Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, pursuant to the Republican Leadership standards on earmarks, I am submitting the following information regarding earmarks I received as part of H.R. 2847, the Energy and Water Appropriations Bill, 2010.

Requesting Member: Representative Ed Royce

Bill Number: H.R. 3288

Account: FTA--Buses and Bus Facilities Account

Legal Name of Requesting Entity: The City of Anaheim

Address of Requesting Entity: City of Anaheim, 200 S. Anaheim Blvd., Ste. 733, Anaheim, CA 92805.

Description of Request: Provide $725,000 in FY 2010 to be used for the Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center (ARTIC). ARTIC will be the premier regional, multimodal transportation hub in Orange County. It is needed to accommodate the travel needs of 45 million annual visitors and will strategically facilitate bus, rail and air travel. The ARTIC project has been federally authorized in two previous transportation bills: 1991 ISTEA and 1998 TEA-21. These authorizations illustrate a federal commitment to the project.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to the Republican Leadership standards on earmarks, I am submitting the following information regarding earmarks I received as part of the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services and Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010.

Requesting Member: Representative Ed Royce

Bill Number: H.R. 3293

Account: Higher Education FIPSE

Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Cal State University, Fullerton

Address of Requesting Entity: 800 North State College Blvd, Fullerton, CA 92834

Description of Request: Provide $350,000 in FY 2010 to build upon existing intermediate level language courses to develop a full Bachelor's Degree program, a Minor, and an International Business Sequence in Vietnamese Language and Culture designed to prepare a new generation of Vietnamese Americans and others to take advantage of the rapidly growing business and professional opportunities resulting from trade between the United States and Vietnam. Funding would be used for faculty program development; graduate assistants; salaries; materials, resources and language lab/library; internships; and facilities and administration.

Requesting Member: Representative Ed Royce

Bill Number: H.R. 3293

Account: Higher Education FIPSE

Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Cal State University, Fullerton

Address of Requesting Entity: 800 North State College Blvd, Fullerton, CA 92834

Description of Request: Provide $300,000 in FY 2010 to establish the Center for the Advancement of Teaching and Learning in Mathematics and Science (CATLMS). The proposed center addresses a national problem. One of the core drivers of innovation in the U.S. is its strength in STEM disciplines. Yet, in

an increasingly interconnected world, the U.S. has not been keeping pace with its economic competitors. Funds are requested for to support a Director and one supporting staff member in their work to carry out research studies, pursue external funding, and develop collaborations with private sector parties, educational institutions, and governmental agencies. Faculty would be released from their teaching duties to accomplish the objectives for which funding is being requested.

Requesting Member: Representative Ed Royce

Bill Number: H.R. 3293

Account: Elementary & Secondary Education (includes FIE)

Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Orange County Department of Education

Address of Requesting Entity: 200 Kalmus Dr, Costa Mesa, CA 92626

Description of Request: Provide $400,000 in FY 2010 to implement Internet safety programs for all Orange County. Federal law requires all schools receiving E-Rate funding to implement Internet safety programs, yet includes no funding to achieve this requirement. State and local agencies place responsibility for teaching youth Internet safety in the hands of educators who have not received adequate professional development in this area. Interactive teacher training will serve as an effective tool to educate children to safely, securely, and ethically use the Internet and a variety of other technologies. Funding will be used for programmatic expenses, including software and training, substitute teachers, and meeting materials and expenses.

Mr. Speaker, accompanying the spike in the private sector job losses throughout our economy, we have seen a massive government intrusion into the private market. This Chamber recently passed cap- and-tax legislation which gives Washington 17 percent over the economy. If we move towards nationalized health care--the next priority for the administration--it could shift another 16 percent of our economy towards Washington, D.C.

The Federal Government already runs General Motors and Chrysler. It now has a huge equity stake in dozens of our financial institutions. We've witnessed a massive $800 billion stimulus package that has failed to deliver the promise of an increase in job growth. And this flawed approach has failed to deliver because government spending does not increase the size of the economic pie. What it simply does is take

money out of the private sector and shift it to the government.

Real economic growth has always and will always come from the private sector. And instead of continuing this trend, shifting our economy to one centered on bureaucrats, which is exponentially increasing our deficit and killing off the private sector, we should be spurring job creation.

Madam Speaker, I don't know where this ends. This cap-and- trade bill would give Washington 17 percent control of the economy. Nationalizing health care, which is next on the majority agenda here, would give it another 16 percent. The Federal Government right now runs General Motors. The government has a huge equity stake in many of our financial institutions. This Congress is relentlessly politicizing our economy. It has got to stop.

And this bill is an expensive job killer that won't achieve its objectives, and I will just give an example--and that's what's left out of the bill. The bill does nothing to encourage nuclear power plant construction, a sure job creator, a source of clean energy. The Department of Energy reports that the best way for utilities to reduce carbon emissions is nuclear energy, yet nothing here in this bill.

This bill is a bureaucrat's dream, the scheme that we see before us. It gives the EPA, the DOE, the IRS, and many other bureaucracies levers over our energy markets. Some in Congress will have these bureaucrats in their cross-hairs aiming to game the system as this massively complex plan is implemented.

I oppose this bill.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to the Republican Leadership standards on earmarks, I am submitting the following information regarding earmarks I received as part of H.R. 2847, the Commerce, Justice, Science and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill 2010.

Requesting Member: Representative Ed Royce

Bill Number: H.R. 2847

Account: Office of Justice Programs--Byrne Discretionary Grants Account

Legal Name of Requesting Entity: The City of Westminster

Address of Requesting Entity: City of Westminster, 8200 Westminster Blvd., Westminster, CA 92683

Description of Request: Provide $290,000 in FY 2010 to be used for the Criminal Enterprise Initiative, following the Year 2 federal funding provided in 2009. The detectives assigned to the Little Saigon Substation are in operation, specifically focusing on identifying, investigating and dismantling criminal enterprises, having both national and international implications, within the Little Saigon area. Under this project, the Westminster Police Department's Crimes Against Public Unit occupies office space within the Little Saigon district of Westminster, placing a powerful ``investigative engine'' into the heart of the area where Asian Criminal Enterprises operate. The

total cost of project is $1,061,181 (local match of $748,981).

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of Congressman Peter King of New York's legislation. I think it's very important at this point in time to recognize, as we have discussed today, the importance of that relationship that we have with South Korea and to recognize also just how much of a test North Korea's provocative actions have been for our allies in South Korea.

If we think back to the aftereffect of the Korean War and how South Korea lay in ruins and think today about the fact that South Korea has one of the highest per-capita incomes in the world and yet we look at North Korea and it has the lowest, it is truly dramatic. I have been in North Korea, and it's phenomenal to me to see the kind of devastation that that misrule has led to in terms of the population, the stunted growth, the malnutrition that you can see when you meet people. But particularly for our friends in South Korea, who today are one of our strongest trading partners, particularly for them at this point in time, when we see this North Korean foreign policy, which has always been aggressive but lately has included long-range missile tests; has included three-stage ICBMs; includes booting U.N. inspectors from the country; the sentencing of Laura Ling and Euna Lee, two young American journalists, sentencing them to 12 years hard labor; the ongoing counterfeiting of U.S. $100 bills; missile proliferation out of North Korea; drug trafficking and other illicit activities, so many illicit activities that I think some of us are confounded by the fact that almost half of the hard currency that goes into that regime is money they make through illicit activities. And now North Korea has conducted a second underground nuclear test in 3 years. We are in the midst of a leadership struggle, and many expect as a result more provocations, more missile tests, even more nuclear tests perhaps over the ensuing months.

Weeks after the North Korean test, the U.N. Security Council has passed a watered-down resolution. And just as the previous administration did after North Korea's October 2006 nuclear test, this U.N. action will be touted. It will be touted by our spokesman as an effective response. Well, we've heard this story before, unfortunately. It is not an effective response, and it is because, frankly, with the lowest common denominator U.N. resolution approach, where China and Russia get that opportunity to water down that resolution so that it won't be enforced effectively, frankly, we come to a conclusion. And the conclusion for me--and I've followed this issue for many years--is that the United States can achieve an awful lot by deploying measures to further undercut North Korea's economy and to target its proliferation activities. We have found that the source of doing that before; we should do it again.

Past attempts to squeeze the wallet of North Korea have proven very successful. When banks from across Asia refused to do business with the North Koreans after a bank in Macau was shut down by U.S. sanctions for laundering counterfeit U.S. currency for North Korea, it brought enormous pressure. It was at a point in North Korea where the previous ruler, Kim Jong Il, temporarily the ruler, could not pay his generals. And that was until this effort was dropped with the belief that North Korea would bargain its nuclear program away. Those sanctions were lifted. North Korea got back on its feet. The work that they were doing on missile proliferation could begin again because they had the hard currency again.

There were reports that North Korean counterfeiting of our $100 bills has been ramped up in recent months. News reports indicate that South Korea has given us the information on between 10 and 20 North Korean bank accounts, most of them in China, one of them in Switzerland. One former U.S. official has called that Macau bank--and I have been in Macau and we have seen those $100 bills--he calls that the tip of the iceberg of North Korean illicit activity.

We know what to do now. We know what worked in terms of shutting them down when we were willing to do it. So if we have the will, we can do that again.

Mr. Speaker, North Korea's second nuclear test in 3 years offers a silver lining: clarity of the intentions of that regime. In case we didn't know it before, in case we didn't suspect it when we found that they were helping Syria on the banks of the Euphrates, when they were helping Syria develop a nuclear program, North Korea has dropped the pretense of being willing to negotiate away its nuclear program. We have learned, as Peter King, our colleague from New York, has told us, about the work done on uranium enrichment in addition to the plutonium program. They had a secret underground program that they never divulged to us.

South Korean President Lee Myung-bak, who will be visiting Washington this week, advocated for a new approach with respect to the Six-Party Talks in a weekend interview. That South Korea, our ally for over 60 years, is pressing for a fresh approach should speak volumes to us, and I hope we are listening.

I rise in support of this very important legislation, and I think there are a few points that we should keep in mind.

The first is that Pakistan is a tinderbox; its government is very weak, and social and economic trends are moving in the wrong direction and that is fostering extremism. The Pakistan Government has killed many militants over the last few weeks, but the insurgency remains potent. And, clearly, Pakistan is going to be troubled for some time.

Second, this region is the center of international terrorism. And most importantly, Pakistan has a growing nuclear arsenal. Now, we can either stay engaged and try to shape events, or go to the sidelines and see a bad situation become a possible disaster.

Third, to date, Pakistan has taken us for a ride. Since 9/11, we have provided Pakistan with some $12.3 billion. We spent billions before that. I've been to Pakistan a number of times; I have seen what has happened without conditions. I have also seen the need there. A school that I visited in the North-West Frontier has now been blown up, and madrasas now educate kids there in jihad. I have been to Peshawar. I've been to the regions where this militancy has to be confronted.

Little has improved without conditions, and there has been significant waste and corruption. So this legislation is the proposal we have with the best conditions. It best conditions that aid. It takes the position that while we must work with the Pakistani Government, our experience demands greater accountability from that government. No blank checks. That the Pakistan Government denounces this bill's conditions, frankly, should be a selling point.

I do, however, have one significant reservation. The trade provision that the Rules Committee majority added to this bill is sheer window dressing. As this bill goes to conference with the Senate, as the process continues, this trade provision must be liberalized. Increasing trade should be an important goal.

In short, the situation in Pakistan is dire, and with its nuclear arsenal, the stakes could not be any higher. We need all the accountability we can get. And that's why I support this bill.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, let me say that Pakistan is at a very critical juncture. We have radical militants. We have radical madrasas that are graduating an ever-increasing number of jihadists out of those schools, and we have a weak government with nuclear weapons.

This Pakistan bill is a good attempt to guide our engagement in Pakistan in a way that gives us the best chance to see that our aid is spent in a constructive and responsible fashion, which hasn't been the case. I commend its author, Chairman Berman.

As to the rule, I think it is problematic. The State Department authorization bill, quite simply, spends money we don't have, over a third increase at a time when we're borrowing money from China and elsewhere. Amendments to cut this amount were not made in order. I think that was a mistake.

I am very disappointed, let me add, though, at the addition done by the Rules Committee of a flawed trade provision. Don't get me wrong. Trade can do far, far more than aid for Pakistan's economic development and social stability, which is in our interest. The problem is that this provision is far too restrictive and burdensome as to do any good. In fact, it may be harmful to trade. At a time when Pakistan is perhaps the greatest threat facing us, this is no time for window dressing and business as usual. This preferential trade provision as it came out of Rules Committee is simply unacceptable.

I have an amendment at the desk.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I currently serve as the ranking member of the Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Terrorism. Previously, for 8 years, I served as the chairman of the Africa Subcommittee, so I long have followed the issues surrounding Eritrea and the Horn of Africa.

And this particular amendment calls on the Secretary of State to designate Eritrea as a ``state sponsor of terrorism.'' The Horn of Africa is a combustible mix. You have al Qaeda, you have piracy, a failed state in Somalia, border tensions, and a key instigator of this violence has been the government of Eritrea.

As the amendment indicates, U.N. report after U.N. report cites Eritrea for providing arms and military training to members of the Shabaab, and that's an al Qaeda-linked group that has been designated by the United States as a ``foreign terrorist organization.''

Mr. Chairman, if you take a look at this picture which appeared in a U.N. report, this is the actual Shabaab fighter who shot down a cargo plane with that shoulder-fired missile supplied by Eritrea. And the reason that we know that is the propaganda footage used by this al Qaeda-linked organization in order to try to recruit fighters to their goal. And they showed the footage of the successful attack on the cargo plane.

Now, what if that had been a civilian jetliner? How many lives would have been lost?

Indeed, our FBI is greatly concerned about Somali Americans who have gone missing from American cities. They are worried that they have gone to Somalia and are linking up with these terrorist groups. And it is Eritrea that is providing the weapons, including shoulder-fired missiles that can take out an airliner and that are providing this military training.

The case for adding Eritrea to the state sponsor of terrorism list is compelling. It's even overwhelming. It has been so for some time. The Obama administration's Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs, Johnny Carson, has noted that ``we have clear evidence that Eritrea is supporting extremists,'' and that ``the government of Eritrea continues to supply weapons and munitions to extremists and terrorist elements.''

And this isn't new. The previous administration took a similar view of the destructive role that Eritrea plays in the horn. Some will say that this is counterproductive or the wrong time. Well, it has been a delicate time in this region for a decade now, and it's gotten a whole lot worse.

It is a complex region. One thing, though, is not complex; this is a clear national security threat.

U.N. reports have noted that over 100 Shabaab terrorists have traveled to Eritrea for their military training at an Eritrean military base and then traveled back. The same U.N. reports have identified Eritrea as a ``principal violator'' of the arms embargo on Somalia and have asserted that these violations ``take place with the knowledge and authorization of senior officials within the Eritrean government.'' Plainly, it is state policy of Eritrea to support international terrorism.

The U.N. Security Council has made similar statements citing Eritrea's destructive role in the horn, and so have many neighboring countries. So it is time that Eritrea should be named a state sponsor of terrorism.

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

Let me respond that, first of all, I have a great deal of respect for Chairman Payne. We have worked together for years on Africa issues. We worked together on Darfur, Sudan. But this is the very issue of why we disagree here, because all Members should know that it was Eritrea that was the first country to invite Sudan's President, al- Bashir, to visit Eritrea following an arrest warrant for his crimes against humanity in Darfur.

Now, with respect to the issue, I can think of numerous issues and times when Congress has had to push--and we'll take Sudan as an example, since the example I'm giving here is an example in which Eritrea has welcomed al-Bashir at a time when the international community is trying to get him to prevent the crimes that he has committed in Darfur. We have had to push to take more assertive actions. We did that with genocide in Sudan. And in my view, there is nothing wrong now, especially with respect to a state sponsorship of terrorism. I think that the Assistant Secretary of State for Africa's words speak for themselves. Again, this is Secretary Carson before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee last month, in which he said, We have clear evidence that Eritrea is supporting these extremist elements, including credible reports that they continue to supply weapons and munitions to terrorist elements.

I ask for an ``aye'' vote.

Madam Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, news came yesterday that Laura Ling and Euna Lee, two American journalists held in North Korea, and held there since March, have been found guilty of illegally entering North Korea. They've been sentenced to 12 years of hard labor. These court proceedings were a cruel joke, nothing more than a kangaroo court. I know of no justice system in North Korea. The two should be immediately released.

As if there were any doubts, the North Korean regime has shown its true colors, a hostile regime bent on destroying the lives of its own citizens and others.

Let's be clear. These two wouldn't have been near North Korea were it not for the barbaric cruelty of its regime. Ling and Lee were convicted of so-called ``grave crimes.'' It is the North Korean regime that commits real grave crimes against millions of North Koreans every day.

President Obama, himself, must make it clear that this action cannot stand. Now is the time for urgent action.

Madam Speaker, I rise to support this resolution. I think, in recognizing the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children here on its 25th anniversary, it is time for us to reflect on just what a role it played in terms of increasing the recovery rate over time of missing children.

If you think about the last 25 years and the fact that 138,000 missing children have been recovered, returned to their families, but that in the early years that rate ran at 62 percent and now that rate is up to 97 percent, you begin to get an appreciation for just what the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children were able to do for humanity, for these children, for these families.

As mentioned, it was officially opened in June of 1984 by President Ronald Reagan, and since its inception, it has become the leading organization worldwide dealing with the issue of missing and exploited kids.

I've been pleased to support many of the initiatives that it's worked for, including:

The Jacob Wetterling Crimes Against Children Registration Act, which was in 1994, and it mandated that sex offender registries be established in every State;

Megan's Law of 1996, which mandated that every State provide community notification when dangerous sex offenders are released, was driven by the push from the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children;

The PROTECT Act of 2003, which created a national AMBER Alert Program and strengthened law enforcement's ability to punish violent criminals who prey upon children;

And, of course, the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006, which created a national sex offender public database. And it's because of that work over the years that that rate is up to 97 percent today.

Now, despite all that's been accomplished, I'm sure there is much more that can be done, should be done. I congratulate the NCMEC for its 25th anniversary. I congratulate it for its work on behalf of so many child recoveries to date.

And let this resolution remind us that there is nothing more important than the safety of our Nation's children, and that the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children has done such great work in this regard.

This is really about the future of our country. For those of us that have worried about the trends in spending and we've watched, of course with alarm--from George Washington to George Bush--we have watched what Thomas Jefferson warned us about. This proclivity in politics to spend now and leave this burden on the next generation has advanced and advanced.

But all of that debt together is not as great as the debt we're undertaking in the next 10 years. We are going to see that debt level double in the next 5\1/2\ years because of the massive increase in government spending that we are embarking on. Over the next 10 years we're going to see it triple.

I want you to think for a minute about what this means to your children. The Congressional Budget Office is nonpartisan. The Congressional Budget Office tells us that the tax rates for lower- income Americans, when we finally get around to recognizing that we can't borrow more, will have to go up drastically; will have to go up, in their estimation, to 26 percent. For middle income, it will go from 25 to 66 percent. Think what that's going to mean for small businesses.

No. The time to get a handle on this is now. The time to bring this back into check, because the Congressional Budget Office--even the Director of the President's Budget Office has come out recently and said Oh, these numbers are not sustainable. No, they're not.

And it's here in the House where spending bills originate that we're going to have to reverse this course, because if we do not, how are we going to maintain the ability to continue to go out with these Treasuries and borrow as much as we've borrowed several times again from the Europeans and from the Chinese?

Yes, the governments in Europe are lecturing us. All over the world people are lecturing us. At the G20 they're saying: How can you go forward with these massive spending increases? It is not sustainable. And they're right. They're absolutely right.

I oppose this budget because this unchecked spending will result in borrowing hundreds of billions of dollars from China and the Middle East and other nations that own our growing debt.

I think we all know as individuals that money doesn't grow on trees. But it is the American taxpayer who will eventually end up paying for all this spending. At a time when many taxpayers are hurting--they can't afford their mortgages right now, they are losing money in their pensions, they're

worried about losing their jobs--it is wrong at this time to make the argument that we're going to seize this opportunity to expand all of these government agencies and programs.

When Americans are tightening their belts, shouldn't the government be at least trying to balance its books?

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution, which recognizes the 30th anniversary of the Taiwan Relations Act. This is a historic occasion. Taiwan, of course, is a beacon of democracy in Asia. We have a strong partnership that stretches back over half a century with this country. Today our relations remain strong, as Taiwan is a cornerstone of U.S. foreign policy in Asia.

This was signed 30 years ago, and the Taiwan Relations Act laid into the law the basis for the continued commercial, cultural and defense relationship between the U.S. and Taiwan. As this resolution states, it has been instrumental in maintaining the peace, the security and the stability in the Taiwan Straits.

While this resolution highlights many of the positive attributes of the U.S.-Taiwan relationship, language detailing our important economic relationship was regrettably struck. As the original version states, Taiwan is the ninth largest trading partner of the U.S., with United States exports totaling over $26 billion. Imports from Taiwan are important too.

The truth is that trade is very important to Taiwanese security. Security isn't based on weapons alone.

I suspect it is wishful thinking with this administration, but I would like to see movement on a trade agreement with Taiwan. Certainly, if we throw up trade barriers, it would do much to destabilize Taiwan's economy. We shouldn't give trade short shrift.

Mr. Speaker, what we are recognizing here: come tomorrow we have the 188th year anniversary of the independence of Greece. And we are celebrating Greek and American democracy. And that date tomorrow represents the day at which, after 400 years of oppressive rule, Greeks finally became free. Greeks were able, and it is amazing to think about it, to maintain their language, maintain their religion, to hold on to their culture, despite 20 generations of persecution during that period of time.

And I think one of the reasons we are proud here in the United States about the role we played was because U.S. President James Monroe and our then-Secretary of State, Daniel Webster, pushed to send funds and supplies to aid Greece in that struggle. But more importantly, I think to all of us, freeborn men, both white and black, born in the North, traveled to Greece during that struggle. They played a role over 180 years ago in securing those freedoms. That was the power at the time of the concept of Greek liberty, that it drove Americans in this early republic to travel to Greece in order to take part in that very struggle. And that struggle, frankly, began an alliance between the U.S. and Greece that has joined our two countries in NATO, that has seen our soldiers fight tyranny in World War II.

We are indebted to the Greeks for their vast influence on our own society. Two thousand five hundred years ago, the Greeks ushered in Western civilization, and they brought about at that time the scientific method. They gave us the philosophy of Aristotle and Aristotelian logic, the birth of democratic government, the first age of reason. They brought forward the poetry of Euripides, the three- dimensional painting that was not rediscovered as a technique until the end of the Dark Ages, until into the Renaissance when again the enlightenment represented, really, the rediscovery of Greek philosophy, of these concepts of the autonomy of the individual, of logic and reason.

Our own founding fathers were deeply influenced by those Hellenic ideas. Thomas Jefferson, Adams and Madison, they not only wrote and read Greek; they could speak Greek--Tom Paine as well. They were well- versed in Greek philosophy.

In crafting the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, Jefferson and Madison drew heavily on the Greek ideal that a government derives its power from the people. Thomas Jefferson's stirring words that all men are created equal and are endowed with unalienable rights hark back to natural law theories that originated in Greek philosophy. Indeed, the very architecture of our buildings, the very

ideals that drove our founding fathers through all of this Greek culture permeates throughout Washington, DC and our Nation. It is this legacy that we justly recognize today.

The Democrats have actually controlled this Congress for over the last 2 years, and it was the Democrats who controlled the passage of the TARP legislation in the first place. I voted against that legislation.

But ABC News reported yesterday that ``during late-night, closed-door negotiations for the House, Senate, and White House, a measure was stripped out of the stimulus bill that could have restricted these AIG bonuses. The Senate had approved the amendment to the stimulus bill aimed at restricting bonuses over $100,000 that had been authored by Olympia Snowe and by Ron Wyden. Then, the provision was stripped out during the closed-door conference involving House and Senate leaders and the White House. Dodd's measure explicitly exempted bonuses agreed to prior to the passage of the stimulus bill.''

Now, most of the Democratic Members voted for this on the House floor, all of the Republicans voted against it. That's the record.

We should vote ``aye'' on this bill. And the reason we should is because it's going to stop executives from coming here to take TARP funds from Washington. It's going to stop capitalists from being converted into quasi-socialists. That's the reason we should vote ``aye.''

I brought an amendment to this floor in 2005 to try to prevent--with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac--to try to regulate them for systemic risk, arguing that their over-leveraging as GSEs was going to cause bankruptcy and a financial collapse. It was voted down.

It was voted down, but this year those executives from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, it was reported yesterday, they are going to get over $1 million in bonuses.

How do we stop every executive coming to this town to get TARP money and over-leveraging their firms and then the consequent bailout at cost to the taxpayers?

Well, we passed legislation removing their bonuses so that all of the time and effort that these business executives put into coming to D.C. is reversed.

When you take TARP money, when they do that, they have the full backing of the U.S. government behind them. So they can borrow money without market discipline and without limit, at a lower interest rate than their competitors, and drive them out of business, which is what AIG is doing right now to other smaller private sector businesses.

It's 80 percent owned by the government. Without that market discipline, what consequently happens, economists tell us--and this is exactly what happened with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as government- sponsored enterprises--they drive out their competition, they become larger and larger, they over-leverage, and then they collapse, requiring more in government infusions of capital into these institutions.

You have got to change the incentive structure. You have got to put up a firewall between government and the markets. You don't want these fellows down here with their lobbyists. You don't want these men and women, these executives down here trying to figure out ways to get the taxpayers to back them so that they can become quasi-GSEs, because the long-term consequence of becoming a government-sponsored enterprise is the same as what happened to Fannie and Freddie.

This is what economists have tried to explain to us. We finally have a method to distinguish between those in the private sector, those who are free-market businessmen, who are going to take risks, not with government money, and are going to make a salary and are going to pay bonuses to their executives, and those who decide that they want to be quasi-public in nature, that they want to be like Fannie and Freddie.

Why should they make bonuses of $1 million a year this year for Fannie and Freddie? Why should they make twice as much as they made in bonuses last year? It is only because, unfortunately, my friends on the other side of the aisle did not listen to this argument on TARP funding.