Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, sixty years ago today, half a world away, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea invaded the Republic of Korea. Soon after, President Harry Truman committed American forces to assist the South Koreans. So began a struggle between those seeking freedom and those seeking to expand the dark shadow of communism. An estimated one hundred thousand Americans were wounded, fifty thousand killed, and five thousand missing in action during the conflict.

Korean War veterans are a unique class of Americans. Those who served their country during 1950 to 1953 were raised during the Depression and had experienced World War II, either in the military or on the home front. They grew up in a time of great patriotism--a time when words like duty, honor, and country carried great weight. When their tour of duty ended, most of them returned to the States with little fanfare, picked up their pre-war lives, and carried on.

In the eyes of history, the Korean War is often referred to as the ``Forgotten War.'' But millions of Americans, including me, have not forgotten the heroism exhibited by the men and women who placed themselves in harm's way. Without their sacrifice, it is unlikely that South Korea would have become the free and prosperous nation that it is today. Therefore, I was honored to cosponsor H.J. Res. 86, which recognizes the 60th anniversary of the outbreak of the Korean War and reaffirms the U.S-Korea Alliance. I'm pleased that this resolution recently passed the House by voice vote.

While we must not forget the past, we must also act swiftly and decisively in the present. In May, after the tragic sinking of the Cheonan, I cosponsored H. Res. 1382 to express sympathy for the families of those killed by North Korea, and solidarity with the Republic of Korea. As evidence of the U.S. commitment to defending the Republic of Korea, this Resolution passed with overwhelming bi-partisan support. Tolerating continued North Korean hostility will only serve to weaken inter-Korean relations and result in the further destabilization of the region.

Despite the recently-renewed conflict, we should recognize that South Korea's progress is an encouragement and a model for other nations. After hostilities subsided in 1953, Korea was faced with the daunting task of recovering from the carnage and bloodshed of war. South Korea was an economically weak nation; in fact it was one of the poorest nations on earth. Yet today, the Republic of Korea has one of the most vibrant and successful export-oriented economies in the world. This historical record provides hope that, with our persistent efforts, both harmony and prosperity are possible on the Korean Peninsula.

We must remember the brave men and women who sacrificed their lives so that South Korea could be the free and flourishing nation that it is today. In their honor, we continue the struggle for peace on the Korean Peninsula.

Madam Speaker, earlier this year, the Jewish community celebrated the holiday of Passover, the Festival of Freedom. On that holy day, in thousands of synagogues and dining rooms, a somber yet determined prayer of hope was recited for Israeli soldiers held in captivity:

``Redeem them from amongst the kidnapped, and take them from slavery to freedom, from servitude to redemption, from darkness to light, and fully heal their wounds. Give them courage and spirit and strengthen their resilience.''

Today, on the eve of a solemn anniversary, I would like to remind my colleagues of one Israeli who has remained in captivity for four years. On June 25th, 2006, Hamas and two other groups brutally and unjustifiably attacked an Israeli patrol, murdering two soldiers and kidnapping wounded Corporal Gilad Shalit, a member of the Israel Defense Forces' Armor Corps. Since then, Gilad Shalit has been denied medical attention, physical contact with his family, and visits from humanitarian groups like the International Committee of the Red Cross. This treatment constitutes clear violations of the Geneva Convention.

Moreover, Hamas has refused to negotiate the release of the abducted soldier despite the involvement of credible third parties and Israel's frequent acts of goodwill. For example, Israel proposed an exchange of hundreds of Palestinians being held in Israel for Shalit's freedom. Israel also takes a proactive stance in providing adequate humanitarian aid to Gaza's civilians. In fact, Israel recently eased the Gaza blockade. Yet Hamas continues to defy Israel's cooperative efforts and international pressure. By mocking diplomatic efforts to free Corporal Shalit peacefully, Hamas is exploiting the anguish of Shalit's family.

I am proud to have recently cosponsored bipartisan H. Res. 1359, which calls for the immediate and unconditional release of Gilad Shalit from Hamas captivity. This resolution sends the strong and undeniable message that the actions of Hamas are not only in violation of international custom and law, but they are also morally reprehensible and inhumane.

Corporal Shalit's release is not merely an Israeli goal; it should be the objective of the international community. Together, we should use available resources and strategies to obtain his immediate and safe release. I strongly call on President Obama, Secretary Clinton, and Ambassador Rice to advocate for Gilad Shalit's safe return and to stand beside Israel in its efforts to protect its soldiers and defend its citizens.

I thank the gentlelady for yielding.

For the past year, I have met with Iranian dissidents who continue to protest the presidential elections that occurred a little more than a year ago. Many of them have urged me to ensure that Congress enacts strong sanctions. We are all too well aware of the existential threat that a nuclear-powered Iran would be.

Today we are about to pass a conference report that was supposed to protect Americans and our allies. Yet if that was our goal, I believe we only have partial success.

As a conferee representing the Financial Services Committee, I do admit that the sanctions themselves have been improved. I was pleased to see that the legislation includes financial sanctions that would cut off the connections between the U.S. financial sector and foreign financial institutions that do business with Iran.

Yes, the conference report does add additional types of sanctions, and it extends the range of current sanctions. But I remind my colleagues that these punishments are hardly crippling, they're hardly tough, they're hardly sweeping or even expanded if they are never enforced.

Now, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle claim that this time they'll work. But let me remind them of a little bit of history. In 1996, Congress passed the original Iran sanctions legislation; but in the last 14 years, no President has imposed sanctions, even though he has had the authority from Congress to do so. In fact, only one investigation was ever initiated. I say that this conference report is really only a half measure, a half bill, because 50 percent of it depends on who? On President Obama's willingness to implement the sanctions and to do it quickly.

This legislation does in fact have seven separate waivers which the President may invoke. In addition, there are three different waiver thresholds. The end result is that the President has the option of enforcing most of the punitive measures outlined in the report.

Now, of course multiple Democrats have attempted to reassure me. They say that they will now pressure the President to implement the sanctions outlined in this legislation. But we've been hearing that for 16 months. We've been told that the President's attempts to engage the U.N. about Iran would produce diplomatic gains. Yet the recently passed U.N. security resolution was hardly that significant of a success. Furthermore, President Obama himself recognized 2 weeks ago that, A, Iran concealed a nuclear enrichment facility; B, Iran further violated its own obligations; C, Iran is enriching uranium up to 20 percent.

Mr. Speaker, for the past year, I have read about and met with Iranian dissidents who continue to protest the presidential elections that occurred a little more than a year ago. Many of them have urged me to work to ensure that Congress enacts strong sanctions. They say that they long to be free from the current regime, especially since they too are afraid of what would happen if Iran obtained a nuclear weapon.

Today, we are about to pass a conference report that was supposed to protect Americans, our allies, and the Iranians who suffer under tyrannical leaders. Yet if this was our goal, I believe we can proclaim only partial success.

As a conferee representing the Financial Services Committee, I do admit that the sanctions themselves have been improved. I was pleased to see that this legislation includes financial sanctions that would cut off the connection between the U.S. financial sector and foreign financial institutions that do business with iran's Islamic Guard Corps or Iranian banks under sanctions.

In addition, it establishes a legal framework for U.S. states and local governments to divest from foreign businesses that have economic ties to the Iranian energy sector. I am also thankful for the provision that sanctions those who commit egregious human rights violations against the Iranian people.

Yes, the conference report does add additional types of sanctions, and extends the range of current sanctions. But I remind my colleagues that these punishments are hardly ``crippling'' or ``tough'' or ``sweeping'' or even ``expanded'' if they are never enforced.

My colleagues on the opposite side of the aisle claim that this time sanctions will work. but I would like to remind them of a few historical facts:

1. In 1996, Congress passed the original Iran Sanctions legislation.

2. Yet for the past 14 years, no U.S. President has imposed sanctions--even though he has this authority and mandate from Congress.

3. In fact, only one investigation was ever initiated.

I say that this conference report is really a half measure. It's ``half a bill'' because 50% of it depends entirely on President Obama's willingness to implement sanctions, and to do so quickly.

This legislation has at least seven separate waivers which the President may invoke. In addition, there are three different waiver thresholds. The end result is that the President has the option of enforcing most of the punitive measures outlined in the conference report.

Of course, multiple Democrats have attempted to reassure me. They say that they will now pressure the President to implement the sanctions outlined in this legislation.

But I've been hearing the same claim for the past 16 months!

1. We have been told that the President's attempts to engage the U.N. about Iran would produce great diplomatic gains.

2. Yet the recently-passed U.N. security resolution was hardly a significant success.

3. Furthermore, President Obama himself recognized two weeks ago that:

a. ``Iran concealed a nuclear enrichment facility.''

b. ``Iran further violated its own obligations under U.N. Security Council resolutions to suspend uranium enrichment.''

c. Iran is ``enriching [uranium] up to 20 percent.''

d. Iran ``has failed to comply fully with IAEA's requirements.''

e. Iran is the only [Non-Proliferation Treaty] signatory in the world--the only one--that cannot convince the IAEA that its nuclear program is intended for peaceful purposes.''

How can you justify the 18-month lapse you've already given to President Obama?

If the majority hasn't been pressuring President Obama for the last year and half, why haven't they? After all, the original Iran Sanctions legislation has been in effect since before President Obama took office.

If they have been pressuring the President--without results--why do they think that he will listen to them now? What articulation can they invoke that they failed to give before? Why would the President be more likely to listen to them now?

President Obama seems concerned only about pressuring Iran through diplomatic means; he has begged Congress to delay passage of sanctions--as if the threat of sanctions would be a distraction or roadblock to his negotiating success. And why would he seek broad latitude and carve-outs for nations like Russia if he were serious about imposing sanctions on Iran?

Given the pressure that the State Department put on the conferees, I do wonder if sanctions investigations will ever result in the actual application of sanctions.

And even if they did, the bill doesn't require prompt action. Some of the waivers allow the president to postpone sanctions for up to 12 months if a company falls into certain categories.

For example, this means that the president could choose not to enforce sanctions against BP, since BP is based in a ``cooperating country''--one which voted for the U.N. Iran Sanctions resolution. In other cases, the president is given flexibility in issuing a waiver if he determines that a company has achieved a 20-30% reduction in sanctionable activities.

In other words, the president could claim that he is complying the day after he signs the conference report. But a year or even a year and a half could go by with no activity or tangible outcome. Even so, the president would technically be in compliance with this legislation.

Just think about this: we could have a new president (in 2012) before this bill would require the president to actually enforce a single sanction. He could simply continue doing what he is doing now: cite one of the seven waivers.

So . . . how did we come to this point? Why are we now considering a weaker bill than the one that passed the House last December? Why are we faced with the potential for such an ineffective outcome?

I'd like to be able to thank the Democrats for considering this in a bi-partisan and constructive manner. But the process was neither bi- partisan nor constructive.

In fact, one is hard pressed to describe to this conference as a ``process'' at all. I certainly don't think that one meeting--which involved opening statements only--could ever be defined as a ``process.''

During that first (and only) meeting, Members pledged to work together to pass tough sanctions. But Chairmen Dodd and Berman never called another meeting. I heard nothing

more. Then, my staff received an e-mail at 2:42 p.m. yesterday. The e- mail simply read: ``Attached please find a final text of the conference report . . . Signature sheet will be available from 3-4 o'clock today.''

In the end, we wind up right where we started--with lots of promises from the majority that they will pressure the president to do the right thing.

The numbers tell the exasperating story quite effectively:

We were allowed zero chances to offer amendments.

We were allowed zero up or down votes on any section of the report.

We were given zero chances to revise the draft conference report.

We have zero ability to offer a Motion to Recommit.

We had one official meeting between the conferees.

We had one hour to read the 41-page final conference report before the deadline for signing it had elapsed.

These actions clearly show that the majority never intended to be held accountable for watering down the original legislation. They never wanted to give us an opportunity to oppose the demands of the White House. They never desired transparency and openness so that the American public could examine the true positions of their elected leaders.

What are the Democrats afraid of? If the answer is a veto threat, I think we should remember our oath which includes the words: ``I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic.'' Particularly in this case, our principles should have come before our politics.

We all know that the president of Iran has called Zionists, ``the true manifestation of Satan.'' We also know that he has said that since the U.S. recognizes Israel, it will ``burn in the fire of the Islamic nation's fury.''

If we truly agree that sanctions are the best non-violent deterrent and if we agree that Iran is as little as a year away from obtaining nuclear weapon capabilities, why does this legislation grant the president so many waivers and so much time to act? Time, unfortunately, is most decidedly not on our side.

As the Joint Explanatory Statement reads, I hope that we will all now ``urge the President to vigorously impose the sanctions provided for in this act.''

Madam Speaker, as a long-time friend of Taiwan, and as one of the 140 bipartisan Members of the Congressional Taiwan Caucus, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting an issue that my Taiwanese-American constituents and I care deeply about.

During the previous Congress, I introduced H. Con. Res. 250, which supports Taiwan's full membership in international organizations such as the United Nations. To me, it seems only fair that a country with a population of 23 million be represented in the U.N. and its affiliated organizations.

If it weren't for China's disapproval, Taiwan would likely have become a member of the U.N. long ago. China consistently blocks Taiwan's membership in the U.N. because China opposes international recognition of Taiwan's status as a sovereign and independent country. And since China is a large country, and Taiwan a small one, Taiwan's involvement in international organizations has become contingent upon Chinese approval.

A prime example of China's influence occurred just a short while ago. In early April of this year, the media reported that China would permit Taiwan's Health Minister to attend the annual summit of the World Health Organization (WHO) in Geneva for the second year in a row.

Then, in mid-April, our State Department sent a report to Congress supporting ``meaningful participation'' by Taiwan in the WHO. It read: ``As we plan for the 63rd WHA [World Health Assembly] session this May, the U.S. welcomes the extension of WHA's invitation once again to Taiwan to send an observer delegation. [. . .] The invitation to attend the 2009 WHA was issued after the People's Republic of China agreed to Taiwan's participation.'' Clearly, Taiwan attended this year's summit only because China allowed it to do so.

I am concerned that other countries and international organizations will now begin to view China as Taiwan's suzerain. If this view becomes the accepted international norm, Taiwan's current status as an independent, sovereign state will be undermined further.

Some applaud the fact that Taiwan had any presence in this year's summit. I would like to point out though that, due to Chinese pressure, Taiwan participated under the name ``Chinese Taipei,'' even though the name of the country is ``Taiwan.'' Taipei is merely Taiwan's capital. In addition, Taiwan participated in the WHA session as a mere ``observer.'' This meant that Taiwan's representatives did not have the right to vote during the weeklong meeting. Furthermore, Taiwan's participation was not permanent; it came under Beijing's sponsorship on a one-year-at-a-time basis.

Rather than supporting ``meaningful participation,'' I believe the U.S. should promote Taiwan's full membership in international organizations such as the WHO. I therefore urge my colleagues to join me in supporting Taiwan's full and equal membership in the United Nations, the WHO, and other international organizations.

Today, the Saddle River Police Department will hold its Youth Leadership Program graduation ceremony for the students of Wandell Elementary School located in Saddle River, NJ. The participants of this important program have made a commitment to say ``no'' to drugs, underage drinking, and gang violence. They have done this with the support of Chief of Police Timothy McWilliams and Detective Timothy Gerity.

Through opening the lines of communication between local law enforcement and youth, the Saddle River Youth Leadership Program empowers youth with the confidence and courage to say no to drugs and also defeats the negative cultural influences which they are challenged with on a daily basis.

I am immensely proud of my young constituents who participated in this program at

Wandell Elementary School; thus, I would like to recognize each of them for taking this vital step towards positive citizenship:

Jack Bush, James Butler, Natalie Formento, Alanna Fullerton, Grace Hinchen, Kaitlin Hofer, Maxx King, David LaManna, Lucy Pennell, Mary Pless, Aram Rashduni, Hannah Rogers, Michael Saks, Spencer Shih, Maya Silberman, Britni Strobeck, Richard Vincent, Emma Walsh, Taylor Wiener, Devin Bovino, Ryan Carr, Stephanie Devli, Kathleen Dorce, Zachary Dreznin, Elizabeth Dutko, Kristen Egan, Hana Friedman, Melissa Katsapis, Maeson Nolan, Alexander Rohrscheidt, Benjamin Saks, Katharin Spence, Mark Tseytin, Carl Villegas, Euan Walker, and Jaqueline Wiebye.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I know that our leader was just down here speaking a moment ago with regard to what is going to be coming shortly, which is the MTR, and I just want to take a moment in regard to that as well, a motion to recommit that will reduce the uncertainty and reduce the regulatory burdens facing who? The small businesses, by repealing the so-called individual mandate from the recently passed health care bill.

Why do we talk about that now? Well, I have a bill that basically does the exact same thing. I introduced H.R. 4999, the Reclaiming Individual Liberty Act, which would also repeal that mandate. Because as we come to the floor right now, it's granted the authority to regulate various aspects of our economy is broad but is not that broad to be able to impose an individual mandate on what we know is, by doing so, we will hurt not only the individual and the family but also the economy of this country as well.

So I commend the gentleman for his work in this regard. I commend the gentleman for the MTR that we're about to see in a few moments. Because in that MTR, just as in the Reclaiming Individual Liberty Act, we recognize that the Constitution prohibits the expansion of government authority in those areas. If we had that ability to do that here, wouldn't we have already done that last year with regard to the auto industry and said, we can mandate people to buy automobiles in that area? We can't do it in that area. We can't do it in this area. And I commend the gentleman for it.

Thank you. I wasn't going to start off on that road, but it's probably a good one to talk about for just a moment. I commend the gentleman for his leadership on this general issue and being down on the floor bringing an educational point not just to the Members of the Congress who are here or watching back in their offices but the American public as well. So I commend the gentleman.

Yes, I am from the great State of New Jersey, and we have gone through

phenomenally bad fiscal times for the last decade or so in our State that brings us to the brink of economic morass that we're in in the State right now. In one sense, you might say that New Jersey is sort of like a microcosm of the rest of the country, and that is spending beyond its means.

We hear a lot in the news with regard to the great State of California out on the West Coast, and that's simply because the State's so large and the economy is so large. But a lot of the economic funds and the debt limits, New Jersey is actually in a worse state than California is on a per capita basis.

New Jersey often says we're number one in a lot of things, and sometimes the things that we're number one in are great but at other times they're not so good, and the debt levels and the responsibilities of the taxpayers of New Jersey to pay them off are quite astounding. And the number that comes to head just as an aside right now is that per family, which is about four people, it's around a hundred thousand dollars, the debt level, if you add the State, counties, and local levels.

Right. And if you translate that into if you wanted to go out and get a mortgage on your house right now for a hundred thousand dollars, at around 6 percent, I guess that would translate to around $600 a month. So that's what we are all on the hook for in the State of New Jersey.

The Federal Government, of course, goes way beyond that, and I don't have to tell you that, but the Federal Government needs to simply do what New Jersey is doing right now and that is begin the process of living within its means. It's not an easy one by any means. That's why our Governor is making----

Well, there you go. It would be, and as a matter of fact, as you know, I serve on the Budget Committee and Chairman Spratt is the chairman of that committee. We had just this past week the head of the Federal Reserve, Chairman Bernanke, before our committee, and we put that question to him. We asked him a two-step process: What are the financial markets of this country looking for today, and why do you have so much unrest in the financial market? And he basically said it is because of all the uncertainty out there--I'm paraphrasing, if you will. And then we said, well, is it a problem that creates uncertainty, then, if the Federal Government does not make transparent exactly what we are going to be spending, i.e., present a budget? And he basically says, well, that is one of the elements of uncertainty, absolutely.

He was, and I was being a little bit gentle in those areas. I put a chart on the screen showing where we've been over the last several years because, you know, the Democrat majority always says that they inherited this problem and that all the problems that we're dealing with today are all President Bush's fault. And I put up a little chart on the wall showing going back, I guess it was, from 2000 and 2004 and showing what the budget deficits were, and that was the gray chart. I don't have the chart right here. So it was this big, then it got a little smaller and a little smaller, and then it went to the year 2007 and it got about this level, and 2007 and 2008 it goes basically off the chart.

If the gentleman will yield.

And you are setting the record straight, but just to elucidate a little bit more on the record as to the process here in the House.

As the gentleman well knows, all appropriation bills, all spending of taxpayers' money originates right here in the House. And who was the person holding the gavel at that time when those spending bills originated from here in the House? Well, it's the gentleman's name who was on the last chart, Chairman Spratt.

So, on the 2007 year, right down there, that would have been when the Democrats would have been taking control of the Congress. They took control, and so they would have been having the appropriations process that year going forward. And so, realistically, who was responsible for that immediate uptick in the red chart right after that? Well, we didn't have to wait for President Obama to come into office in order to see the control of Congress that changed; that was the Democrat majority. And so although President Bush was still in the White House, where was the spending coming from at that point?

Right here in the House.

Off the charts.

I'm a lawyer.

If the gentleman will yield, first of all, isn't it amazing that we have gotten to the point where we would say that spending $50 billion is a mini-stimulus proposal? I know you're doing that flippantly in light of the fact that we have $700 billion here and $700 billion there and trillions of dollars by the Federal Reserve, but that is amazing that we've gotten to this point. Perhaps there is so much lemonade that the American public has basically soured on all of this spending that has been going on here.

Not to play the puns any longer, you said earlier that this administration has waged war on business. I guess you could extrapolate that and say they're really waging war on job creation in this country. I think that's issue number one, job creation, because, by waging war against the expansion of businesses out there, that means we're not going to see job creation.

Part of that war is a battle that is going on right now, literally as we

speak. It started on Thursday of last week. It will go on for the next 2 weeks. What I'm talking about, of course, is the conference committee between the House and the Senate on the financial service reform, which is definitely an attack on your second bullet point there--insufficient liquidity.

The bill that came out of the House and out of the Senate, under the majority party, will restrict liquidity; and it will restrict credit in the credit markets across this country. It will do so on a whole host of fronts whether it's through the Federal Reserve activities, whether it's through the CFPA, or whether it's through the regulations of the derivative markets; and I can just go down the list.

What does all that mean to you, to me, and to all the folks back home?

It means it will be harder to go out and get that auto loan. It will be harder to go out and get that home equity loan. It will be harder to go out and get that mortgage so you can buy a new house. It will be harder for that small business that wants to buy a new truck so it can hire one more person to drive that truck to do business. It will be harder for that small business to get a loan to expand its operation. All of those things--a lack of liquidity and the tightening of the credit markets--will hurt business, and it will hurt job creation. That is what is going to be rolling out, unfortunately, in the next couple of weeks here in Congress.

I think, if a bank were standing here with us, it would say, Well, look at bullet point No. 3, ``Economic Uncertainty.'' It would say, With so much coming out of Washington that is uncertain, we have no idea, A, what the rules are going to be tomorrow and, B, what the economy is going to be tomorrow. So they would argue that they're trying to do the prudent thing, the safe thing and say, We're not going to loan to that person who, under normal circumstances, we would loan to.

So you are absolutely right. The Fed theoretically is trying to provide liquidity, but the banks are saying, Whoa, not under this set of playing rules, which may change tomorrow or which may change next week. So the Federal Government is exacerbating the problem that they created in the first place.

Madam Speaker, today, the Central New Jersey Council of the Boy Scouts of America is celebrating 100 years of Scouting at their Annual ``Good Scout'' Award dinner. The Good Scout Award is given to individuals who exemplify the true spirit of volunteerism and support the mission and purpose of the Scouting movement.

The 2010 recipient of the Warren County ``Good Scout'' Award is Doug Steinhardt. A lifelong resident of Warren County, Doug has served the community in the tradition of the Boy Scouts of America and his work in the private and public sector is a testament to his dedication to the community. Some of the achievements and services Doug has provided to Warren County include being named to the governing body of the New Jersey State Bar, appointment to the Board of Directors of DARE, serving on the Legislative Committee of the New Jersey League of Municipalities and the Board of Directors of the Warren County Regional Chamber of Commerce. An Eagle Scout, Doug was also appointed to the Board of Directors of the Central New Jersey Council of the Boy Scouts of America in July 2008. Doug sets the highest standard of how to lead by example to residents of Warren County every day.

This year, Boy Scout Troop 141 from Belvidere, NJ is also being honored tonight with the ``Boy Scouts of America's Centennial Award'', which recognizes the troop for being the longest continuously operated Boy Scout Troop in the Central New Jersey Council at 98 years old. They were chartered in March of 1912 by the Belvidere Scout Home Association who still charters the Troop today. Troop 141 Scouts camp at least once per month, attend summer camp on an annual basis and participate in community activities such as the annual Christmas tree presentation to the town of Belvidere.

Today, I join the Boy Scouts of America in acknowledging Doug Steinhardt and Belvidere Troop 141. I am proud to represent such selfless and dedicated residents in the United States House of Representatives.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment.

I yield myself 3 minutes.

I want to begin by restating the obvious, and that is, the FHA right now is in serious financial trouble. Their book of business during 2005 and 2006 and 2007 was really pretty small back then, and in 2008, FHA's lending took off to really high levels and currently is around 30 percent of the market. Typically, the default from mortgages occurs not in the first couple of years but in three, four, five, six, and seven years.

So we've already seen a sharp increase in delinquency and defaults with the FHA book, and we've not even gotten into the typically bad areas, the problem years for 2008 and 2009 so we're probably going to see those numbers go off the track.

Some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle may say that there isn't going to be a problem because underwriting standards have tightened up some and the average FICO score has gone up. If you think about it, that really misses the point. In the mortgage business, you make pennies and you lose dollars. Because of the tremendous increase in volume, the FHA has insured thousands of more loans from higher credit borrowers but they insured thousands of more loans from more credit risky borrowers, too. Those numbers just aren't going to balance out. So, when the FHA has to pay a claim on default, it costs significantly more than the proceeds, than the few extra pennies they get by issuing more loans. For example, the premiums from 10 additional good loans would not cover the losses from 10 additional riskier loans in default. In fact, I doubt it would cover even one.

This point also debunks the claim that if you raise the down payment you will hurt the FHA because the accompanying reduction in volume will not allow them to collect as many fees. Why is that? The more loans you insure, the more defaults you will experience and you will not be able to recoup the losses with those additional premiums.

A second point. Another argument they will make is that the FHA's LTV ratio, the loan-to-value ratio, above 95 percent are a lower percentage of the books today than they were just a few years ago, but this fails to acknowledge that it's because their book has grown so much over the last few years. So I would argue this, that of the total numbers, there are significantly more loans over there that are above 95 percent LTV and over 96.5 which is a critical number simply because of their ability to finance the up-front premiums now. And with more loans with higher LTVs means what? More riskier loans.

FHA's own actuarial report says this: ``Based on previous econometric studies of mortgage behavior, a borrower's equity position in the mortgaged house is one of the most important drivers of default behavior. The larger the equity position a borrower has, the greater the incentive to avoid default on the loan.''

So that's why I've come up with this amendment. It's not a 20 percent down payment or 15 percent or even a 10 percent, which many private lenders right now require, but we go for the reasonable one, the compromise, 5 percent down payment. I support home owners as much as the next guy, and I want everybody to be able to afford their own home if they could. But we have to learn something from our past history, and we have to be responsible here in this House.

I find the debate over the problems with the FHA eerily similar to the debates we've had leading up to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. As taxpayers now are pumping hundreds of billions of dollars into Fannie and Freddie now, history has shown that we were on the right side of the debate then with Fannie and Freddie then, and I want to make sure that when this FHA bill goes through this House now, and at the conclusion of this debate as well, I want to make sure that myself and all of my colleagues are on the right side of this debate as well.

So I urge my colleagues to be all on the right side of this, this debate in history and to support my amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).

Mr. Speaker, to close, I take, to begin with, the words of the gentlewoman from Illinois who really makes my case in her amendment which, really, unfortunately, does not go far enough. She says, on the floor, that the FHA does need clear direction what to do in this area of downpayments. Unfortunately, they have not done the job up to this point in time, and now she says we have to give them that clear direction. That is what my amendment would do.

In no uncertain terms, we would say that those people who are not the best risks out there should have a minimum of 5 percent down. I also take from her very own words, she points out the fact that one out of four homes right now are under water. Well, do we want to find ourselves in this situation again 4 or 5 years from now from those very same people when one out of four homeowners are under water when they only have a few couple of percentage points down on their house that they are going to say, I can simply walk away from this house because there is really not much of an investment in it.

I don't think we want to rehash this argument again. I don't think we want to be in this situation again where the American taxpayer is put on the hook, just as it is now, to the tune of $400 billion over the life of the GSAs. We don't want to have to come out and bail out FHAs.

Let's do the prudent thing right now. Let's be on the right side of history and make sure we have a prudent downpayment for FHA loans.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Before I begin, I just have to respond to the chairman's remarks. You know, Mr. Chairman, I'd ask you to listen to what the gentleman from Virginia said before. We're not about at this point in time looking back. We're about looking forward. We're not about looking at pointing blame. I know you have been on the floor for Special Orders speaking for over an hour saying that you're not at fault and you come here again to say that you're not the responsible party, that nothing to do with it as far as the problems with the GSEs, Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac can be laid at your footsteps and it's all the Republicans' fault.

We're not here about trying to point blame to actions that were taken in the committee. We are not here to point blame when you said let's roll the dice and see what happens. We're not here to point blame at you to say that when you said repeatedly in the past that there's not a systemic risk with the GSEs, we're not here to bounce that. We are where the American public is, to look forward to see what we can do now with the crisis that we're in.

I rise today with a message from the American people and that they are simply tired of this pointing blame and they are tired of the hollow promises of reform from Speaker Pelosi and the Democrat majority. They are tired of hearing that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are projected to cost the taxpayers upwards of $389 billion. So they're probably a little bit shocked when they hear you say that it's not going to cost the American public anything. We know that it will cost upwards, for the past actions, $389 billion, and going forward who knows exactly what it will cost the American taxpayers.

Since taking over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the two government- sponsored mortgage-backing companies, American taxpayers have spent so far $145 billion for these two companies, and here's the important point. This is what we're trying to make here is that Congress still has not considered any proposals whatsoever to reform these companies and recoup those taxpayer dollars. We're about to go into conference, and there is nothing in the Senate or the House bills that deal with that situation.

We, on the other hand, in this YouCut proposal that's on the floor right now, would suggest that we can save the American taxpayers how much money? Up to $30 billion. Look, I know that originally Congress put a cap of $200 billion on it, and then the administration lifted that cap and raised it up to $400 billion that it could cost the taxpayers, and then in the dead of night on Christmas Eve 2009, they lifted that cap and went even further and said it's unlimited over the next 3 years what it will cost the American taxpayers to bail out Fannie and Freddie. I know that the administration did all that. I also know that it's nowhere projected or listed really honestly in the budget that we're still waiting to hear, as the gentleman from Texas just pointed out.

We know also that, as we say, there is no plan from the majority or from this administration to try to rein that in to save these $30 billion, and that is why we come to the floor to do just that because the American taxpayers, American voters have said, through YouCut, that that is exactly what we need to do.

Professor Hal Scott from Harvard Law School noted how incomplete the financial services regulatory reform legislation is. He said this: ``It doesn't address GSE reform,'' Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, ``which arguably is the most costly part of the entire bailout process. If you look at the money we've actually spent on the bailout, the GSEs are costing us billions.'' There is no solution from the White House.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, would that it be true that there are no more bailouts in this 1,400- or 1,500-page bill that Congress is about to be considering in conference. Would that it be true that the American taxpayer is potentially no longer on the hook, as it has been over the last year and a half under this administration and past, as far as the bailouts that are costing the taxpayers literally tens of billions of dollars. Would that it be true that we pass a piece of legislation and be able to keep in place the laws of this country for the last 200-plus years to protect private property rights and to protect the rights under the Bankruptcy Code so that investors and institutions know exactly what they are going to get when they invest in a company, more importantly, when you are a secured creditor, that that name would actually mean what it says: You are secured by the assets of the company.

We certainly saw that that was not the case in the Chrysler situation. You had a situation where the administration basically stepped in, using taxpayer dollars, and used the system of saying, We're not going to go through bankruptcy court--as Members of this side of the aisle would suggest should have occurred--but we are going to act in an extracurricular manner and allow the secured creditors to be tossed aside and the assets of the company to be divvied up willy-nilly as the administration and others decided they would have.

Now, that's, in essence, what we will be perpetuating with this piece of legislation that's before us. What happened in that situation?

Well, in that situation, you had the unions, which basically had no interest in that company whatsoever, end up with basically a 55 percent interest in the company at the end of the day, basically a gift valued at $4.5 billion, and Fiat was given a 20 percent stake for free to take it over. At the end of the day, the secured creditors who thought that they should have been at the front of the line, well, ended up at the end of the line. Instead of getting, maybe, 43 cents on the dollar, they ended up getting some 29 cents on the dollar and said, You should be happy about it.

Why do I bring up that case? Because, basically, at the end of the day, Mr. Speaker, we're going to be perpetuating that same sort of ability for regulators to be making those same decisions going forward. Yes, maybe they won't be able to give it to their friends again at the unions like they did in this case. Maybe they will. We're really not sure.

Yet, at the end of the day, we'll be perpetuating the ability to say to secured creditors, secured creditors, you want to make an investment in a company, thinking that you are secured and that if the company were to fail and to go into bankruptcy that you would be first in line. Guess what? That is not going to be the case.

We are going to put into statute a system to say that an unelected bureaucratic regulator is going to say,

Maybe not. Not so fast, secured creditor. Not so fast, investor. We're going to put someone else ahead of you.

You know, that actually happened to real-life people in the case of the Chrysler situation where three Indiana pension funds--representing who?--policemen, firemen, what have you, thought they were secured creditors. At the end of the day, they said that they were stripped of their rights by a system that this bill will perpetuate. This is what we were trying to do.

I appreciate the gentleman's yielding.

We have the idea that the ``rule of law'' should mean something in this country, and it has meant something for the last 200-plus years, and the Bankruptcy Code is part of that law.

You know, an article published in the UCLA Law School said, ``What happened'' over this last year and a half ``was so outrageous and illegal that, until March of this year, 2009, nobody even conceptualized it.''

The judge in that case that I was referring to commented from the bench that the poor pension manager from Indiana, who was representing the teachers and the firemen and the like, was kind of like the gentleman in Tiananmen Square when the tanks came rolling over.

Well, Mr. Speaker, I do not want the investors in this country, whether they be firemen or policemen or other senior citizens down in Florida or in other places around the country, to feel like they did in that case. I want them to know that their rights are protected by the rule of law through the bankruptcy process and not by some politically appointed bureaucrats or regulators who can strip them of their rights. That is what Republicans stand for, and that is why we are opposed to this language in the majority's bill.

Mr. Speaker, our allies in Israel are in the midst of an ongoing crisis. Last week, this became crystal clear when so-called ``freedom activists'' attacked IDF soldiers. Regrettably, nine activists were killed and several Israelis were injured.

In the aftermath of this incident, Israel has endured criticisms from Turkey, the United Nations, and the press. Even the U.S. Administration has been somewhat muted in its support of Israel's self-defense. These responses mystify me when I consider the background and reality of recent events.

Fact: Israel is at war with Hamas. Hamas, which is recognized as a terrorist organization by the United States and the European Union, still abides by a charter which calls for the destruction of the State of Israel. Furthermore, Hamas continues to espouse anti-Semitic propaganda en masse. Since 2001, thousands of rockets have been launched from Gaza into civilian-populated areas in southern Israel, indiscriminately killing and injuring innocent, unsuspecting men, women, and children. That's why I introduced legislation in 2008 which highlighted and condemned the ongoing rocket attacks. My resolution passed the House with strong bi-partisan support, but the rocket attacks have continued.

Fact: Israel is not at war with the peaceful citizens of Gaza. Israel fully withdrew its soldiers and citizens from the Gaza Strip in 2005 in the hopes of attaining peace and creating an environment conducive to negotiations with the Palestinian Authority. Last week, after Israel diverted the flotilla to the port of Ashdod for inspection, Israel proceeded to transport the humanitarian cargo to the Gaza Strip. In fact, Israel takes a proactive stance in providing humanitarian supplies to Gaza's civilians.

Fact: Israel did not violate international law by imposing a blockade on Gaza. Historically, any sovereign nation at war may impose a blockade. Egypt, for example, had imposed a blockade on Gaza. The U.S. itself imposed a blockade on the Confederates during the Civil War, on Cuba during the Cold War, and on Germany and Japan during World War II. Israel is justified in its attempts to prevent radical organizations from supplying Hamas with weapons that could eventually harm Israeli civilians. To further that end, I recently introduced H. Res. 1241, which supports Israel's right to maintain and construct security fences along its borders.

Fact: The interception of the Mavi Marmara was not an isolated action by the Israeli Defense Forces. In recent history, Israel has peacefully diverted nine other ``humanitarian'' missions, inspected their cargoes, and delivered the aid to Gaza. The boarding tactics employed last week were necessary to restrain such a large vessel.

Fact: The main mission of the flotilla was not to provide humanitarian supplies for civilians in Gaza. The six ships were sponsored in part by the IHH, an extremist Turkish organization with ties to terrorist groups such Al-Qaeda. While the IDF peacefully boarded five of the six vessels that made up the flotilla, activists and militants aboard the sixth vessel had armed themselves with iron bars, knives, and clubs.

Fact: Hamas is not Israel's only threat. In 2002, Israel intercepted a ship in the Red Sea which was carrying 50 tons of weaponry provided by Iran. In November of last year, Israel intercepted an Iranian ship carrying hundreds of tons of weaponry to Hezbollah in Lebanon. Iran's president has repeatedly declared his hatred for Israel while continuing his pursuit of nuclear weapon development. As a member of the Iran Sanctions Conference Committee, I will continue to support prompt, strong action to deter Iran's evil ambitions.

I must ask those who condemn Israel, ``Have you examined the facts?'' It is crucial for the United States to stand beside Israel during these tumultuous times and I am heartened that more than a dozen senators and over 60 of my House colleagues have released statements supporting Israel. I urge the Administration, the media, and American citizens to join us in defending Israel from false assertions. Moreover, I encourage the Attorney General to prosecute any American citizen who aids Hamas. The strategic relationship between our two democratic governments must withstand the threats and actions of terrorists who seek to create a rift between our two nations.

Madam Speaker, on Saturday, June 12, 2009, the Iranian people went to the polls to vote in Iran's tenth presidential election. Today, almost exactly one year later, two things have become much clearer.

First, we have seen just how oppressive and authoritarian the Iranian regime is. When Iranian citizens took to the streets to dispute the results of the election, government officials responded with violence, murdering innocent people like Neda Soltan and assaulting others. Rather than apologizing for these atrocities, President Ahmadinejad dismissed the initial unrest as ``not important'' and accused foreign media of launching a ``psychological war'' against Iran. In the months following the election, government officials continued to arrest, torture, and imprison protestors and their family members.

Even now, the government's persecution of pro-democracy demonstrators continues. On May 9, five political prisoners, four of them Kurds, were hung. The following day, the Iranian court sentenced a Newsweek reporter, in abstentia, to 13 years in prison. In addition, Amnesty International reported a few weeks ago that 6 more people were sentenced to death for their association with the banned Iranian opposition, or having visited the group's Camp Ashraf, in Iraq.

Second, we have seen just how much the Iranian people desire freedom from the current regime. Despite the threat of injury and even death, Iranian citizens continue to express their displeasure with the current government. In December, Iranian activists participated in demonstrations in Tehran and other cities across the country. When President Ahmadinejad visited Tehran University a month ago, student demonstrators protested.

In light of these events, I recently joined twelve of my colleagues in signing a bi-partisan letter to President Obama, encouraging him to support the Iranian dissidents' efforts and work with international partners to put pressure on Iran.

I am also a co-sponsor of H. Res 704 that has 224 bi-partisan co- sponsors and supports the rights of the Iranian dissident members in Camp Ashraf, Iraq. We must condemn attempts by the Iranian regime and the Al-Maliki Government to harm these Iranian political refugees.

Finally, I praise New Jersey Assemblyman John Bramnick and the teen advocacy program No Nukes for Iran for planning a rally in Trenton on June 10. This event is sponsored by numerous Jewish organizations who wish to raise awareness of the danger a nuclear Iran poses for the citizens of Iran, as well as Israel and the U.S. As a conferee on the Iran Sanctions Conference Committee, I will continue to support prompt, aggressive action to deter Iran's nuclear ambitions. I also praise New Jersey government officials and non-profit groups for divesting pension and annuity funds from companies that do business with Iran's petroleum sector.

I am honored to stand with the thousands of Iranians who have dared to voice their opposition to the current regime and the journalists who have had the courage to cover their actions.

Madam Speaker, today, the Newton Police Department will hold its D.A.R.E. graduation ceremony with the fifth graders of the Merriam Avenue School. The young people participating in this important program have made a commitment to say no to drugs, underage drinking, and gang violence. They have done this with the support of Detective Lieutenant Michael S. Richards and D.A.R.E. officer, Det. Tom Tosti.

Drug Abuse Resistance Education, or D.A.R.E., began as a small program in Los Angeles in 1983. Today, it is implemented in more than 75 percent of our nation's school districts and in more than 43 other nations. This program allows children to defeat negative cultural influences by opening the lines of communication between law enforcement and youth, empowering students with confidence and courage to say no to drugs. I am proud of the young men and women who participated in this program in Newton, and I would like to recognize them all for taking this step toward positive citizenship:

Miguel Carlitos Camacho, Robert Caton, Anoushka Chatterjee, Cinthia Diaz-Moreno, Cheyenne Fletcher, Jason Gabbard, Nicholas Giracello, Seth Gormley, Brian Hoskins, Summer Muscher-Malone, Jadea Nobles, Zachary Norman, Logan Owens, Mia Randazzo, Isaiah Reese, Melissa Robinson, Charles Sherwood, Nicole Strus, David Zambrano, Joselyne Acosta Barradas, Mason Allen, Isabela Bryant, Mark Capparelli, April Ciccia, Faith D'angelo, Alexander Duckworth, John Foran, Andrew Ghaleb, Skylar Hildebrant, Mackenzie Kimble, Destany Masino, Zoie Meininger, Amber Pierce, Lisa Qarmout, Jose Rodriguez, Liam Shernce, Chandler Spencer, Brandon Turner, Luis Arrazola, Paula Barth, Blade Boyer, Marcus Coward, Holly Donovan, Gift Ingabire, Brooke Ingram, Austin Kalaydjian, Julie Ann Leatham, Lindsay Luchetti, Charles Maker, Gregory Rinehart, Abel Sanchez, Hannah Squires, Kathryn Szatkiewicz, Sean Tracy, Kathryn Van Orden, Melanie Villacis-Mora, Kenneth Whitehead, Jasmine Aguilar, Olivia Castimore, Andre Chavarria, Robert Day, Casie Dolan, Gina Donatelli, Timothy Fitzpatrick, Hunter Grave de peralta, Collin Kelly, Willie Little, Rhiannon Lubas, Alecia Marmora, Francis Militano, Natalia Quintero, Adeline Shickel, Tevin Spencer, Taylor Thieme, Matthew Unorski.

Mr. Speaker, you know, it was on January 10, 1984, when Clara Peller first said those now famous words, ``Where's the beef?''

Well, the American public across this country is asking this Democrat Congress, where's the budget? Yes, they are spending, spending that's out of control, almost $2 trillion by this new Democrat majority. Yes, there are taxes, almost $700 billion in new taxes. Yes, there are new deficits, deficits, but larger than we have ever seen in the history of this country. But where's the budget?

Yes, we have heard the chairman, the Democrat chairman of the Budget Committee now famously saying a Congress that cannot pass the budget is a Congress that cannot govern. How true? But we also heard Speaker Pelosi say that the inability to pass a budget hurts American children.

Well, Mr. Speaker, where is your budget?