Floor Statements

Madam Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chairman, I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

Just a brief description of the amendment which I hope will prove noncontroversial. What I would like to do under the bill, though I'm not particularly a fan of the bill itself and its particulars, I would like to try to help to make it better.

My amendment would, under the bill, require States to give first priority to veterans, active duty military personnel, National Guard, Armed Forces Reserves, schoolteachers and emergency response personnel when selling rehabilitated housing with funds authorized under H.R. 5818.

Importantly, this amendment will not exclude those individuals who are low income, and does not change the underlying low-income eligibility requirements established under the bill.

Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I would like to yield 1 minute to the author of one of the letters in question, the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett).

Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

May I inquire as to how much time I have remaining.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

First, I would like to reemphasize the point made by the gentleman from New Jersey. The distinguished chairman of the committee is right, the Republican numbers are declining, and this painful experience with arithmetic has taught us that 17 is still a greater number than zero.

The gentleman may potentially yield, but not at this point.

I would also like to point out that the distinguished chairman is right, the bill, if this amendment is adopted, would not be for speculators, simply for Bear Stearns, for Wall Street, would not be a big, bloated government golden parachute, but again, I think in this town, I think I'm being thanked for adding deserving people to something that may or may not help.

You see, it's not the intent that we are debating, it is how we get to where we all want to go. Do we believe that this is the best way to go? I highly doubt that on our side that we would concur with that. And the reason that we cannot concur with that is, as I believe the gentleman from Georgia pointed out, there are fundamental principles at stake here that we simply differ on. That's all right. We agree on some things, sometimes we don't, but they're a matter of principle. And in the end, the fundamental principle at stake is that our side believes that Americans' prosperity does not come from government, it comes from their own hard work and entrepreneurial investment. And what we want to see with this bill is an appropriate balance for the people that we truly are trying to help, for them who have made no mistakes, for them who have managed to hang on by their fingernails, for them to be able to say that we were compassionate towards our fellow Americans, our tax dollars were wisely used, and yet they were appropriately used. We believe in better government, not necessarily bigger government. And that is the crux of what we are debating today.

All good people on both sides. And as for the chairman, I do believe he is a very honorable man. One of the places we do agree is on the Bear Stearns bailout. A lot of our colleagues on this side of the aisle screwed up their jobs and didn't get to walk away with $61 million. They walked away with far worse. And I think that the Bear Stearns issue, which is being conducted by Bernanke over at the Federal Reserve and the Secretary of the Treasury, both of whom work for the Bush administration--well, one technically does--and who both were, I think on a bipartisan basis, confirmed by the United States Senate. So at least there's one thing we have in common, we aren't to blame for that. So I would look forward to working with him on that.

But again, I appreciate the support for the amendment, and I will yield to the chairman.

Madam Speaker, today I rise to honor and acknowledge Gilbert Guy Francis upon the occasion of his 80th birthday.

Gilbert Francis dedicated his life to selflessly serving our community and country. Following service in the Air Force, Mr. Francis graduated with a Bachelor of Science Degree in Business Education and subsequently taught for 10 years at Southwestern High School in Detroit. Many happily remember his efforts as he found the time to teach typing and accounting to the continuing education school at night and the regular students during the day.

Gil has many hobbies as well. He faithfully studies the genealogy of the Francis family, tracing their roots back to Wales. Gill also excels at stamp collecting, roller-skate dancing, and playing the piano. As well as being an expert keyboardist, Gil has along the way done much to further the study and appreciation level for pipe organs. Not the first book he has put pen to paper for, ``Michigan Pipe Organ Theaters'' is his latest anticipated forthcoming publication. He has distinguished himself serving as the Treasurer and then President of the Detroit Theater Organ Society for a number of successful years. These days, lucky listeners can happen upon the organ historian playing the pipe organ at the famed Redford Theatre for classic old films.

Gilbert Francis is a man of integrity, devoted to his family, who has dedicated his life to his wife Penny, his two children Carl and Nancy, and their wonderful grand- and now great-grandchildren.

Madam Speaker, for eighty years Gilbert Guy Francis has faithfully served his family and community. As he enters the next phase of his life, he continues a legacy of dedication, skill of craft, and dignified leadership. Today, I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating Gilbert upon this momentous day and recognizing his years of loyal service to our community and country.

I thank the gentleman for his leadership on this issue and for yielding me some time.

We have heard a lot throughout the past years about making America more energy independent. Myself, being a natural contrarian, have heard recently members of my own party saying that the Speaker has yet to unveil her plan to lower gas prices. I think this is an error. I think the more disturbing news is we have seen the Democratic party's plan to lower gas prices, and it has failed miserably.

If we remember last year, we were told we were taking the steps toward American energy independence. We passed a ``Lethargy Bill,'' as I referred to it, that was going to solve all our problems. We were going to innovate our way out of this, we were going to conserve our way out of this. We were going to throw American taxpayers' money to India and Communist China and around the world to make the red bureaucrats green.

When the Speaker was recently on Larry King's show last week, apparently she was under the impression that their plan had worked. When asked what the price of gas was, she replied, $2.56. She was off by $1. Evidently the pattern of wishful thinking had already set in; that their wonderfully detailed plan that they had waited to unveil had already been hoisted upon an unsuspecting American electorate. And these are the results.

Now we hear the ``blame game'' beginning. Because having had their energy plan fail, they are now looking for scapegoats. When politicians come looking for scapegoats to explain their failure, I assure you of one thing, it's going to cost taxpayers money. It may cost you directly, it may cost you indirectly, but this will cost you money.

I will say why. First, their policy having failed for a fundamental reason, they can come up with no better thing to do than to try to affix blame. Their policy has failed because it's built on a 21st century energy fallacy. The fallacy is that environmental conservation and energy production are irreconcilable. The Republican party takes the opposite view. We believe that a plan of conservation and innovation and responsible production through the use of green technologies and others is entirely possible for our free people, and it can help increase the supply of domestic energy and help to alleviate the

cost of gas at the pump and the cost of energy throughout our economy, which is eating into family budgets even as we speak and do nothing in this 110th Congress.

Now what are they going to do instead? They are going to put taxes on energy companies. Windfall profits tax. I remember something Ronald Reagan said a long time ago. Corporations are not taxpayers, corporations are tax collectors.

So here's how this works. This is the new energy plan. The new energy plan is to divert attention from the fact this Congress has done nothing to increase the supply of oil or domestic energy to help Americans. They will then try to tax the energy companies. The energy companies will turn right around and put that cost into your pump. It will be passed right on. This is not my speculation, this is what economists tell you almost universally.

Then the politician comes to you, after Government has more of your money, and says, Thank me. I punished those bad people. And you say to them, Well, that is great, but what about me? Is there any more energy being produced? You have taxed it, there is less of it, the price continues to go up. You walk out of here with more of my money. I don't think the American people are going to be grateful for that.

Another short term gimmick that we are hearing is we must demand that OPEC produce more oil. This is sheer genius. Sheer genius. We are now hearing calls from the Democratic party to make America more energy dependent on foreign sources. They pump more, we buy more, they keep the money. There is no energy independence in this shortsighted call, there is just another attempt to deflect blame and responsibility away from this Chamber, where it belongs, the Chamber across the hall, where it belongs, and from a total failure of a 21st century fallacy to fix energy needs in America and make us more energy independent.

Now, as we know, these costs go throughout the economy. They are inflating the cost of living for all Americans. And yet there's talk, talk, talk, talk. But there are people who are not talking about energy. We are engaged in a fight for the global access to oil with the Communist Chinese as we speak. They are in every continent of our world and they are trying as hard as they can to gain direct access to these foreign sources.

At the very time the United States of America, as the distinguished gentleman from Texas points out, is trying to deter American companies from finding new sources of oil, at the very time we are told by some voices that we demand energy production everywhere but America, it is easy in our day and age to say to ourselves that there is no real direct cost to Government. We live in a credit card age. We don't live in the age my parents grew up in, my grandparents, and I was raised to respect you save your money, you plan your budget, you work responsibly, and hopefully the good Lord takes care of you. No.

But when you think that votes on an energy bill or votes on a regulation that is imposed or votes on litigation that is imposed or votes on taxation that seem indirectly removed from you, there's a cost to all this. When we talk about the cost of taxation, litigation, regulation and an aversion to production of American energy, you need not go to the CBO to have this scored.

Look at the gentleman from Illinois's chart. That is the cost of a government that is unaware of what is happening in America, what our future energy needs are, and who do not understand that the American people, when challenged, will meet that challenge, we will provide for environmental conservation, free market innovation, and the domestic production of energy to take America where it needs to be, which is energy independent. But then, again, we have always viewed America as the solution, and we always will.

I thank the gentleman for all the work that he has done on this, and I look forward to continuing this discussion with him in similar forums, for it is important that the American people understand something. According to the chart in front of us today, it is clear that in the 110th Congress Democrats don't care what they cost you.

I yield back.

I appreciate that. Thank you. We have a fundamental agreement and yet a disagreement. I think that everyone can see that there are three key elements to America's energy situation: Production, conservation, and innovation. We all agree on conservation. We'd like to see America more energy efficient, and we differ on whether or not what the extreme would be in terms of conservation. Republicans generally would hope that they would be community-oriented conservation, recognizing these tiny ripples of hope, citizen engagement in protecting their local environment would be the most efficacious way to deal with this situation rather than pass an overarching bill in Washington, with no citizen participation and only hope and more regulation, taxation, and burden upon America's industry and upon the American people.

In the area of innovation it is a very stark difference. Our side of the aisle believes that the free market and the genius of the American people will come up with the innovative solutions necessary to move us toward green fuels and a cleaner environment. The other side of the aisle believes the government knows best, and if they just capture enough revenues from the hardworking American people, they will then determine what ideas will work and will not work and force them upon the market.

But it is most noticeable in the area of production where the two sides differ. We believe production is essential. The gentleman from Iowa has properly laid out we live in a global economy. Supply and demand are the keys to the crisis today. If America does not produce more energy from its own sources, the cost will continue to go up because the supply will remain constricted, if not finite, and the demand will continue to grow from developing countries such as Communist China, India, and others.

What we believe is necessary is a declaration of energy independence which, like our own country's Declaration of Independence, recognizes that it would not happen overnight, it would not be easy; it would require sacrifice, and yet together we would get there.

We need to continue to produce domestic energy as we transition through a free market-based approach to innovations that will get us to a green energy policy and through the community-based conservation that will help foster and perpetuate energy efficiencies within our communities, within our homes.

Now the difference between these two policies is clear in the chart that the gentleman from Iowa has put before us. As someone who does not come from Iowa, but from Michigan, once known as the arsenal of democracy, a proud manufacturing State, the State that put the world on wheels, we see what the cost of energy does. It is not an abstract number, it is a situation which causes an intense amount of pain and anxiety to the constituents of my district and the constituents of my State.

Manufacturing requires energy. We know the manufacturing sector has been decimated by unfair trade competition and other unfortunate policies. Yet, when you take the cost of energy on top of it, you are almost signaling the death knell of the manufacturing base as we know it and as we would like to preserve it, because that cost of energy, as it rises, is put into everything the manufacturer must do. And in the age of global competition, it becomes increasingly difficult for the manufacturer to keep his costs down, his fixed overhead rising, and in the end, there comes the push, especially from the tier one and tier two suppliers, the push comes from above to either eat the cost or send it offshore.

We also are starting to see what the government dictates in terms of innovation with the emphasis on ethanol and others is we are beginning to hear stories about food shortages in the United States, we are now beginning to hear about how the cost of basic staple commodities is rising. Again, in our economy today, which is slowing down, the cost of energy, the cost of gasoline in particular is the cause. In my mind, this is the cause. Because it is one important commodity that is continuing to go up in price without any relief in sight, and it also has spillover costs to all of the other commodities related to it.

There is nothing that does not wind up on your kitchen table that does not require energy to produce and transport. There is nothing in your home that you turn on, your Internet, or anywhere else, that does not require energy. As the cost of energy goes up, the cost of everything goes up. If we do not help increase the supply of energy, the costs will continue to rise, the American people will continue to suffer.

Now there will be an attempt, because evidently production conservation and innovation in a sound way is not palatable to some in this chamber, indeed a majority, there would be the attempt to shift the blame for the rising costs of energy to the producers. I am no fan of any multinational corporation. But then, again, I am not their executioner either. Because I remember what Ronald Reagan once said, Corporations are not taxpayers, corporations are tax collectors.

You want a windfall profits tax, you want a punitive tax on oil companies, energy producers, you can do it. And where are these energy producers and oil companies going to get that revenue from? They are going to pass the cost right onto the American people at their pumps, because Americans right now cannot survive without driving their cars to work. They cannot survive without energy. It would seem to me that these are simple lessons that we should have learned in our youth.

Then it occurred to me as I watch my children grow up, we have an entire generation of voters that were not alive in the 1970s. They did not live through the OPEC oil crisis, they did not live through taxation upon energy producers, they did not live through the syn fuels, where government raised taxes, put money in a fund, handed it out and we were going to be energy independent, or when Jimmy Carter went on TV and declared that by turning down the thermostat to 68, this was the moral equivalent to war.

The gentleman from Iowa and I have in the past talked about our love of history and its need to be taught in the schools. Because anyone with a remote understanding of the 1970s would understand that the failed policies of the 1970s are inadequate to meet the pressing energy needs of today. What we need is a 21st century energy strategy, not a failed 1970s Jimmy Carter policy that actually helped pave the way toward more energy dependence in America.

So I thank the gentleman for what he is doing today, and I would encourage my colleagues to go back and look at what was tried before and failed and then perhaps they would be more amenable to coming across the aisle in joining with us to try to take concrete steps to alleviate not only the rising cost of energy but the rising cost of everyday life that is associated with it.

I yield back to the gentleman from Iowa.

Madam Speaker, today I rise to honor and acknowledge Mr. Abe Munfakh upon his receipt of the Wayne 11th Congressional District Republican Committee's 2008 Lifetime Achievement Award.

Throughout his career, Mr. Munfakh has dedicated himself to bettering our community. He served on the Plymouth Township Board of Trustees for 12 years, Plymouth Community United Way Board for 8 years, and was a member of the Southeast Michigan Council of Governments for 8 years.

Since 1984, Abe has been actively involved in promoting the conservative principles of the Republican Party in Michigan. He represented the State of Michigan at the 1992 National Republican Convention as an Alternate Delegate. He has served on the Michigan Republican State Committee since 2005 and is a member of the Outreach and Diversity subcommittee and Budget subcommittee. He currently serves on the Eleventh District and Wayne 11th Republican Committees.

Madam Speaker, Mr. Munfakh's legendary dedication to the founding principles of our great democracy and his tireless efforts to perpetuate America's revolutionary experiment in human freedom are an inspiration to all. Today, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring Mr. Abe Munfakh upon his receipt of the 2008 Lifetime Achievement Award and in recognizing his selfless service to our community and our country.

Madam Speaker, today I rise to honor and acknowledge Dr. Ma Ying-jeou upon his recent election to the Presidency of Taiwan.

On March 22, 2008, Taiwan elected a new President, Dr. Ma Ying-jeou, former mayor of Taipei. As a long term observer of Taiwan, I have noticed that this island country has taken great strides toward full democracy. The latest presidential election proved that democracy is thriving in Taiwan. Regarding Taiwan-U.S. relations, President-elect Ma has also indicated the need to strengthen our informal ties with each other. After 9/11, Taiwan was one of the first countries to give its support to us and has

been proactive in providing information and resources to us in combating global terrorism. In addition, Taiwan has been cooperative in reducing its trade surplus with us and promoting U.S. goods and services in its domestic market. In return, we must assure Taiwan that we will remain faithful to the letter and spirit of the Taiwan Relations Act.

Madam Speaker, Taiwan has come a long way from its authoritarian past and is today a beacon of democracy and freedom in the Far East. I wish to congratulate President-elect Ma and the Taiwanese people for their latest demonstration of democracy. A true democracy like Taiwan deserves friendship and support.

Madam Speaker, today I rise to honor and acknowledge the noble and essential role nurses play in providing quality health care across our Nation.

Our Nation's health care system is complex and every day people with all types of needs are cared for by qualified and professional nurses. Every individual can remember an experience when someone they loved needed health care and a nurse was the first person by their side providing compassionate and essential care. My wife, a registered nurse works on the front lines of caring for Americans and like so many nurses, her devotion extends beyond the workforce; as she goes home every day after work and is just as thoughtful and attentive to the needs of our family. The tireless efforts made by nurses to provide nurture and solace are an inspiration to all.

A growing number of nurses are essential to ensuring all people receive quality care; and our Nation's public health infrastructure has the professionals necessary to respond to natural and manmade disasters. The Department of Health and Human Services projects the current ten percent vacancy rates in registered nurses will grow to 36 percent by the year 2020, representing more than one million unfilled jobs. We must make sure to provide strong Congressional leadership, unflagging support, and the Federal funding necessary to ensure the United States continues to maintain a steady supply of nurses to care for the patients of today and tomorrow.

Madam Speaker, in honor of their unwavering commitment, dedication, and selflessness, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring nurses and their exemplary service to our community and our country.

Mr. Speaker, as the Olympic torch goes through San Francisco today, I would just like to bring attention to the fact that I, as well as others on each side of the aisle, will be introducing legislation to ensure that we send our athletes to the games but not our politicians.

In the past, America has sent their athletes to the Olympics to show what free people can achieve, most notably in 1936 when Jesse Owens won gold and disabused the world of the Fuhrer's propaganda that there was an inferior race amongst us. FDR did not go to the Olympics.

I would encourage American politicians, including the President of the United States, not to politicize the games by their attendance, but rather stay home and attend to the pressing issues which face us as a people. This would be the proper way for the United States to both honor the spirit of the Olympics and the spirit of our free people.

Mr. Speaker, first I would like to thank Chairman Berman, Ranking Member Ros-Lehtinen, and all of the members of the Foreign Affairs Committee for bringing this resolution to the floor.

You know, I remember back when I was growing up there was a movie, and the movie was called ``A Hard Day's Night.'' This was at the height of Beatlemania, and the Beatles had obviously been wildly popular and well-received when they first hit our shores. And yet in the movie there is a scene where a reporter, seemingly unaware of this, asked John Lennon a question. And the question was this: ``How did you find America?''

And Lennon said, ``I turned left at Greenland.''

The point I bring this up for is quite simple. Today we hear many inane questions about how His Holiness will be received by the American people. How will America find the Pope? How will the Pope find America? Well, I think these questions are inane for a very simple reason: The United States understands the Holy Father because he advocates that we use faith and reason to find our way through these trying times and on to a transcendent Creator.

The United States, our revolutionary experiment in human freedom, was founded upon faith and reason. The Founders had the faith that they were playing a role in divine provenance, that they had rights that were endowed to them and inalienable by a Creator. And yet it was not passion alone that allowed for the founding of our free republic; they also used their reason to find their way to express how those rights could be guaranteed against government, and how individual citizens could live together with their rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

This is no different than the message that the Holy Father brings today. The Holy Father has said that faith and reason are concomitant blessings from God which allow us to find him not only in ourselves but in each other.

So as Americans await the Pope's first visit, I am not saying that there will be teenyboppers dropping in the streets as the popemobile passes, but I do say His Holiness will receive a warm reception from people who have understood and who continue to understand that faith and reason are gifts from God we squander at our own peril.

Mr. Speaker, one of our greatest Presidents was Harry Truman. And one of the reasons President Truman was held in such high regard by people, including my own father, was that he had the courage to go against conventional wisdom, especially in the area of foreign relations.

It was President Truman who had the moral courage to tell the American people that our World War II ally the Soviet Union was no longer our friend and had become a threat to the very liberty that our people had helped advance throughout the course of that conflict. This was not a message that the American people were particularly expecting. In fact, there were many who decried President Truman's analysis at the time. One of them was George F. Kennan, who is, unfortunately, often remembered as the father of the containment policy.

In fact, when faced with the rise of the Soviet Union as a strategic threat and rival model of governance, it was Mr. Kennan's position that the Soviet Union could be managed, that we should constructively engage them, that their ideology meant nothing to them, and that, in fact, they were but a different variation of the traditional Czarist order within Russia. And, besides, Mr. Kennan concluded, what did it matter? Eventually the two systems of communism and our free Republic's democratic system would merge into one.

President Truman was not as educated as Mr. Kennan. He was not as sophisticated as Mr. Kennan. And President Truman took the Soviets at their word that they were in fact communists. He took them at their word that they meant they were going to put in practice their intrinsically evil ideology. And Mr. Truman dissented from Mr. Kennan and said that the fundamental goal of the United States foreign policy to defeat the intrinsic evil of communism will be the advancement of liberty throughout our world where and when we can achieve it.

Recently I came across a picture that I had ordered from a friend of mine in the District, Mr. Doug Brown. It was from one of Mr. Truman's return trips to St. Louis. He was meeting a gentleman from his old World War I Artillery Battery. And a picture that struck me the most was this: The MC of the event that night for President Truman in Missouri was an entertainer named Ronald Reagan. And in that crystalline moment, it was clear for me to see the link in the Cold War's victory between the foundation President Truman courageously laid and the way that President Reagan courageously won it ultimately.

What we see today now is a repeat of history where we have two paths we can take. We can take the path of Mr. Kennan and the detente crowd of the Kissingerites and others that says we can manage the rise of Communist China, that we can engage them and barter with them and engage in structural diplomacy, all the while the oppression of their own people's God-given rights to rights to life, liberty, and dignity are repressed, while Tibet suffers under their yoke, while the Burmese and Sudanese regimes are propped up, and while they continue their stealth assaults on our national security with sleeper cells, and I could go on. Or we who profess to be the heirs of Ronald Reagan, especially within the Republican Party, can follow the path of President Truman and understand that you cannot barter with butchers. You cannot constructively manage evil nor engage it. But what you can do is unleash the liberty of people yearning to breathe free where and when you can.

The reason I bring this up is not merely the Beijing Olympics. I'm on record as opposing our President's attendance at the games. I believe it would be a betrayal of our free Republic's commitment to liberty. But I was struck by a statement in this regard by our current Secretary of State, ironically enough herself a Sovietologist. I will not make the joke that a Sovietologist is often considered diplomacy's equivalent of a Latin teacher for this has relevance. She said, ``It is important for the Chinese people to see that the United States supports their emergence onto the world's stage.''

I fundamentally differ with that assessment. I remain a Reaganite. I remain my Truman Democratic father's son. The United States, and my party in particular, exists to put communism in the ash can of history, not to usher communism onto the world's stage. If my party, as it has strayed from principle in the past, does not understand

the emancipation imperative that runs through Abraham Lincoln to Ronald Reagan and to today, we are in a sad state. I trust we wake up while there is still time.

Madam Speaker, we stand at a historic moment. In the stream of history, it is oftentimes overlooked as we circumnavigate around time, fate and circumstance the momentous era and the momentous deeds which must be undertaken. This is one of them.

I thank the Speaker for bringing this resolution. I thank her for bringing with it the moral weight of her opposition to Communist China's abysmal human rights record throughout her career in this Congress, and for uniting Republicans and Democrats behind it.

But at this moment, I am also reminded of someone who is no longer with us, someone from whom I learned very much. That man is the late Chairman Tom Lantos, a man who embodied the human spirit in its ability to triumph over evil. How many people in this Congress understood the moment when the tanks rolled into Budapest and the Soviets went into Hungary, that that was a seminal moment in the Cold War, that the desire to breathe free, of the Hungarian people, could not be quelled by tanks and could only be quenched by freedom? And throughout the history of the Cold War, their example was emulated by others, including the Czechs in 1968, and of course the Poles, and that eventually brought down the Soviet Union.

Today, what may appear a resolution of the moment for a specific incident is not that. It is our generation's Budapest. It is this generation of Americans who get to witness the Tibetans trying to breathe free from beneath the Communist yoke of the Chinese regime. And as we Republicans and Democrats stand together today, we stand with them, and we send a clarion message to the Communist Chinese Government. They will be free. And as the Olympic torch goes from town to town and you see people gathering together of all political persuasions and all walks of life to protest the abominable suppression of the Tibetans, let us remember that we here have come together to make sure that the torch of Lady Liberty still shines bright as a beacon of hope for all the world.

Madam Speaker, today I rise to honor and acknowledge Ms. Fran Toney, Executive Director of the Plymouth Community Chamber of Commerce, upon her retirement from seventeen years of dutiful service.

Fran Toney is a woman who has always loved Plymouth, Michigan. Fran has focused the past seventeen years of her career on getting others to love it too. As executive director, Ms. Toney encouraged members of her community to invest in local businesses and the community. Under her venerable tenure, the Plymouth Community Chamber of Commerce has nearly doubled its size from 400 to 700 committed members. Ms. Toney initiated more than 42 new programs which continue to make the Plymouth area a prosperous and proud part of Michigan. From Scarecrows in Kellogg Park to the annual Auction Fundraiser, Fran Toney has made the Plymouth Community Chamber of Commerce a point of pride for our community and the entire state of Michigan.

Madam Speaker, for seventeen years Ms. Fran Toney has faithfully served the Plymouth community and its citizens. As she enters the next phase of her life, she leaves behind a legacy of dedication, vibrancy, and fellowship. Today, I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating Ms. Fran Toney upon her retirement and recognizing her years of loyal service to our community, state and country.

Mr. Chairman, I come from Michigan, a State that respects honesty, even when one is in error, so I must admit that I was pleasantly surprised by the integrity, if not the ultimate decision, that we heard from the gentleman from New Jersey.

We heard a lot about change over the course of a year or two, and I too must be honest. We have seen change in how Washington budgets. We have seen change. We have gone from bad to worse.

Now, as I recall sitting in Michigan, living there with my wife and children, I have seen a similar instance out of my State government which, in a one-State depression, faced the choice of allowing working families to keep their money and protect their budgets or raising taxes and protecting the State budget.

They started with the smokers. They went after them. They took their money. Nobody likes smokers. Who cares? Then they had a one-time-only property tax advance. They never did tell us when the property tax relief comes, but I am sure one day it will. It is only once. And then they raised our income taxes. They raised our income taxes because by then it was for the greater good. And whose family budget wants to stay in the way of the greater good? Certainly not somebody like me, somebody whose children are looking at college, somebody whose mother may be getting older and may need care, somebody who worries that their dreams of their future for their children might go up in ashes in a State that is mismanaged by a government that cares more about itself than it cares about the sovereign citizens who elected it.

And then I come out here to do their work as their servant and I see the same thing. I see the same thing. I hear the same talk. I see the change that was promised and delivered. The sad part is the promise was implied.

I remember hearing the government spent too much. Got to stop. The government spent too much. We are going to change that. I didn't hear the part where you said the government spends too much. We are going to spend more.

I heard people talk about working families struggling, and we are only going to tax the rich. We are only going to tax the rich. Evidently we must not be doing too well. There is not enough rich to back up the promises. So what do we do? The largest tax increase in American history on everybody. Well, that is a change. I concede the point. It is a change.

But I was shocked again with both the honor and the erroneous conclusion of the gentleman from New Jersey. I never in my life expected to see a Member of Congress apologize for not raising taxes on the American people. That is a change. I grant you that.

The question is then, if the American people need to have their taxes raised to come into prosperity, surely you know what the ultimate number is. How high, how fast until we get to prosperity? How much more of my money has to go the Federal Government before I can dream for my family and feed them? Surely somebody must know that number.

Is this largest tax increase in American history going to be the last? Are we then going to reach the American Dream? Are we going to have our liberty and economics to pursue that dream through our own works, or will government have to do that for us? Are we going to get bureaucrats as life coaches? What is going to be necessary? Give me a number. I haven't heard that number. I haven't heard that percent.

I think the one thing that we do need to change immediately right now in rejecting this budget scheme to bloat, to soak your family budget, to bloat the Federal Government's budget, is I want to hear somebody admit that America's economic prosperity comes from our free people, not from the growth of government, for that is a truth to hear that would be a refreshing change of late.

Madam Speaker, today I rise to honor and acknowledge Kay Beard, Wayne County Commissioner and dedicated community advocate, upon her retirement from a distinguished 30-year career in public service.

Kay became interested in politics at an early age at the knee of her grandmother who used to host meetings of the local congressional delegation in their Detroit home. Throughout her life, Kay was active in civic and community organizations, but did not run for political office until 1972 when she launched an unsuccessful bid for State representative. Undeterred, Kay ran for Wayne County commissioner in 1976, Kay was later appointed to fill a vacancy on the Wayne County Commission in April 1978. Subsequently, Kay never failed to win another election she ran in including her most recent reelection in 2006 to her 15th term. Her 30 years on the commission made her the longest serving member ever.

While managing the daily tasks of a county commissioner, Kay gave back a tremendous amount of time and effort to her community. Kay served on the National Advisory Council for School-to-Work Opportunities, the Senior Advisory Council of Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Michigan, the United Way Community Services Board of Directors, and was a founding member of Hospices of Michigan. Her efforts did not go unnoticed by the citizens of Michigan. The Michigan Democratic Women's Caucus presented her with its highest honor, the Eleanor Roosevelt Award. She was also a recipient of the Westland ATHENA Award and in honor of her achievements has had a building on the grounds of the Eloise Psychiatric Hospital renamed the Kay Beard Building.

During her 15 terms on the Wayne County Board of Commissioners, Ms. Beard has dealt with issues ranging from the termination of the drain commissioner's job, a failed smoking ban, the creation of an antifraud law, and a valiant yet unsuccessful attempt to save Wayne County General Hospital. Ms. Beard felt that spirited opposition was the touchstone of democracy. Despite displaying a vibrant spirit, Kay has been ordered by her doctor to step down for health reasons. Her loss will be felt by all the citizens of Wayne County who wish her nothing but happiness.

Madam Speaker, for 30 years Commissioner Kay Beard has faithfully served Michigan and Wayne County. As she enters the next phase of her life, she leaves behind a legacy of dedication, integrity, and excellence. Today, I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating Commissioner Kay Beard upon her retirement and recognizing her years of loyal service to our community and country.

Mr. Speaker, I would like today to discuss an issue that is on the horizon that could very well affect the economic freedom of Americans, especially their family's prosperity and happiness. It is an issue that I would also like to thank the chairman of the Financial Services Committee, Representative Frank, and the ranking member of the subcommittee, Representative Kanjorski, for bringing forward.

The issue I am talking about is the issue of sovereign wealth funds. Many people will question what is a sovereign wealth fund. The answer is very simple. A sovereign wealth fund is a fund that is controlled by a foreign government that then invests into the private market of the United States.

Many people, especially those within my own party, disturbingly think sovereign wealth funds are a wonderful way to inject capital into the United States. The reality is these are very dangerous instrumentalities of foreign nations and would allow for the potential interference of these foreign nations in our domestic affairs, and not only within our economic sphere.

One of the reasons I joined the Republican Party was because I oppose socialism, communism; and I wanted to advance the cause of liberty. A sovereign wealth fund denies all of those. Again, a sovereign wealth fund is controlled by a government. Those who recall economics can understand that when a government buys an asset from the private sector, when the government owns it, the product or service has been ``nationalized.'' This is the root of socialism. Government buys something in the private sector, socialism gets bigger, free markets and free enterprise and free people get diminished. This is the root problem of a sovereign wealth fund. It will diminish the economic liberty of individuals in the face of governments that are trying to control free enterprise.

We should not have this occurring in the United States of America, the bastion of free enterprise conducted by free people.

The second problem I have with sovereign wealth funds grows from the first: a foreign country controls this fund. This is not protectionism of anything except Americans' liberty, prosperity, sovereignty, and security.

The Communist Chinese have one of the largest sovereign wealth funds in the world. As they continue to tell us, although few people seem to understand that they are serious, they remain communists. The communist sovereign wealth fund from China comes in and buys private assets in the United States. Those government assets are now socialized; and, again, your freedom, liberty, prosperity, and security are diminished and there is a huge problem with this in the hands of the Communist Chinese.

In addition, whereas in the free market private investment funds have to raise capital voluntarily from individuals and then make rational decisions based upon the profit motive, a sovereign government's wealth fund is allowed to take and spend and invest. They spend and invest that which they take from their people. They have no accountability to these citizens, and they can invest for a political motive.

These entities of sovereign wealth funds are antithetical to private sector free market investment. And, again, when they are forced to operate on a private sector profit motive, the sovereign wealth fund can operate on a political motive, which may or may not be in the long- term interests of the people of the United States.

So for two reasons I would like to go on record immediately in my opposition to sovereign wealth funds in any nation's hands being invested in the United States and socializing our private sector assets. And I would like to also especially emphasize my abject contempt for nations that are opposed to the United States' continued existence as a bastion of liberty being able to buy up influence within the United States based upon a solely political motive, and that political motive is not in the people's best interests.

So to my fellow Republicans I would ask them to remember why they are Republicans, to remember that we have the duty to advance the economic liberty of Americans and to protect and preserve their liberty and prosperity and security, and ask them to reassess these sovereign wealth funds. Because no matter how much money they inject into our economy to socialize private sector assets, the cost we are going to pay to the long-term vitality of our free people is too high a price to tender to the very enemies of our existence.