Floor Statements

And I thank the gentleman from New Jersey for your leadership on this issue today and in the past so much and in the future as well.

Mr. Speaker, as you know, I also hail from the great State of New Jersey; and tonight I would like to begin tonight by talking about a women who lived there, who had lived there in Tenafly, a town in my congressional district. You may have heard her name before. In fact, she is commemorated in a sculpture located right here in the rotunda of this building.

I am talking about Elizabeth Cady Stanton. Ms. Stanton was a leading social activist of her time and a champion of the women's suffrage movement. As a proponent of women's rights, some might assume she supported a women's ability to have an abortion. No.

Ms. Stanton actually took the opposite view. In a letter in 1873 written to Julia Ward Howe, who was a prominent abolitionist, she wrote ``When we consider that women are treated as property, it is degrading to women that we should treat our children as property to be disposed of as we see fit.''

She called abortion then what it was then and today as well, infanticide. Today, over 100 years later, women, of course, have won that battle of the women's suffrage movement and the right to vote, but we still allow some unborn infants to be classified as simply, with what she called it, unwanted nuisances and to be killed. You know, permitting this hypocrisy is really a promotion, you might say, of age- based discrimination, and I believe Ms. Stanton would be appalled to know that it continues today.

After all, murder is a direct violation of the very same rights that she was fighting for back then and as proposed by our Founding Fathers in original documents. You know, as the chairman of the Constitution Caucus, I have pledged to fight for the liberties recognized by our Founding Fathers. But I know, realistically, that we will have tough battles ahead in this term and years ahead on many different fronts.

The first skirmish will likely be waged in the executive branch. One of the executive orders that President Bush stated in his Mexico City Policy, and what it does is to ban U.S. funds from going to nongovernmental agencies that provide abortion services overseas. Now, just last week, I joined Representative Lamborn and other Members of Congress in sending a letter at that time to President-elect Obama urging him to uphold that policy when he comes into office.

Now, the second combat zone is right here in this U.S. Congress. Now, due to the successful efforts of past legislators, particularly former Congressman Henry Hyde, Federal funds could not be used to pay for abortions. However, Members who support abortions will likely, very likely, seek to erode these key restrictions.

Even worse than that, some Members would like to pass something called the Freedom of Choice Act. So today, I have signed a letter to now-President Obama, urging him to withdraw his pledge to support any such legislation.

As bad as it is, fortunately, not all congressional clashes are on the offensive. So I applaud efforts of Members who have introduced legislation to protect the health of young mothers and restrict the number of abortions performed here in the United States.

Just today, I signed on, and I am proud to do so, of the original cosponsor of Mr. Jordan's bill, which is the Ultrasound Informed Consent Act; Ms. Ros-Lehtinen's Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act; and Mr. Pence's, who was just speaking, Title X Abortion Provider Prohibition Act.

Thankfully, the battle for the unborn is not waged merely here in the Capitol, in the Congress, in the Executive, the walls of the White House, or the halls here of the Congress, or even at the desks across the street at the Supreme Court Justices. The main struggle is fought in the towns and suburbs and cities across this United States.

Many Americans strive to promote life by supporting young mothers who cannot afford to raise their child. They do this by adopting children who do not have a home or a parent. They counsel men and women who chose to abort and now experience the very deep depression and regret.

Just closing, just yesterday, I thought for a split second that our new President would seek to protect this innocent life as well. As I listened to his inaugural address, I heard him say, and I quote, ``All are equal, all are free, and all deserve a chance to pursue their full measure of happiness.'' It seems that President Obama really believes that some people are just too young or too small to deserve such rights or privileges.

Perhaps the new President should study the position of one of his predecessors, John Quincy Adams. Adams once wrote, ``Americans, ask the Declaration of Independence and it will tell you that its authors held for self-evident truth that the right to life is the first of the unalienable rights of man, and that to secure and not destroy that right, that is the reason the governments have been created.''

So, as I stand here as an elected official in this government, I pledge, along with my colleagues from New Jersey, and across this country, to follow John Adams' footsteps and uphold our basic fundamental right. For without this fundamental right, all other freedoms in this Nation shall perish.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

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

Mr. Chairman, just before this meeting out here on the floor, I was in my office back in Cannon meeting with and on the phone with constituents back at home discussing the fact of the difficult plight we find ourselves and the economy in in this country right now, specifically with regard to homeowners, the problems that they are having with paying their mortgages and the like, the difficulty overall with the economy, with the rising unemployment rates, the problems in the credit markets and the like.

The question they ask, of course, is what is Congress about to do with this situation. The conversation always turns around to what has Congress done in the first place, and, of course, we know what that is.

Several months ago, I guess it was in September, this Congress was told by the administration and agreed to by the other side of the aisle that unless Congress acted expeditiously, the sky was going to fall in, and that what Congress had to do was authorize and appropriate $700 billion to bail out the situation.

Well, we have since that time spent $350 billion of that sum, and the callers that I heard from from home that I was just referring to before are saying, what did it achieve? What did we accomplish? Unemployment is still high, the housing market is still tight, home prices are still falling, and all that we really did was to bail out Wall Street, is the way some people couch it.

The question then comes up, how did we go through that process. I have to tell the people back at home, not in a very transparent and open manner. Quite honestly, it was in a rushed matter. We rushed through a piece of legislation that started out at three pages and then turns out to well over 100, without a single hearing, without a single markup, without a single discussion really in committee as to whether there would be transparency and accountability and the like.

Well, sir, now we are about to do the same thing next week, I understand, when President-elect Obama has requested that we spend the next $350 billion, again without the appropriate oversight. So I commend the chairman for taking the step to try to begin to begin the process of providing some of that degree of accountability, transparency and oversight.

But I do raise the same question that the people asked me on the phone today that I was talking to: Why are we rushing to judgment on it? Why are we going through it in the same manner, the same failed policy reasons, the same procedural manner that we did before, without a hearing, without a discussion, without a markup in committee, so that both sides of the aisle could come together with their good ideas in order to achieve what the American public wants, to right the economy, to not put the taxpayer on a hook, and to do so that the taxpayer is protected. Why are we doing it in the same failed policy procedure we did in the past without that ability for input?

Now, the chairman will say, well, we have ability because the Rules Committee allowed a number of amendments. We will be debating those amendments shortly, 10 or 11 amendments I believe we will have at that point in time.

The chairman will agree that is not the best way to achieve what we are trying to for the American people. The best way is to have an open, honest discussion in committee, allow the experts to come in and testify, allow Members from both sides of the aisle to have input, and allow it to go through the committee to get that desired result.

That was not done with TARP 1, that really is not being done with TARP 2. So I rise in opposition to this failed policy and procedure that we are doing here today as well.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

It is interesting to find out that our chairman, who oftentimes berates our side of the aisle for distancing ourselves from our President, now I find that he is already distancing himself from the President-to-be, President-elect Obama.

While he is correct while being overly technical about it by saying that it was President Bush who actually filed the paperwork and made the submission to this House and to the Congress in order for the request of the additional TARP funds, he seems to be distancing himself from his party's candidate and his party's and all this Nation's President-elect Obama, for it was President-elect Obama who did go to President Bush and did request that this Congress facilitate the passage of the additional $350 billion.

Now, the chairman may not like the fact that President-elect Obama is requesting it. Maybe, quite candidly, the chairman has the same concerns that I do, that President-elect Obama failed to give us a plan, which makes it hard for either one of us, quite candidly, to be able to discuss either in committee or here on the Floor in a rational and logical manner what it is exactly we will be spending the $350 billion on.

So I will join with the chairman in being concerned and outraged that President-elect Obama has not given us a plan. But it is concerning that the chairman points to President Bush, when he knows it is President-elect Obama who instigated this in the first place.

But I will yield.

I reclaim my time. Thank you. I understand what he said before, but then you have to always point to the words that came after that, and he was alluding to the fact that it actually came to the floor from President Bush when, yes, it was President-elect Obama who initiated it.

But for the fact that President-elect Obama initiated it, President Bush, as far as I know, has never made a statement that he would have unilaterally made that request. I have never seen anything in the media, and I may be wrong, but I have never seen anything in the media or otherwise saying that President Bush was about to come to this Congress and ask for those additional funds.

It was President-elect Obama, for good or for bad, and I think for the fact that we don't have a plan here, quite candidly, Mr. Chairman, to discuss and debate today, more for the bad than the good that we are coming here without such a plan.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling), a leader on this issue and more importantly a leader on the issue of reviving our economy in general and in a free market manner which will not put the American taxpayer on the hook.

I first yield myself 30 seconds to respond to the chairman's question. Yes, there is a specific philosophical difference with regard to keeping people in their houses. As we know, both sides of the aisle want to do the best that the Federal Government can do in this area. And the administration has already set up a program, the HOPE program, and taken other actions to try to facilitate those people who are in difficult situations to remain in their houses.

But I believe it was Ms. Waters on your side of the aisle that raised the same point similar to what I raised. What do we say to the person who has been on time paying their bills, which is over 90 percent of the American public homeowners, who has been paying their bill month after month after month on time and saying to them, well, you know what? We're going to use your tax dollars to subsidize the people across the street with a program to help them keep when they went over the amount they should be spending on their homes. And that is the philosophical difference that we have.

I yield now 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to Mr. Schock from Illinois.

Mr. Chairman, at this time, I yield another 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling).

Mr. Chairman, at this time, I have no further speakers, and I would reserve my time until the gentleman from Massachusetts is ready to close.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Colorado said that this amendment will make sure of ``such and such,'' and he listed off a half a dozen things that the bill, or the amendment, will do.

The reality is that the chairman will tell him this amendment will make sure of absolutely nothing. Why? Because this amendment will never become law. That's not me saying that. That's what the chairman has said repeatedly as well. It is not going to move in the House and the Senate. It is not going to be eventually signed by the President.

Soon, we'll be voting on legislation that will, in essence, allow the next administration to spend $350 billion, and the American taxpayer will be asking us: What did we authorize that $350 billion for? For there was no plan, and there is no plan as we speak here today as to what the next administration will be spending that $350 billion for.

Congress should not authorize, Congress should not pass any other legislation until we have the specifics of a plan. We should not do so until we have a plan that will not pick winners and losers, until we have a plan that will protect the American taxpayer, until we have a plan in place and the language before us that will not bail out the banks that made terrible decisions. We should not be moving legislation that will appropriate $350 billion until we have a plan in writing specifically that will not bail out borrowers who knowingly took inappropriate loans.

Finally, we should not spend an additional $350 billion as we pick winners and losers and do nothing, absolutely nothing, for the 90-plus percent of American homeowners who have done absolutely everything right and who have paid their loans and mortgages on time and who are now asking: Why are they bailing out the banks and other imprudent lenders?

I encourage all of my colleagues at this point in time to vote ``no'' on this amendment that will do absolutely nothing to ensure these protections to the American taxpayers. I encourage all of my colleagues as well to vote such that we will not appropriate an additional $350 billion of taxpayer dollars.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

I yield myself 2 minutes.

First of all, I begin by saying I appreciate the sponsor's intent behind the amendment. She and I join in the thought that we need to do all that we possibly can to deal with the terrible situation of the economy right now, and she is right that the subprime issue and the foreclosure issue is at the heart of the housing prices and the heart of the economic crisis that we have right now.

The question is, what do we do about it? And the question is, what do we do about it in a manner to help both those people who have been paying on time and also help those people who are perhaps in a difficult situation?

The amendment, though, as it's currently written, may have an unintended effect. If you effectively allow for an extended period of moratorium on foreclosure, that may actually have the potential of encouraging people from actually going to the bank to try to work things out. Or maybe it's not encouraging, not just encouraging them enough to do what is appropriate during this period of time.

I would ask the gentlelady a question, though.

In the form of the amendment, besides the potential policy problems, it would appear that the amendment is flawed technically, and for that reason unworkable. If I look at page 2--and if she would refer to that--it's set up not as a sense of Congress, which, I believe, is the intention behind this bill, but rather as language which would have the force of law. Page 2, section C, ``duty of the consumer to maintain property.'' It goes on to say that any homeowner whose benefit in foreclosure proceeding or sale is ``barred under subsection A,'' and it makes references to other sections of the law.

The question is, how can a sense of Congress, therefore, actually have the effect of law?

So is this an amendment that maybe has the best of intentions but was drafted in a manner that potentially would have the effect of law even though it is not a law, it is merely a sense of Congress?

I would ask, then, in light of the fact that there is both the policy reason that we may agree on but have some problems with but is technically flawed, I would ask that the sponsor would consider withdrawing the amendment at this time.

I will yield myself just 1 more minute.

I can simply come to the floor and speak to what the experts have testified in committee with problems of language of this nature. One is, as I've already stated, experts have said that language like this would encourage the situation for borrowers to not do the right thing, that is, to call up their lenders and say, ``I have a problem, and I want to engage in negotiations to try to work out the loan.''

We know this is an ongoing problem, and that's why there's so many advertisements and like on TV right now to encourage people to do the right thing. This language would be counterproductive in that, so the experts say.

And secondly, the lenders have come to the committee and testified before our committee that the longer the borrower remains delinquent, the less

likely he or she will be able to cure the delinquency and avoid foreclosure.

All this is really doing is prolonging what should be dealt with today. It's never to be put off to tomorrow what we should deal with today, and this language, unfortunately, does just that.

With that, I reserve.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.

I appreciate the gentlelady's comments. We have done similar programs such as that in talking to the people in the district as far as working out, what have you.

Again, the experts--this is the third point I could have raised before--the experts also tell us that a foreclosure moratorium, which in essence is what we're talking about here, will have the unintended side effect also of raising up the cost of mortgages in the future.

So what this means is for that individual who may be able to work out a deal today because mortgage rates are, as we know, at historic low rates, if this has the effect of law--which is actually how the language is situated here--and the moratorium were to occur and mortgage rates were to go up, by the time they actually sat down with that facilitator at the bank and worked things out, they would find that the mortgage rates unfortunately, due to the economies of the nature of this bill, the rates are higher and they are at a disadvantaged situation than they would be today.

Let's have the people encouraged to work out their mortgages today. Work it out with their banks. I'm sure both sides of the aisle want to use our offices to facilitate those communications as well when people have problems contacting their banks. I know my office works, and I'm sure your office does as well to try to get that contact with them.

And let's do that to get it done today and not put it off until tomorrow.

I yield back.

Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, I appreciate the gentleman's initial amendment, and I think I appreciate the gentleman's intention of the subsequent amendment.

Can the gentleman explain the reason why the gentleman is on the floor with the subsequent amendment as opposed to having proposed that amendment through the regular committee process?

I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.

Reclaiming my time, wasn't your amendment, I'm told, dated, though, just this morning?

I will let the chairman speak during his time. So you're not aware, though?

Reclaiming my time, I'm looking at it as January 15, 2009, 9:59 a.m., which would have been this morning.

Thank you.

At this point, Mr. Chairman, I object to the modification.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim time in opposition to the amendment.

To the gentleman from New Jersey on the amendment that's actually before us I'm in general agreement with and also with the amendment that he proposed through his U.C., I believe that I also would be in favor of that as well. The general idea sounds basically like what we think alike on in how do you add that protection to the taxpayer and also to the little bank that's being bought out. And were we in a different situation where this bill actually was going to have the force of law and be signed into law by the President, there may be some expediency as far as necessary in order to get this thing through as we speak here today.

But we have already heard from the chairman and the point has been made repeatedly that this underlying piece of legislation that we're talking about here today is not going anywhere, and that's a shame because there are a number of other provisions in the underlying bill that are important as is the provision that you're suggesting.

What is disconcerting is that good amendments such as this and, quite honestly, some other good amendments from both sides of the aisle that I've heard about just literally as I'm sitting here talking to people didn't have the opportunity to go through the process and to be fleshed out, and I'm not saying your bill needed any more fleshing out, but needed to have a hearing and have experts on both sides of the equation give their 2 cents to.

As I sit here right now, it sounds like a good idea. I'm not sure whether there might be some aspects of it from the banking community that they may say tweak it here or what have it there. That, of course, is the whole process of the committee process. And as you know, unfortunately, we didn't have a hearing. We didn't have a markup. And had we done that, I'm sure you would have been right there making that case and I probably would have been right there saying great amendment.

I sure will.

Reclaiming my time, I'm not going to reconsider my objection for the underlying reason of amendments that I'm just seeing 10 minutes ago or less without having the opportunity to consider the ramifications that they may have. As good as they sound, as much as I think I 99 percent or so would support them had we gone through the process, I'm not going to withdraw my objection.

But I will say this, that should the good chairman decide to do what I think is appropriate here, and that is to go forward with additional hearings and additional legislation and additional opportunities to direct the next administration on the $350 billion that he's about to get and who knows how many other pieces of authorization of dollars that he has, I hope that the chairman will actually afford all of us from both sides the opportunity to present this amendment and other amendments as well to go through and be vetted in the committee process and at which time I give my pledge to work from this side of the aisle with the gentleman to do all that I can to see that it facilitates through should the chairman actually give us that opportunity.

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

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition, but I am not in opposition to the amendment.

I yield myself 3 minutes.

I think the intention and the language of the amendment is good, and I support the amendment to the underlying bill. There are just two points I want to make.

First of all, to the chairman, I support his comments the other day in committee when we had the Federal Reserve folks there when he said that he is going to be conducting hearings on the Federal Reserve come February. At that time I asked Mr. Cohen from the Fed if any of the provisions in the bill that we were looking at or discussing at the time, we didn't actually have the bill before us as a committee markup, would any of these provisions apply to the Fed as far as the way they conduct themselves in the future, and his answer was in essence no. What you are trying to do now is to at least put something in this legislation to apply to it.

I commend the chairman for saying that we need to do a further investigation on the Fed on their expansive growth of power and authority and their use of it.

With that said, my only regret is that this type of provision was not included in the first TARP, because, once again, as I have said before and others have said on the floor as well, we have already spent $350 billion. Now, it wasn't on an asset acquisition program, but that is what the initial bill was intended to be. The initial TARP was a program to buy up toxic assets from the banks, and had we gone through regular order at that time, we could have had language in the original TARP bill to say that language like this, full disclosure, regulation on how everything is performed and who the managers are and so on and so forth, could have been done in the first TARP 1.

Unfortunately, that wasn't done. We rushed through the process at that time. We rushed through without a full hearing on it, we rushed through without a markup, and we were not allowed, and I assume the gentleman was not facilitated with, an opportunity to offer such language in the first TARP 1 at that time, not necessarily with regard to the Fed as here, but with how TARP 1 would spend the money and how TARP 1 would be looking for the same accountability.

I will close on this, just saying I commend the gentleman here. I will support his amendment and hopefully look forward to working with the chairman in February to have those hearings with regard to the Fed to get this job done thoroughly.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Again, I support the gentleman's underlying amendment and will support the vote on it. But as I hear the chairman's comments, I am sitting here with regard to the idea that amendments were allowed, that this could have been done through TARP 1 through an amendment.

I am sitting hear racking my brain. To the best of my knowledge, there were no amendments that were going through on the floor on this at this time, so the gentleman or myself would not have been allowed to do that, and I know that we did not have a hearing or a markup in committee on TARP 1, so there was absolutely no possibility at that time for the chairman to entertain either your amendment or my amendment or anyone else's amendment. Of course, we didn't have a markup, so there was not an opportunity for either one of us to confer.

No, I will just close on my point.

There was not an opportunity during the first go round with TARP 1. There may have been ideas discussed, there may have been ideas that were floated up and down and with the chairman's discussions with the White House and what have you as to which is the best way to implement TARP 1 and what have you. But to the best of my knowledge, there was no committee hearing, there was no markup, there was no avenue for us to make formal amendments during the regular course of progress during that sequence of time, and that is the unfortunate aspect of this.

Yes, I support the amendment. Yes, I will be working with the chairman on the work with regard to the work with the Fed. But no with regard to the process we have gone through in the past; no with the opportunity of anyone from either side of the aisle to have an opportunity to enter amendments, discussion or otherwise in the committee meetings, since there was no markup, neither on the floor as well.

Finally we are beginning to go in the right direction as far as allowing amendments, but we are still not going in the right direction as far as allowing full committee meetings.

We still are not going in the right direction, where we would be allowed to have a full committee hearing on this, where we could have vetted this and the other ideas that had come before. The gentleman from New Jersey, for example, had what I thought was a good idea, and had we had the opportunity there to vet that through process, we probably would be standing right here now and supporting that and getting that in this bill as well.

If this House would only go by the rules of the House and regular order, we would be doing better for the American public. We would be passing legislation that would be protecting the

American taxpayer. We would be passing legislation actually providing for the transparency and accountability I think that both of us want, both on the original $350 billion and on this $350 billion.

We have not done that, unfortunately, in the past, and, unfortunately, quite candidly, we are not doing that that here as well.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in recognition of Korean-American Day, which was celebrated yesterday. Korean Americans have played an essential part in shaping our country into its current form. Ever since the signing of the first treaty between the United States and Korea, the Jemulpo Treaty in 1882, our two countries have engaged in an important relationship. In addition, Korean Americans have helped shape the United States into a powerful and influential Nation.

The history of Koreans in America is a proud one. When Koreans first started immigrating to the United States, they worked in places such as farms and railroads. These were hard workers who came to this country to seek new opportunities and a better life for their children. At that time, they could not have imagined the amount of success Korean Americans would enjoy over time--nor how large their community would become. After years of steady immigration, which blossomed in the 1960's, Korean Americans became one of the top 5 immigrant groups to the United States. Today, there are about 1.5 million Korean Americans living across the country.

In the past Congress, we passed several pieces of legislation to strengthen the U.S.-Korean relationship. The first was H.R. 5443, the U.S.-Republic of Korea Defense Cooperation Improvement Act, which granted South Korea the same preferential treatment enjoyed by members of NATO. Another important bill passed in the 110th Congress was H. Res. 295. This legislation expressed appreciation to the Republic of Korea for its contributions to international efforts to combat terrorism. A final, integral bill was H.R. 1, which supported efforts to include South Korea in the U.S. Visa Waiver Program.

As we move forward in the 111th Congress, I trust that we will keep the Korean-American community in mind. Korean Americans play an important role in shaping American culture and Korean-American Day is a celebration that I am proud to recognize.

I thank the ranking member.

You know, Mr. Chairman, this debate and maybe this vote is an exercise in futility. Our distinguished chairman has already noted in various media outlets that he doesn't believe that this bill is ever going to become law. The Senate Banking Committee chairman has declared that he is not even going to bother drafting similar legislation, much less voting on it.

So, you might ask yourselves, why is it that we are here today? As an aside, the chairman said interestingly enough

the other day, just yesterday in committee meeting, he said, to quote Harry Truman, the job of the President of the United States is to get people to do things that they should do that they would do if they had half a brain.

Well, the Bush administration will be out of office in a week. I would be curious to know from the chairman who he thinks in the next administration lacks that ability to do the right thing.

Furthermore, Mr. Chairman, it's been reported that the chairman and the House Democrat leadership are really here today to try to provide political cover, in that sense, for their Members that they know this TARP Program is extremely unpopular with the American public and has wasted millions upon millions of dollars, and so this is a political cover to vote on this bill today.

President-elect Obama said on Sunday on This Week with George Stephanopoulos, ``I, like many, are disappointed with how the whole TARP process has unfolded. There hasn't been enough oversight. We found out this week in a report that we are not tracking where this money is going.''

I agree with President-elect Obama. He is exactly right. There is a lack of congressional oversight, and that's been a concern of mine and many on this side from day one and even before the first TARP bill passed.

I have taken the time to carefully review this legislation. But, unfortunately, when you think about the process that we have gone through here, as a whole, we have not done what is right. We call it regular order here, but for the folks at home, it just means spending the time that you should spend on a bill when you are spending hundreds of billions of dollars. That means careful review, hold hearings, hold a markup on the TARP.

Perhaps if we had done that, perhaps we could have foreseen some of the problems that we are talking about here tonight on the first bill. However, the first piece of legislation was cobbled together, and this piece of legislation was cobbled together as well and rushed.

Chairman Frank released this draft that we have here before us just this past Friday. And now so it's less than a week that we are considering that exact same bill here on the floor.

I agree with the ranking member when he said that he has not seen a compelling case to release the second $350 billion. In fact, I haven't seen any case presented as to why we should be releasing the second $350 billion or any plan to deal with spending that $350 billion. I have not seen any evidence that the original $350 billion ever achieved its stated purpose of stabilizing our Nation's financial system.

And, if it did, as some have suggested, then why are we here today going forward with this legislation? You know, the young lady who spoke before me from Minnesota said, rightfully so, that the Department of Treasury willingly admits that they pulled that original $700 billion, that number, out of thin air, not based on any scientific or mathematical analysis.

I have already indicated I did not support the original passage of TARP because I believe there were alternatives at that time to spending $700 billion of American taxpayer dollars. Now, after what we have seen with TARP and how it was handled, I certainly don't believe that we should waste an additional $350 billion as well.

I will say this, while the chairman is making an effort to provide some oversight with this legislation, such as requiring banks that received the funds to disclose how they are spending it, you know, if you dig into this bill I believe that there are provisions in it that will have more harm than good at the end of the day.

They will do more harm to the economic recovery that we are all looking for. I will give you a couple of examples.

I have concerns with the retroactivity provisions that apply to institutions that have already received funds. What about contract law, what about the constitutional law?

What about the constitutional provisions as regards to that?

Secondly, forcing companies that receive TARP funds to receive a government overseer on their boards. Amazing, a Congress that can't manage its own affairs is now going to have an overseer on corporate boards around this country. You know, an overseer today will become a suggestor tomorrow and eventually a dictator the next day.

Thirdly, requiring $100 billion of the remaining TARP funds to be spent on the foreclosure mitigation program. This was not the initial reason that we did TARP. It was to get the credit markets moving again in this country.

In closing, regardless of whether this measure passes or fails, it is almost certain that President-elect Obama will receive this request for the additional $350 billion with absolutely no strings attached or mechanism in place to ensure that the money is spent reliably. The House Democrat leadership failed when they passed the first bill of TARP, and they will fail when they give the authority to the President the second time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from the great State of Texas (Mr. Gohmert).

I thank the gentleman for leading this Special Order hour on this topic. And I was just being enlightened, honestly, by the comments and your wealth of knowledge on the issues.

So I appreciate the chance just to spend a couple of minutes with you and a chance to talk about this topic. Today is Wednesday. Just this past Sunday I was back in my district, which is in the great State of New Jersey, and there I was honored to take part in a solidarity evening, a rally, if you will, for Israel, held in the Fifth District in the State of New Jersey. I would like to just spend a minute or two to share with you what was discussed and why I was there.

Our allies in Israel, obviously, are going through a tremendous crisis at this period of time. That's why I was so encouraged that we had well over 1,000 people in the room, maybe even more. Besides the room we were in, I was told, there was another assembly area where it was on TV as well. All of these people across the region came together in solidarity for both the victims' families over there, as well as for the victims who have lost their lives in this recent conflict.

The loss of life in this region is truly profound. As you know, when we have been on this floor on this issue, we are both tremendous advocates for the State of Israel, one of our key allies, our only allies in the region over there.

As you say, it was last year that we were on the floor as well, on a particular resolution, I was sponsor of it, you were cosponsor of it as well, and there was a resolution at the time when the mortar attacks were picking up on the people in Sderot. There was a time that we passed that resolution overwhelmingly saying that the United States stood on the side of Israel and stood on the side of people of Sderot and the right to defend themselves.

Unfortunately, the sentiments of that resolution were obviously ignored by Hamas. Instead, the number of rockets, instead of decreasing, increased it dramatically, the number of mortar attacks launched now from Gaza in the month of December. In the period of time just prior to that, Hamas, I think you were going into this a little earlier ago, their capacity to attack and bring violence on Israel has increased dramatically with the range, I saw the pictures you had up there before, of the mortars and rockets increasing from 20 kilometers to over 50 kilometers, I believe it is. Basically, if you add all the numbers up on the map there, it means that over 1 million Israelis and their lives, their families, their children, are now at risk of mortar attack.

Even worse than that, Hamas' actions, I think, exhibit total disregard for innocent human life. Israeli civilians continue to be targets of those defensive actions. In addition, it's really

a shameful use of Palestinians' innocent life as well because they are being used as human shields and it creates unnecessary victims of terror.

This is a flagrant disregard of international human rights. It's a flagrant disregard for the rights of the innocent people, Gaza and Israeli residents as well.

If Hamas really did care about the citizens they purport to represent, they should really cease all military activity, all military activities against Israel right now and look to international forces to achieve peace.

So I have been pleased to be here in Congress and that Congress has not ignored the Israelis' plight, as you indicated just about 2 minutes ago, that we have had this resolution, they have worked on jointly on this to step up to the plate, and that is H.R. 34.

Just to conclude, I commended President-elect Obama recently for expressing similar concerns that you and I are expressing right now, specifically for the people of Sderot. He did that just over a short period of time about a year ago when he visited Sderot last year.

I think you and I join now in urging him to continue that effort to speak out, encourage him to demonstrate that unwavering support that you and I have for the people of Israel as a struggle against Hamas.

I think if he takes a stand now on the Gaza issue as he did a year ago, as soon as possible, to eliminate any ambiguity concerning the resolve that the United States has to aid Israel, the President-elect really has an opportunity to strengthen our Nation's diplomatic hand and call for an end to the destruction of innocent lives. I urge him, as I am sure you do as well, to take that step immediately.

But as I close here I try to remain the optimist. Despite all of the current challenges, I still believe that there is a potential for further progress.

Israel has shown a willingness to pursue peace. Now if only the Palestinian Authority and the Arab governments make equal steps forward, we can achieve that lasting peace.

Finally, now, Israel left Gaza a short time ago in the hopes of peace. Israel returned to Gaza to fight terrorism and hopefully they will now achieve that peace.

I, again, commend the gentleman.

I thank the gentleman for that and for the insightful comments. Maybe I should just begin with the gentleman from Utah for his comments with regard to the economy and the stimulus.

The gentleman from Utah.

Again, I thank the gentleman from Utah for your comments. They are always insightful, and that's why I led off by referring over to your for those insightful comments. Now I will just make a couple of comments.

I appreciate the gentleman from Texas for leading this Special Order this afternoon, this Friday afternoon, as Congress goes back to their districts. As the gentleman from Georgia indicated earlier, this is an abbreviated session of Congress. I'm not sure why we spend 5 days in a week to do about 2-days' worth of work, but this gives us the opportunity to talk about an issue, of course, that is extremely important to the American public, something that they are looking to Washington to begin to address, albeit over an extended period of time and in discussion as opposed to legislation.

I am just going to make three points while I'm at the microphone. The first point is: Who pays? The second question is: For what? The third point really goes into what the gentleman from Utah was referring to a moment ago: For how long?

The first point of who pays: As for the gentleman from the other side of the aisle, who was just speaking previously, the gentleman from the great State of Ohio, I agreed with him on a number of his points that he was making with regard to the expansive powers of the Federal Reserve and the necessity for Congress to reexercise its authority in fiscal and in monetary matters and to address that issue.

I did have a question for him or a concern with one point that he made. He said, right now, when it comes to infrastructure projects across the country, there is a great need, and I concur with that, and he raised the question or the statement: But they cannot be paid for by the local or State or--and I assume he also means--county or municipal governments right now. So he's inferring that, if they can't pay for it, somehow or other, the Federal Government can.

You know, at the end of the day, when it comes to paying for any of our services, all of the money that we have comes out of our own pockets as taxpayers, whether you pay your local town tax or your county property tax or your State income tax and so on and so forth. It all comes out of our own taxpayer pockets. So it really doesn't matter whether you say the States or locals can't pay because, at the end of the day, come April 15, those same citizens will be paying the Federal Government for those very same projects.

So as to the question of who pays: It's the American taxpayer who is going to be on the hook for those very same infrastructure projects whether local, State or county pays for it or whether some miraculously comes out of the Federal Government's Treasury as well.

So the point is: Who pays? You do. The American taxpayer will pay for whatever this stimulus package may be whether it's $100 billion, $500 billion, $1 trillion. We're looking at right now a $1.2 trillion deficit as we speak, care of Senator Reid and Nancy Pelosi from the 110th Congress. Basically, that is what Senator Obama is inheriting, and it's on top of that that we'll be spending, maybe, another $1 trillion. Who will pay for that? Well, it is the American taxpayer.

The second point is: For what? What will we be paying for--earmarks? Well, the other side of the aisle will say, no, there aren't going to be any earmarks in this, but mark my words; there will be things akin to earmarks, and I think that the American taxpayer is smart enough with this. It will be pork. Let me give you just an example. Again, the idea is, well, we'll pay for infrastructure, and that's all good when you talk about infrastructure being roads and bridges and water and sewer supplies and what have you. Well, let's see what some of the requests have already been to this new administration.

Down in Florida in the city of Miami, they're talking about some great infrastructure projects such as a water slide, BMX dirt bike or trail bike trails, a beach museum. That's the type of infrastructure they're talking about looking forward to going back to the States. How about in the great State of Rhode Island where they're talking about such things as a polar bear exhibit or better soccer fields up there as well?

That's the type of thing that your tax dollars will be going to.

How about over in Vermont? They're putting in a request to spend $150,000 of your tax dollars to go to a more efficient street sweeping machine. Now, I'm sure they will be able to suck up a lot of the dirt and debris around the town a lot better with your tax dollars going into it. And isn't that really the problem, that this machine really will be sucking up more of our tax dollars as will this entire stimulus package?

So what is this money going for? It will be going for all of the same sorts of earmark pork projects that you have seen and been dismayed about out of the Congress in the past but be magnified to the extent of $1 trillion.

And the third point is for how long--and this is what the gentleman from Utah was making--for how long.

We will go on for as long as the trillion dollars pork project will continue to be spent out of Washington. It will not really be making permanent jobs. The Obama administration talks about wanting to create 3 million new jobs, 80 percent of them they hope to be private sector jobs. That means, of course, 20 percent of them will therefore be public sector job. I can do the math in my head. That comes out to be around 600,000 new public sector jobs, which is around 50 some-odd percent if he threw the postal service out of the Federal Government as we exist right now.

Where will those jobs be in a year from now or so after this project is spent? They will be out. So if you have got one of those good paying jobs, those jobs will end, and so will this program.

So who pays? The American taxpayer pays. For what? For more pork. How long will it last? Only as long as this largesse out of the Federal Government lasts.

What we need in the end--and I can conclude on this and yield back to the gentleman from Texas--is a program that will create new jobs, that will create jobs that will be new careers for individuals in this country, jobs not on the public dole but in the private sector. How do you accomplish that? By creating a private sector jobs initiative to incentivize the private sectors to take their literally trillions of dollars

that are on the sidelines right now and to invest them into the economy, to invest them into the creation of new jobs. And if you do that, that will move the economy forward. The banks will be more than willing to lend again because the individuals out there will have jobs to be able to pay back their loans, and we will be reestablishing the strong economy that this country was known for for decades and for centuries as well. That is the direction we should be going for.

And that's why I thank the gentleman from Texas for leading this talk in this special hour tonight on how to really stimulate the economy and how to really create jobs for this country.

I thank the gentleman from Georgia and appreciate his taking the lead on this Special Order hour this afternoon.

There you go, and likewise mine in the great State of New Jersey.

Let me preface my comment, the gentlelady from Ohio would like in a moment to speak.

Because she worked with me on the issue that we are talking about here, that your comment is only to break the vicious cycles that are crippling our economy. You have to couch that in the correct terminology as to what government can do and what they shouldn't do.

We came to the floor, what was it, several months ago now, 2 months ago now, I guess, time flies, when we were dealing with can the government solve the problem out on Wall Street? Can the government solve the problem with regard to all the banks? Can the government solve the problem with regard to the crippling lending situation that was going on in this country at that time?

And we heard, or we were told by the White House just down the street, and some folks from leadership right here, and the legislative body--but, absolutely, government can do it, and they can do it with taxpayer dollars, $700 billion. I will use the word ``scheme,'' they called it a ``plan'' at the time, that government would solve the problem.

A few of us, not enough, a few of us came to the floor at that time and said, you know, maybe government just can't solve that problem by saying that we have the only answer to do it.

One of the people who joined us with that fight was the gentlelady from Ohio. And I would like her to address those issues again why they couldn't solve it in the manner they were suggesting.

I appreciate the gentlelady's comments she made. I know a number of other individuals would like to make some remarks.

Let me just be brief, the gentlelady actually made four excellent points.

One, she made the point that with regard to the idea of whether government can be the solution to all the problems, is there a rush to judgment? Yes, there was a rush to judgment with regard to what we did last year with the spending of $700 billion on TARP. Today, there sounds like there is a rush to judgment, what may be going on in the spending that we may be doing in the future.

Now, Barney Frank said the other day, a week ago, he said these were artificial deadlines that were being set, whether we are talking about TARP or the auto situation or now the spending going forward, the sun still rose tomorrow, to quote Barney Frank. The sun will still rise tomorrow with regard to our economy as well. We should not set artificial deadlines.

The gentlelady also made an important comment when she said it's the people's money that we are dealing with here. We have to always remember that. It's the taxpayers' dollars. So we must be careful how it's spent.

Also, within that subset of the comment, it is the nature of politics that it will be political decisions, as opposed to market decisions, that will direct the forces of the dollars. We should allow market forces to direct it.

Thirdly, she made a great point, which I was going to make as well, oversight, past and future. Oversight. We didn't have oversight in the past. It doesn't sound like we are going to have a heck of a lot of oversight going forward. Even if we do have a little modicum of oversight right now, a hearing or two on this billion, trillion dollars that we are about to spend, just as with the housing situation, it is impossible for the Federal Government to manage all these dollars going forward. Likewise here going forward, it will be impossible to manage it.

Finally, she made a good point as well, and I will close on this, market, heal thyself, is what she said. Likewise here, whether it's the credit market, the financial market or the unemployment market, we can allow the private sector, with the assist of the government getting out of the way for the market to heal thyself in those situations as well in the appropriate manner.

Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor having always had an open mind with regard to this whole auto situation, and how we make sure the United States stays strong as a manufacturing country.

The chairman of the Financial Service Committee talks about having to move this along very quickly. But oddly enough, it was just last week, I believe, when he was asked by reporters on this and he said, you know, these deadlines that are being imposed are really artificial deadlines. And referring back to the TARP situation, he said, in that situation, even though the deadlines may pass, the sun still did come up the next day. And yet these are deadlines we're facing. And I think what we would ask to look at is how is Congress operating.

Let me give you a couple of examples. In July of this year, I think it was, we passed several hundred billion dollars for a housing bailout, and then, after that, we had some hearings on it on how we're going to spend the money.

This fall we passed a $700 billion TARP program to bail out the financial industry. That started out as two or three pages. It grew to several hundred pages. It was only today that we finally had a hearing on the oversight, again, on seeing how that money was about to be spent, lambasting the administration for not doing enough.

It was just yesterday, for the first time, that we basically had hearings on the GSEs, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Again, the government bailed them out to the tune of several hundred billion dollars. Months later we had hearings on it.

What is the trend here? The way the Federal Government seems to operate is we appropriate, we spend hundreds of billions of dollars, then after the fact we come back and say, gee, what exactly did we do?

I think our side of the aisle is saying, let's take it down a little bit, work a little bit slower, and make sure what we do is appropriate.

You know, Steve Moore from the Wall Street Journal did an unscientific little survey. He walked around the Hill and the parking lots in the Hill, and he looked at the cars that the Members of Congress operate. You know what he found out? Two-thirds of those cars are foreign cars, not American cars. So it's interesting that we come to the floor here today and we ask to spend taxpayers' dollars on these cars when the members of their own party----

Sure, I will yield.

I yield.

And the gentleman makes an excellent point, and Steve did as well, just saying when it comes down to what we're doing here on the floor of course very clearly we know whose money we're spending. Some people say does the money come from TARP; does the money come from the energy bill? It doesn't matter which line you take it out of the Federal budget, at the end of the day it all comes out of the taxpayers' pockets. And I encourage us to take a moment to make sure that we do it in an effective way that actually gets the job done, gets the restructuring of the industry and does not put the American taxpayer on the hook.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to the Republican leadership standards on earmarks, I am submitting the following information for publication in the Congressional Record regarding earmarks I received as part of H.R. 2638, the 2009 Defense Appropriation Bill:

7. Project Name--Advanced Fluid Controls for Shipboard Applications.

Requesting Member--Scott Garrett.

Bill Number--Amendment to H.R. 2638 (FY09 Defense Appropriations Bill).

Account--Department of Defense Appropriations, RDT&E, Navy, Line #35, Shipboard System Component Development Account, PE#0603513N.

Requesting Entity--Marotta Controls, 78 Boonton Ave, PO Box 427, Montville, NJ 07045.

Description of the Project--Funds will be used to complete the development of shipboard fluid controls using the latest in material technologies--including composites and ceramics--to reduce weight, life-cycle costs, and increase fuel efficiency.

Description of the Spending Plan--($2,500,000).

Program Management: $50,000.

Engineering Labor Mechanical: $100,000.

Electrical: $100,000.

Assembly Labor: $425,000.

Machine Shop Labor: $550,000.

Material: $700,000.

Testing: $575,000.

Total: $2,500,000.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased that this week the Senate has followed the House in passing the Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act of 2008, H.R. 6893. This landmark legislation will make significant improvements to child welfare through numerous provisions, including reauthorizing the Adoption Incentive Program and increasing education oversight for youth in foster care.

I would also like to recognize Voice for Adoption, an organization that works to improve our adoption policies. There are 129,000 children in foster care who are waiting to be adopted, and many families who wish to adopt. These numbers may sound daunting, but Voice for Adoption positively illustrates the need to adopt through the Adoptive Family Portrait Project. This program promotes adoption by matching Members of Congress with a photo of an adoptive family from their district or State.

It has been my privilege to participate in this project for the second year in a row and I have decided to display the photo in my DC office for an entire year. The 2008 theme emphasizes the importance of sibling connections for youth in foster care and adoptive placements.

I am honored to recognize the Marino-Cappello family. Sandy Marino and her husband Sam Cappello were moved when they learned about the many waiting children in the New Jersey foster care system. Five adoptions later, they have been blessed with Kirby, who was adopted as an infant from South Korea; Percy, Maya and Violet, who are birth siblings adopted separately as infants; and Helena, adopted at seven months. Caring for medically-fragile, drug-affected infants has stretched the Marino-Cappello family to new limits. They deserve praise for their willingness to provide permanent, loving homes for children in foster care, despite challenges.

H.R. 6893 will help families like the Marino-Cappellos to better provide for the special needs of children adopted from foster care. I applaud the passage of this much-needed legislation.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased that the House recently considered and unanimously consented to the passage of H.R. 7017, a bill to reauthorize the Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area (DWGNRA) Citizens Advisory Commission (CAC) for an additional year. Both Representative Carney and I believe that this citizen action group serves as an important liaison between National Park Service Officials and park neighbors.

Communication is the key to addressing and resolving citizen concerns, and it is clear that residents and park users value the opportunity to respond to DWGNRA decisions and propose alternative ideas. I was proud to introduce this bipartisan legislation and I believe it will improve the communication process between park officials and the local community. The citizens of New Jersey should be confident in the ability of the Federal Government to hear and address their suggestions.

The Delaware Water Gap region has a turbulent history, one marked by improper government interference and Federal invasion of the rights of property owners. Realizing this, my predecessor, Representative Marge Roukama, authored legislation establishing a Citizen's Advisory Commission (CAC) in 1988. The CAC was reauthorized for an additional decade in 1998 and has served as a forum for the public to interact with park officials.

Due to the combined efforts of various Commission members and park officials, the Delaware Water Gap NRA has increased in popularity and sees millions of visitors each year. These visitors enjoy the beauty of the scenery and the opportunity to participate in activities like hiking, canoeing, and swimming. I am confident that the CAC will continue to play a valuable role in preserving the splendor of the Delaware Water Gap for future generations.

The ability of local residents to communicate with Federal agencies has been one of my main focuses and I call upon the Senate to follow the House's example and pass this important legislation.

Madam Speaker, I come to the floor realizing that there is a problem on Wall Street that will affect Main Street, and I also come here today hopeful, but also realistic.

I will not be supporting this bill today, but I know the bill will pass later on because so much has been added to it to get the votes. But I am hopeful then that all the promises that have been made by the proponents of this bill will come true, after we give $700 billion to Secretary Paulson and whoever follows him 2 or 3 months from now. The promise is that the markets will open up and the markets will go up and credit will be free-flowing soon.

But I come here also realistic, realistic to know that if you don't tackle the underlying problems, we will be right back in this House again on this floor seeking more money and more reform. Realistic also to know if you don't allow for alternatives, you will not get the best bill. And we know that Speaker Pelosi and the White House were not open to listening to any alternatives, and there were alternatives out there. And realistic also in knowing that if you fail to investigate earlier enough, these problems will come up, as they have.

Back in the spring of this year, we, my Republican colleagues, asked for investigations on this matter, and we were rebuffed, being told by the chairman, ``I do not think it is necessary that we have hearings on the soonest possible date.''

Madam Speaker, I come here not in support of this bill, but in support of doing something, in light of the remarks of economist Robert Shimer, who said, ``The U.S. has long been a beacon of free markets. When economic conditions turn sour in other countries, we give very clear instructions on what to do; balance the budget, maintain free trade, the rule of law, and do not prop up failing enterprise.''

He said it. I agree with him. That has always been the U.S. approach, and I believe it is the correct approach.

But when the United States ignores its own advice in this situation, we reduce our credibility of this stance. Rewriting the rules of the game at this stage will therefore have serious ramifications, not only for the people of this country, but for the globe and the world as well. You see, Madam Speaker, the social costs of this are far, far greater than the $700 billion that we talk about today.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased that the House recently considered and passed H.R. 6646, a bill that would require the Secretary of State to provide Congress with detailed briefings on any recent discussions conducted between the United States Government and the Government of Taiwan and any potential transfer of defense articles or defense services to the Government of Taiwan.

I was proud to cosponsor this legislation, which I hope will end a reported freeze on arms sales to Taiwan. The U.S. and Taiwan have enjoyed a positive economic and political relationship for several decades and it is our duty to make defense articles available to our allies, especially in the Asia Pacific region.

The U.S. Taiwan Relations Act states in Section 2(b)(5) that ``it is the policy of the United States to provide Taiwan with arms of a defensive character.'' The same Act specifies in Section 3(b) that Congress has a role in determining the defensive needs of Taiwan. Furthermore, Section 3(b) also states that any determination ``shall include review by United States military authorities in connection with recommendations to the President and the Congress.'' Yet the administration has not reported any recommendations to Congress nor explained why arms sales to Taiwan have been delayed. Since Taiwan's legislature passed its arms budget last year, further inaction by the administration is unnecessary.

As twenty-four Members and I wrote in a letter to President Bush on July 31, ``A secure and prosperous Taiwan requires the means to provide for its own self defense and the ability to engage its neighbors without fear of military intimidation.'' If we are serious about Taiwan's security, we must continue to permit the judicious sale of defesive weapons to our key ally.

H. Res. 6646 provides a framework for maintaining peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait by requiring the administration to consult with Congress regarding its arms transfer policy. I applaud the passage of this much-needed legislation.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased that the House recently considered and passed H.R. 7112, a bill that expands the Iran Sanctions Act and authorizes state and local governments to divest from certain companies that hold Iranian assets.

The timing of this legislation could not be more appropriate. This past week, the president of Iran visited the United Nations in New York City and gave two addresses. Not surprisingly, he took advantage of the platform and condemned ``a small but deceitful number of people called Zionists'' for using their influence in Europe and the U.S. in ``a deceitful, complex, and furtive manner.'' He also referred to ``Zionist murders'' and accused Jews of having an ``underhanded'' role in the crisis in Georgia.

But President Ahmadinejad didn't limit his attacks to Israelis. He boasted that ``the American empire. . . is reaching the end of the road.'' Clearly, Tehran has malicious intentions and especially detests the United States and Israel. That's why H.R. 7112 is critical to improving our national security and stability. While Iran points out alleged flaws in American and Israeli policy, it continues to defy the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty, numerous U.N. Security Council resolutions, and International Atomic Energy Agency inspections.

Of course, Iran claims to be enriching uranium for energy use, but U.N. inspectors have found elements that are constructive only in weapons. If Iran did indeed develop a nuclear bomb, the repercussions would be felt throughout the region, including in Iraq, India, Pakistan, Turkey, and Israel, as well as in the U.S. Since Iran is already supplying weapons to terrorist organizations like Hezbollah and Hamas, it is important that we act now to prevent the sale of sensitive material to Tehran.

Finally, I would also like to mention another bill that recently passed the House: H. Res. 1361. While this Resolution rightly condemns the anti-Semitic language of the 2001 Durban Conference (Durban I), I urge my fellow Members to take the next step and support my legislation, H.R. 5847 or the United Nations Durban Review Conference (Durban II) Funding Prohibition Act.