectively police the country's 33 million inhabitants. This is the key to our success.

One thing we must not forget is that a withdrawal at this critical juncture would destabilize Pakistan, an ally in a region of instability and a country in possession of nuclear weapons.

So, my colleagues, we need a new strategy that can work, but this new strategy can work only if we ask for patience from the American people and the knowledge that a mission of this magnitude and importance is not going to be won overnight or from afar. The sacrifices we make overseas now will prevent another 9/11-style attack here at home in the future.

Madam Speaker, one year ago yesterday, a major investment bank, Lehman Brothers, declared bankruptcy, a move which sent the Dow Jones tumbling 500 points and simply led to a chain of events in which the Federal Government nationalized AIG with a $189 billion bailout. The American auto industry asked Congress to authorize help, hundreds of billions of dollars, to bail out them. Banks did the same thing. Private institutions across this country asked for support.

Today, just 1 year later, our Federal Government is in control of practically every sector of our economy, having spent almost $800 billion or 5 percent of our GDP on a stimulus package that was pork- laden and is still working to create jobs and boost this economy. And, most alarmingly, nothing has been done to cure the culture of bailouts that our government, with the help of the Federal Reserve, has continued to perpetuate. Bailout after bailout is not a strategy for economic recovery.

My colleagues, we are at a critical point in our Nation's economic history. Financial regulatory reform proposals are being discussed here in Congress and across this country. We all agree that reform is certainly needed, but, unfortunately, the plan put forth by the Obama administration is not the kind of reform that will put an end to this culture of bailouts, nor will it bring transparency to the opaque and ever, ever expanding Federal Reserve. In fact, it does just the opposite.

In June of this year, Treasury Secretary Geithner unveiled the administration's plan for financial regulatory reform, and the cornerstone of the proposal is centered on ceding vast new powers to the Federal Reserve as a means of preventing future financial crises. But this overreliance on the Federal Reserve is unwise.

History shows us that in times the Fed saved us from one crisis, it inadvertently instigated another one. In 1913 when the Fed was founded, it was intentionally set up to serve as an institution that could help cushion the blow when banking crises occurred. However, the problem with an institution that is designed to insulate banks from the consequences of their own poor investment decisions is that it also inadvertently encourages these same banks to keep taking unwise risks, thereby laying the groundwork for a vicious cycle of bailout after bailout.

In fact, every time there is a potential financial crisis, the Federal Open Market Committee quickly cuts short-term interest rates. These cuts have become larger over time, as evidenced by our current zero percent interest rates. And, more importantly, these cuts essentially function as a bailout to those banks that have run into financial problems. Banks know they can count on the Fed to lower interest rates during times of financial distress, and markets know the Fed is always prepared to provide loose credit to financiers facing big losses.

Now, what lessons have the banks learned from the financial crisis? The truth is that if they get into trouble, the Fed will be there to lend unlimited amounts of money at extremely low interests rates. So where is the motivation then for curbing risky investment behavioral by these banks? The only one on the proverbial financial hook under a current Federal bailout system is you, the taxpayer.

Yesterday, President Obama gave a speech on financial reform at Federal Hall on Wall Street. Ironically, Federal Hall is where the founders of our great Nation once bitterly argued over how much the government should control the national economy.

In his speech, the President warned Wall Street that they shouldn't ignore the lessons from the past financial and current financial crisis. They shouldn't become complacent and expect future bailouts. Yet the financial regulatory reform, the plan the President's administration is putting forth, calls for expanding the powers of the Federal Reserve, and the Fed is essentially a bailout machine for the financial sector. Clearly there is a discrepancy between the President's rhetoric and the reality of the policies.

In 55 B.C., the great Roman statesman Cicero wisely said, ``The budget should be balanced, the treasury should be refilled, public debt should be reduced, the arrogance of officialdom should be tempered and controlled, and assistance to foreign lands should be curtailed, lest Rome become bankrupt.''

My colleagues, looking back on the one-year anniversary of the Lehman Brothers bankruptcy, we would do well to heed Cicero's advice and seek out financial reform policies that will steer us away from the practice of bailouts and the policies that will bankrupt future generations. My colleagues, America is too great a country to not learn from its past mistakes.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to the Republican Leadership standards on earmarks, I am submitting the following information regarding earmarks I have received in the Defense Appropriations Act, the Labor, Health and Human Services and Education Appropriaiotns Act and the Transportation and Housing and Urban Development Appropriations Act.

Requesting Member: Congressman Cliff Stearns

Bill Number: H.R. 3326

Account: OP,A

Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Florida National Guard

Address of Requesting Entity: 82 Marine Street, St. Augustine, FL 32084

Description of Request: I have secured $5,000,000 by the Florida National Guard at Camp Blanding to install a Regional Emergency Response Network that would provide cellular service during the crucial hours after a disaster occurs. This would allow first responders to communicate with already existing hand held equipment thus providing a much quicker and focused coordinated recovery effort. I certify that neither I nor my spouse has any financial interest in this project.

Requesting Member: Congressman Cliff Stearns

Bill Number: H.R. 3326

Account: RDTE,A

Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Nanotherapeutics

Address of Requesting Entity: 13859 Progress Boulevard, Suite 300, Alachua, FL 32615

Description of Request: I have secured $2,000,000 for Nanotherapeutics to evaluate NanoFUSE for its ability to expedite the healing of open bone fractures among injured U.S. soldiers. I certify that neither I nor my spouse has any financial interest in this project.

Requesting Member: Congressman Cliff Stearns

Bill Number: H.R. 3326

Account: RDTE,A

Legal Name of Requesting Entity: University of Florida

Address of Requesting Entity: 229 Tigert Hall, Post Office Box 113157, Gainesville, FL 32611

Description of Request: I have secured $2,750,000 for the University of Florida. Working in cooperation with the Army Natick Soldier Center, UF/IFAS CFDR will use the funds to manage a multidisciplinary program to identify and demonstrate wireless technologies such as radio frequency identification (RFID) in a simulated perishables supply chain. This project will address a critical area to the delivery of optimum quality combat rations and other perishable products: Wireless technologies will be coupled with various environmental and bio-sensors in order to accurately capture and transmit environmental storage and product quality data, and programs developed to automatically calculate in real time the remaining shelf life of combat rations and other perishable products. I certify that neither I nor my spouse has any financial interest in this project.

Requesting Member: Congressman Cliff Stearns

Bill Number: H.R. 3326

Account: RDTE,AF

Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Florida Institute for Human and Machine Cognition

Address of Requesting Entity: 15 Southeast Osceola Avenue, Ocala, FL 34471

Description of Request: I have secured $1,000,000 for the Florida Institute for Human and Machine Cognition. Many military scenarios ranging from combat operations to search and rescue can benefit significantly from teams of humans, robots, and computers that collaborate and coordinate together to solve a problem. This project will provide an innovative solution to the collaboration and coordination problem by tying together computers and humans into a single, collaborating system by virtue of a single program that rapidly moves between all the computers in the system. By making the program move fast enough, the approach creates the illusion of each computer running the same program all the time. Having a single program greatly simplifies the complexity of developing a solution for coordination and collaboration while at the same time improving the ability to debug, verify, and validate the solution. Furthermore, this approach will allow the system to be more robust, resilient, predictable, and efficient when compared to other approaches. I certify that neither I nor my spouse has any financial interest in this project.

Requesting Member: Congressman Cliff Stearns

Bill Number: H.R. 3288

Account: Federal Transit Administration, Bus and Bus Facilities

Legal Name of Requesting Entity: City of Gainesville, FL

Address of Requesting Entity: 200 East University Avenue, Gainesville, FL 32501

Description of Request: I have secured $750,000 for the City of Gainesville. The funding will be used by the City of Gainesville for bus replacement. I certify that neither I nor my spouse has any financial interest in this project.

Requesting Member: Congressman Cliff Stearns

Bill Number: H.R. 3293

Account: HHS, HRSA

Legal Name of Requesting Entity: University of Florida

Address of Requesting Entity: 229 Tigert Hall, Post Office Box 113157, Gainesville, FL 32611

Description of Request: I have secured $350,000 for the University of Florida for facililties and equipment. I certify that neither I nor my spouse has any financial interest in this project.

Requesting Member: Congressman Cliff Stearns

Bill Number: H.R. 3293

Account: DOE, Higher Education

Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Santa Fe College

Address of Requesting Entity: 3000 NW 83rd Street, Gainesville, FL 32606

Description of Request: I have secured $450,000 for Santa Fe College. The funding will used to establish a Clinical Laboratory Sciences Program at Santa Fe College. Alachua County is home to the largest cluster of bioscience companies in the state of Florida. I certify that neither I nor my spouse has any financial interest in this project.

Requesting Member: Congressman Cliff Stearns

Bill Number: H.R. 3293

Account: HHS, HRSA

Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Santa Fe College

Address of Requesting Entity: 3000 NW 83rd Street, Gainesville, FL 32606

Description of Request: I have secured $150,000 for Santa Fe College. The funding will used to construct an additional 40,000 square feet of classroom space at the new Alachua Emerging Technologies Center. This Center will house the new Clinical Laboratory Sciences program and a Biotechnology program. I certify that neither I nor my spouse has any financial interest in this project.

Requesting Member: Congressman Cliff Stearns

Bill Number: H.R. 3293

Account: DOE, Elementary & Secondary Education

Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Alachua County, FL

Address of Requesting Entity: 12 South East 1st Street, Gainesville,

Madam Speaker, last week marked the eighth anniversary of 9/11. Congress should honor the memory of that tragedy by solidifying its homeland security agenda. That means taking the right steps to keep the Nation safe, free and prosperous. At the same time, Congress should resist initiatives that do not actually improve security and impair international trade.

The international maritime community has long voiced their concerns with the blanket application of the 9/11 law mandating 100 percent scanning of all U.S.-bound containers from more than 700 ports around the world. The countries that have raised concern include United States allies such as the United Kingdom, Germany, Japan, the Netherlands, New Zealand and Singapore.

H.R. 1, implementing the 9/11 Commission Recommendations Act of 2007, called the public's attention to issues of supply chain security and the potential threats faced by this Nation and all of those with a stake in this supply chain.

One hundred percent container scanning as a security tool may seem like an appealing way to ensure container security, but it is fraught with various operational and technical challenges. In addition, it provides a false sense of security, as the effectiveness of the analysts become degraded, given that there will be information overload and desensitization of the analysts.

Requiring 100 percent scanning of all in-bound sea containers, more than 11 million containers annually, may be well-intentioned, but it is not feasible, given the current technology. A 100 percent scanning requirement could simply strangle commerce, have a significantly damaging impact on American manufacturing and cost a lot of jobs.

The international flow of containers will also be slowed as a result of the severe bottleneck in busy ports. Similarly, U.S. ports such as Long Beach, New Jersey and Los Angeles will have their congestion problems exacerbated if the international maritime community makes similar reciprocal demands on the United States.

One other important point: The backup in cargo traffic caused by 100 percent scanning could inadvertently cause a higher security risk. Major delays in inspecting and processing containers would put the cargo in greater risk of tampering at the docks. 100 percent scanning will also bring about huge costs to port operators, shippers and ocean carriers. Costs incurred through such a requirement will eventually filter down to the very constituents that we are trying to protect. This will be essentially hurtful as consumers deal with rising prices and a weak economy.

U.S. manufacturers, large and small, have a substantial interest and concern regarding the security of our Nation's ports and the safe transport of their products. This legislation would levy counterproductive Federal mandates on industry, unnecessarily increase costs, cause massive delays and disruptions in the global supply chain and ultimately cost American jobs.

More can and should be done to secure our borders and supply chains against terrorist activities. H.R. 1, however, will impose additional cost burdens on the United States economy, both small and large, with the establishment of cargo security inspection protocols that rely simply on unproven technologies and that do not ensure security improvements that are commensurate with the expenses that would be incurred to implement these programs. This legislation will add uncertainty and costs to the international supply chain, severely impacting the flow of legitimate trade, but with little demonstrative improvement in security.

My colleagues, there is an alternative approach which has broader international consensus, and that is a risk-based approach, coupled with the concept of total supply security along the chain. Such an approach, where all stakeholders in the supply chain undertake security measures to protect their cargo, is less duplicative and more holistic. A layered, risk-based, targeted approach to cargo security, rather than a one-size-fits-all, such as in H.R. 1, will provide more effective security with better utilization of limited resources.

So, my colleagues, striking the proper balance between security needs and the free flow of legitimate trade will continue to be a challenge that will face all of us into the future. Unfortunately, slowing the international supply chain and adding significant costs by implementing unproven technologies is not consistent with the challenge today.

Congress should rethink cargo screening mandates in H.R. 1 before more time, money and limited resources are wasted by the Department of Homeland Security.

Mr. Speaker, the recent controversy and resignation by one of President Obama's policy czars highlights a very real problem: the President's use of unaccountable policy czars to circumvent the Constitution. Now, by one count, the White House has 32 policy czars, including a science czar, a regulatory czar, and even a Great Lakes czar.

These czars are tasked with leading major policy efforts for the administration and have simply been granted a great deal of authority. Yet each czar, unlike a Cabinet secretary, is not subject to congressional oversight.

Members of the Cabinet have to be approved by Congress, and they report to Congress. Policy czars have no such obligation. So what we have now is a situation where major policy decisions are being made by a group of people who are not approved by Congress, not subjected to congressional oversight, and operate without any transparency or accountability. This is not what our Constitution intended.

Mr. Speaker, the government-run health care plan, or the Waxman bill, is being forced on Americans without a full debate. In fact, during the markup in Energy and Commerce, where I serve, we got the replacement bill, about 1,000 pages, just about an hour before the markup. The markup was discontinued after 1 day. Who knows what is in the bill today? But there are some basic principles that all Americans recognize.

As Thomas Jefferson has said with regard to the government and its insidious encroachment on everyday freedoms; If we can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them, we will be wise. This is the pretense that Democrats are using to push their healthcare bill.

Mr. Jefferson also said, Great innovation should not be forced on slender majorities.

It is clear, Mr. Speaker, that a lot is at stake here, not the least of which is our personal freedom.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to address the increasingly troublesome issue of conflicts of interest within our financial regulatory system and the potential long-term harm this could render on American taxpayers.

To be specific, conflicts of interest abound at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, the entity that has been at the forefront of our Federal Government's efforts to respond to the worst financial crisis our country has faced in decades. The New York Fed is, of course, intimately intertwined with the Federal Reserve and the Treasury Department, too, but Americans may be surprised to hear how close this entity is to major Wall Street financial firms as well. In fact, MIT economist Simon Johnson was recently quoted as saying, ``The New York Fed sticks out as being not just very, very close to Wall Street, but to the most powerful people on Wall Street.''

In particular, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York is notably close to investment bank turned bank holding and receiver of billions of dollars in TARP funds, Goldman Sachs. The last two heads of the New York Fed, including Stephen Friedman, were former key employees of Goldman Sachs, and the current president of the New York Fed, William Dudley, was at Goldman Sachs for 20 years, including 10 years as chief economist. And of course, the New York Fed is now tasked with overseeing Goldman Sachs.

Furthermore, former Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, who engineered the $750 billion bailout of Wall Street and created the TARP program, was also the former CEO and chairman of Goldman Sachs. And in another non-coincidence, during his time as Treasury Secretary, Mr. Paulson managed to bail out insurance company AIG while letting Goldman Sachs' main competitor, Lehman Brothers, fail, thus ensuring AIG would be able to turn around and pay Goldman Sachs $12.9 billion in losses, making Goldman Sachs the largest recipient of public funds from AIG.

Additionally, until December 2008, the chairman of the New York Federal Reserve, Stephen Friedman, was a former director of Goldman Sachs. Friedman actually resigned from his position as chairman earlier this year after a controversy erupted over his purchase of Goldman Sachs stock during his time in his position as the New York Fed chairman.

And, in yet another conflict-of-interest scenario, let us not forget that Timothy Geithner, who was then president of the New York Fed, he decided to give $30 billion of taxpayers' funds to J.P. Morgan's acquisition of Bear Stearns, but Jamie Dimon of J.P. Morgan Chase was on the board of the New York Fed.

Alarmingly, Madam Speaker, the Obama administration is now proposing we give more power to the Federal Reserve and, in turn, this same New York Federal Reserve. Let us first consider that the New York Fed is dominated by the banks it is supposedly regulating, and let us not forget these regulated banks hold the majority of seats on the New York Fed board.

Former president of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, William Poole, he recently stated that employees at the New York Fed ``play a very valuable role, day in, day out, with detailed contacts with the big financial firms.''

With such close proximity to large financial firms, how do we really know whose interest the New York Fed is putting first? Are the interests of Wall Street insiders taken into consideration before the interests of the American people? Are Wall Street's interests automatically equated with the interests of the American people?

The New York Fed is part of a system Congress created in 1913 to avoid the concentration of too much power in New York or Washington alone. Yet, it seems today that all of the power at the New York Fed is concentrated within a few major Wall Street financial firms whose key employees now enjoy prominent positions within our Federal Government.

The intimacy between the Fed and the firms they regulate should cause all of us to pause. It was, after all, the New York Fed that allowed companies like Goldman Sachs and J.P. Morgan to convert themselves to bank holding companies so that they could receive access to taxpayer- funded, Henry Paulson-created TARP funds and then turn around just a few months later and post billions in record profits and dole out some of the highest bonuses in history.

Madam Speaker, what is the sense in giving more powers to the regulator of the largest financial firms on Wall Street, the New York Fed, when their failed regulation of mortgage lending is what led to the accumulation of toxic assets in our financial system in the first place? Why on earth give more power to such a hopelessly conflicted regulator?

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3219, as amended, to amend title 38 of the United States Code, which would make improvements in the laws administered by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs relating to insurance and health care and for other purposes.

H.R. 3219, as amended, combines veterans' life insurance and health care provisions from bills by several Members that improve the lives of veterans, and I will highlight for my colleagues just a few of these this afternoon.

The bill includes provisions of H.R. 2349, the Veterans' Group Life Insurance Improvement Act of 2009, that was introduced by the ranking member, Mr. Buyer, to allow veterans under the age of 60 to purchase up to $400,000 of veterans' group life insurance coverage in $25,000 increments every 5 years. This bill gives our veterans greater flexibility in their life insurance choices and is supported by the VA and veterans service organizations. That's good.

Another provision that has been included in H.R. 3219, as amended, is from H.R. 2270, also introduced by Ranking Member Buyer, which provides equity for all of the 28 World War II civilian groups that were later given veteran status under the process set up by the GI Bill Improvement Act of 1977.

The bill provides equity by making all these groups eligible for the same $1,000 a month payment that merchant mariners of World War II would receive under H.R. 23, as amended, which the House passed earlier this year.

One group of veterans that would benefit from this provision are the members of the American Volunteer Group, also known as the Flying Tigers. This was a distinct group of American ground crew and pilots who worked as part of the Chinese Air Force with U.S. Government approval in defense of allied strongholds before and after America's entrance into the war. The Flying Tigers, P-40 aircraft, with their distinctive shark's teeth painted on the nose of the fuselage, became famous for their many, many successful raids on Japanese targets in China, including one just 12 days after Pearl Harbor.

Mr. Speaker, the Flying Tigers are credited with destroying 297 aircraft, of which 229 were air-to-air victories. This statistic is even more impressive when you consider that they were largely outnumbered in almost every engagement they were involved with, and all of their supplies had to be flown over the Hump from India over the Himalayan Mountains.

Also, Mr. Speaker, there is another well-known group. It is called the Women Air Force Service Pilots, WASPs. These were female pilots who flew noncombat missions for the United States Army Air Corps during the war. Over 1,000 of these brave pilots flew missions all across this country in support of the war effort. Although they had been promised to be made part of the Air Corps following the war, they were disbanded on December 20, 1944, with little fanfare and with little recognition.

Earlier this year, the President signed S. 614 to award the Congressional Gold Medal to an estimated 300 WASPs that are still alive today. The passage of S. 614, coupled with the benefit provided to the WASPs under the bill, will finally give these brave women veterans the recognition they deserve.

I want to thank the chairman, Mr. Filner, for accepting the amendment to include these groups in the bill so that we can provide simple equity for all of these veterans that were not eligible for the World War II GI Bill.

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a moment to thank John Hall of New York and Doug Lamborn of Colorado, the chairman and ranking member on the Subcommittee on Disability Assistance and Memorial Affairs, and Mike Michaud of Maine and Henry Brown of South Carolina for all of their hard work on the legislation which was included in this bill. I would also like to thank Chairman Filner and Ranking Member Buyer for their cooperation in moving the legislation forward.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 3219, as amended, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, last week the Democrats released a thousand-page-plus health care bill that will cost in the order of $1.5 trillion and will allow for the Federal Government to nationalize health care in America I hope the American people will learn more about this bill before it is voted on the House floor here.

The Federal Government will eventually control almost 20 percent of our GDP and will control every single doctor and patient health decision that's made in this country.

It's clear we must reform the country's health care delivery system, but in the process of expanding affordable access, we must not create a weaker, more expensive system that future generations will have to pay for. Eighty-three percent of Americans enjoy the health insurance they currently have. We must strengthen and expand our current health care system and not destroy it in favor of a $1.5 trillion experiment.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1293, the Disabled Veterans Home Improvement and Structural Alteration Grant Increase Act of 2009.

H.R. 1293 is a bill that our ranking member, Mr. Buyer, introduced to increase the authorized amount of a Home Improvement and Structural Alteration, or, as commonly referred to as HISA, grant that VA provides as part of home health services. Mr. Speaker, it is an important benefit that is available to veterans with service-connected and nonservice-connected disabilities who simply require home adaptations to continue treatment for their disability in their home, and I am proud to be an original cosponsor of this bill.

The HISA grant is used for such things as widening doors--something simple that will have a great impact for these veterans--lowering kitchen and bathroom counters and sinks,

making simple handrails and wall switches and window controls easy and accessible to these folks so they can operate, and installing elevators and stair lifts, which will help many of the veterans who are in wheelchairs.

This grant is distinct from the specifically adapted housing grants that are also available to service-connected disabled veterans. The HISA grant can also be used in addition to these grants.

Unfortunately, the HISA grant ceiling has not been raised in 17 years; yet the cost of home modification, as we all know, has increased over the years.

In addition, there is a new generation of veterans from Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom returning home with serious combat injuries.

VA reports that the number of service-connected veterans using the HISA grants grew by almost 20 percent from fiscal year 2000 to 2008, and VA expects that the trend will continue to increase at the average of 1\1/2\ percent per year.

Under current law the maximum HISA grant is $4,100 for service- connected veterans and $1,200 for nonservice-connected veterans. H.R. 1293 would simply raise the amounts to $6,800 for service-connected veterans and $2,000 for nonservice-connected veterans. The proposed increase would account for inflation and simply provide a reasonable amount for the type of home modifications Congress intended the program to provide for these service-connected veterans.

H.R. 1293 is a bipartisan bill that is supported by the VA and the Veterans Service Organizations, and I urge my colleagues to support the bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, in closing, I would like to take the opportunity to thank the chairman and ranking member of the Subcommittee on Health, Mike Michaud of Maine and Henry Brown of South Carolina, for their quick consideration of this legislation. I would also like to express my gratitude to the chairman, Mr. Filner, and Ranking Member Buyer for moving this bill to the floor so quickly.

I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 1293.

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

General Leave

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2770, as amended, the Veterans Nonprofit Research and Education Corporations Enhancement Act of 2009. This bill would amend title 38, United States Code, to modify and update provisions of law relating to nonprofit research and education corporations, and for other purposes.

VA nonprofit research corporations, or NPCs as they are called, are independent entities that serve to provide a flexible funding mechanism for the use of non-VA funds to conduct VA-approved research. Last year, with $250 million in revenue, these organizations supported more than 4,000 research and education programs to benefit our veterans.

It has been 20 years, however, since we passed the law that established this public-private partnership, and it is important for us to ensure that the statute stays relevant for today's complex research and compliance requirements and provides VA with the necessary oversight authority to simply safeguard the management of these funds. This bill, H.R. 2770, as amended, would update and modernize the law to improve the operation and strengthen the oversight of these not-for- profit entities.

A key provision of the bill would allow an NPC to be shared among a number of VA medical centers to simply reduce administrative costs and to allow smaller NPCs to better achieve the potential to support VA research. So this bill would provide a number of new guidance and policy requirements to improve management of the NPCs and simply boost VA's oversight capability.

I want to thank the chairman, Mr. Filner, and the ranking member, Mr. Buyer, for working in concert to jointly sponsor this bill and move it forward, as they have done. This bill is supported by the VA, the Friends of VA Medical Care and Health Research, and the National Association of VA Research and Education Foundations.

I would like to again offer my congratulations to the chairman and ranking member of the subcommittee, Mike Michaud and Henry Brown, for their hard work on the bill, and obviously I appreciate Mr. Filner and Mr. Buyer, the ranking member, for working together. I urge my colleagues to support the bill.

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

General Leave