Ed Royce

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Madam Speaker, I rise to support this resolution. I think, in recognizing the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children here on its 25th anniversary, it is time for us to reflect on just what a role it played in terms of increasing the recovery rate over time of missing children. If you think about the last 25 years and the fact that 138,000 missing children have been recovered, returned to their families, but that in the early years that rate ran at 62 percent and now that rate is up to 97 percent, you begin to get an appreciation for just what the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children were able to do for humanity, for these children, for these families. As mentioned, it was officially opened in June of 1984 by President Ronald Reagan, and since its inception, it has become the leading organization worldwide dealing with the issue of missing and exploited kids. I've been pleased to support many of the initiatives that it's worked for, including: The Jacob Wetterling Crimes Against Children Registration Act, which was in 1994, and it mandated that sex offender registries be established in every State; Megan's Law of 1996, which mandated that every State provide community notification when dangerous sex offenders are released, was driven by the push from the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children; The PROTECT Act of 2003, which created a national AMBER Alert Program and strengthened law enforcement's ability to punish violent criminals who prey upon children; And, of course, the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006, which created a national sex offender public database. And it's because of that work over the years that that rate is up to 97 percent today. Now, despite all that's been accomplished, I'm sure there is much more that can be done, should be done. I congratulate the NCMEC for its 25th anniversary. I congratulate it for its work on behalf of so many child recoveries to date. And let this resolution remind us that there is nothing more important than the safety of our Nation's children, and that the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children has done such great work in this regard.

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, news came yesterday that Laura Ling and Euna Lee, two American journalists held in North Korea, and held there since March, have been found guilty of illegally entering North Korea. They've been sentenced to 12 years of hard labor. These court proceedings were a cruel joke, nothing more than a kangaroo court. I know of no justice system in North Korea. The two should be immediately released. As if there were any doubts, the North Korean regime has shown its true colors, a hostile regime bent on destroying the lives of its own citizens and others. Let's be clear. These two wouldn't have been near North Korea were it not for the barbaric cruelty of its regime. Ling and Lee were convicted of so-called ``grave crimes.'' It is the North Korean regime that commits real grave crimes against millions of North Koreans every day. President Obama, himself, must make it clear that this action cannot stand. Now is the time for urgent action.

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. This is really about the future of our country. For those of us that have worried about the trends in spending and we've watched, of course with alarm--from George Washington to George Bush--we have watched what Thomas Jefferson warned us about. This proclivity in politics to spend now and leave this burden on the next generation has advanced and advanced. But all of that debt together is not as great as the debt we're undertaking in the next 10 years. We are going to see that debt level double in the next 5\1/2\ years because of the massive increase in government spending that we are embarking on. Over the next 10 years we're going to see it triple. I want you to think for a minute about what this means to your children. The Congressional Budget Office is nonpartisan. The Congressional Budget Office tells us that the tax rates for lower- income Americans, when we finally get around to recognizing that we can't borrow more, will have to go up drastically; will have to go up, in their estimation, to 26 percent. For middle income, it will go from 25 to 66 percent. Think what that's going to mean for small businesses. No. The time to get a handle on this is now. The time to bring this back into check, because the Congressional Budget Office--even the Director of the President's Budget Office has come out recently and said Oh, these numbers are not sustainable. No, they're not. And it's here in the House where spending bills originate that we're going to have to reverse this course, because if we do not, how are we going to maintain the ability to continue to go out with these Treasuries and borrow as much as we've borrowed several times again from the Europeans and from the Chinese? Yes, the governments in Europe are lecturing us. All over the world people are lecturing us. At the G20 they're saying: How can you go forward with these massive spending increases? It is not sustainable. And they're right. They're absolutely right. I oppose this budget because this unchecked spending will result in borrowing hundreds of billions of dollars from China and the Middle East and other nations that own our growing debt. I think we all know as individuals that money doesn't grow on trees. But it is the American taxpayer who will eventually end up paying for all this spending. At a time when many taxpayers are hurting--they can't afford their mortgages right now, they are losing money in their pensions, they're worried about losing their jobs--it is wrong at this time to make the argument that we're going to seize this opportunity to expand all of these government agencies and programs. When Americans are tightening their belts, shouldn't the government be at least trying to balance its books?

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, what we are recognizing here: come tomorrow we have the 188th year anniversary of the independence of Greece. And we are celebrating Greek and American democracy. And that date tomorrow represents the day at which, after 400 years of oppressive rule, Greeks finally became free. Greeks were able, and it is amazing to think about it, to maintain their language, maintain their religion, to hold on to their culture, despite 20 generations of persecution during that period of time. And I think one of the reasons we are proud here in the United States about the role we played was because U.S. President James Monroe and our then-Secretary of State, Daniel Webster, pushed to send funds and supplies to aid Greece in that struggle. But more importantly, I think to all of us, freeborn men, both white and black, born in the North, traveled to Greece during that struggle. They played a role over 180 years ago in securing those freedoms. That was the power at the time of the concept of Greek liberty, that it drove Americans in this early republic to travel to Greece in order to take part in that very struggle. And that struggle, frankly, began an alliance between the U.S. and Greece that has joined our two countries in NATO, that has seen our soldiers fight tyranny in World War II. We are indebted to the Greeks for their vast influence on our own society. Two thousand five hundred years ago, the Greeks ushered in Western civilization, and they brought about at that time the scientific method. They gave us the philosophy of Aristotle and Aristotelian logic, the birth of democratic government, the first age of reason. They brought forward the poetry of Euripides, the three- dimensional painting that was not rediscovered as a technique until the end of the Dark Ages, until into the Renaissance when again the enlightenment represented, really, the rediscovery of Greek philosophy, of these concepts of the autonomy of the individual, of logic and reason. Our own founding fathers were deeply influenced by those Hellenic ideas. Thomas Jefferson, Adams and Madison, they not only wrote and read Greek; they could speak Greek--Tom Paine as well. They were well- versed in Greek philosophy. In crafting the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, Jefferson and Madison drew heavily on the Greek ideal that a government derives its power from the people. Thomas Jefferson's stirring words that all men are created equal and are endowed with unalienable rights hark back to natural law theories that originated in Greek philosophy. Indeed, the very architecture of our buildings, the very ideals that drove our founding fathers through all of this Greek culture permeates throughout Washington, DC and our Nation. It is this legacy that we justly recognize today.

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution, which recognizes the 30th anniversary of the Taiwan Relations Act. This is a historic occasion. Taiwan, of course, is a beacon of democracy in Asia. We have a strong partnership that stretches back over half a century with this country. Today our relations remain strong, as Taiwan is a cornerstone of U.S. foreign policy in Asia. This was signed 30 years ago, and the Taiwan Relations Act laid into the law the basis for the continued commercial, cultural and defense relationship between the U.S. and Taiwan. As this resolution states, it has been instrumental in maintaining the peace, the security and the stability in the Taiwan Straits. While this resolution highlights many of the positive attributes of the U.S.-Taiwan relationship, language detailing our important economic relationship was regrettably struck. As the original version states, Taiwan is the ninth largest trading partner of the U.S., with United States exports totaling over $26 billion. Imports from Taiwan are important too. The truth is that trade is very important to Taiwanese security. Security isn't based on weapons alone.

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

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. The Democrats have actually controlled this Congress for over the last 2 years, and it was the Democrats who controlled the passage of the TARP legislation in the first place. I voted against that legislation. But ABC News reported yesterday that ``during late-night, closed-door negotiations for the House, Senate, and White House, a measure was stripped out of the stimulus bill that could have restricted these AIG bonuses. The Senate had approved the amendment to the stimulus bill aimed at restricting bonuses over $100,000 that had been authored by Olympia Snowe and by Ron Wyden. Then, the provision was stripped out during the closed-door conference involving House and Senate leaders and the White House. Dodd's measure explicitly exempted bonuses agreed to prior to the passage of the stimulus bill.'' Now, most of the Democratic Members voted for this on the House floor, all of the Republicans voted against it. That's the record. We should vote ``aye'' on this bill. And the reason we should is because it's going to stop executives from coming here to take TARP funds from Washington. It's going to stop capitalists from being converted into quasi-socialists. That's the reason we should vote ``aye.'' I brought an amendment to this floor in 2005 to try to prevent--with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac--to try to regulate them for systemic risk, arguing that their over-leveraging as GSEs was going to cause bankruptcy and a financial collapse. It was voted down. It was voted down, but this year those executives from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, it was reported yesterday, they are going to get over $1 million in bonuses. How do we stop every executive coming to this town to get TARP money and over-leveraging their firms and then the consequent bailout at cost to the taxpayers? Well, we passed legislation removing their bonuses so that all of the time and effort that these business executives put into coming to D.C. is reversed. When you take TARP money, when they do that, they have the full backing of the U.S. government behind them. So they can borrow money without market discipline and without limit, at a lower interest rate than their competitors, and drive them out of business, which is what AIG is doing right now to other smaller private sector businesses. It's 80 percent owned by the government. Without that market discipline, what consequently happens, economists tell us--and this is exactly what happened with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as government- sponsored enterprises--they drive out their competition, they become larger and larger, they over-leverage, and then they collapse, requiring more in government infusions of capital into these institutions. You have got to change the incentive structure. You have got to put up a firewall between government and the markets. You don't want these fellows down here with their lobbyists. You don't want these men and women, these executives down here trying to figure out ways to get the taxpayers to back them so that they can become quasi-GSEs, because the long-term consequence of becoming a government-sponsored enterprise is the same as what happened to Fannie and Freddie. This is what economists have tried to explain to us. We finally have a method to distinguish between those in the private sector, those who are free-market businessmen, who are going to take risks, not with government money, and are going to make a salary and are going to pay bonuses to their executives, and those who decide that they want to be quasi-public in nature, that they want to be like Fannie and Freddie. Why should they make bonuses of $1 million a year this year for Fannie and Freddie? Why should they make twice as much as they made in bonuses last year? It is only because, unfortunately, my friends on the other side of the aisle did not listen to this argument on TARP funding.

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, many of us have read the Peruvian economist book, Hernando de Soto's book, ``The Mystery of Capital: Why Capitalism Succeeds in the West and Fails Everywhere Else.'' It's a best seller in the developing world. The importance of that book in a lot of the world is it explains to people why it is that interest rates are so low here, why it is that we're so successful in the percentages of mortgages that we're able to grant in the United States. And it is the sanctity of that contract, it is the certainty of that mortgage contract. And the great fear I think many of us have here is that if we start down the road to writing down the principal in that contract, we are going to end up moving in the direction, as de Soto would say, of the difference between the First World and the Third World. We are not going to be able to have interest rates that are around 6 or 7 percent. Is there a way that Treasury has developed as an alternative to this scheme? Yes, they have. They have developed a way to have mortgage servicers work out these Alt-A loans that we're talking about today, these ARMs that might go to 8\3/4\, and to work that out into 30 years at 6 percent that's affordable for people. And we've had 2.3 million of those workouts by the end of last year. But now, here we are, instead of doing the voluntary arrangement and putting resources in to do that--which is what we intended to do, I think, as we started this process--we're, instead, listening to the bankruptcy attorneys with an alternative approach. And that approach is to set this up so that it can be gamed in a way that knocks down the amount of the principal. And if we do that, we're right back to where Chief Justice of the Supreme Court John Paul Stevens said we would be in the case of Nobleman v. American Savings Bank. He said, you do this--there's a reason why that mortgage contract is held in the law the way it is. If you manage to reduce that principal, then the consequence is going to be that capital is not going to come in and drive down interest rates. My concern here is that the difference between what people pay on the market for credit card rates or auto loan rates and interest rates on their home mortgage is a huge sum of money. And in order to empower these bankruptcy judges to go forward and take advantage of this and open this up, then the investors on the other side of the--let me throw one other thought out there besides the impact it's going to have on interest rates. Think now about what happens with the HOPE NOW Alliance, where people at the table are trying to get that 30-year loan at 6 percent. Are either the borrower or the lender going to stay at that table when they think, oh, no, here's an alternative: we go to bankruptcy court, we write down the amount of that principal? No, my friends. We're headed down a road here that is very, very ill-advised. If you want to do workouts in terms of lowering the interest rate, that's one thing, and there is a way we can do it. We can put more resources in there that the mortgage servicers can use to do that. But this is the wrong road.

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Madam Speaker, I rise to commemorate National Peace Corps Week and the 48th anniversary of the Peace Corps. While much has changed in the world since the Peace Corps was created in 1961, its goals and ideals of promoting goodwill remain. Volunteers continue to provide invaluable services in over 70 countries, serving as educators, technology consultants, environmental specialists, and business advisors. At a time when extremism is sweeping through much of the globe, more than ever, we need these dedicated individuals. As the former chairman of the House Subcommittee on Africa, I have had the opportunity to meet with several Peace Corps Volunteers around the continent. The commitment these men and women have shown is extremely impressive and is to be commended. These Americans, approximately 7,800 of them, are serving their country in often extremely difficult conditions. They live at the same level of the people they serve, and uniquely connect with them. Since its inception, over 195,000 Volunteers have worked in over 139 countries. In my district, I'm proud to say that I have thirteen Peace Corps Volunteers, stationed around the world. Christina Balch in Lesotho, Joan Bash in Bulgaria, Joseph Flores in Macedonia, Mamie Florin in Gambia, Wendy Jones in Kenya, Olenka Langen in Nicaragua, Justin Lee in the Dominican Republic, Dulce Martinez in China, Lacey Monson in Thailand, Carmen Munoz in Guatemala, Joan Ngo in Paraguay, Stacey Ngo in the Dominican Republic, and Leala Ruangtragool in Honduras, are each to be commended for their service. Madam Speaker, I have seen the valuable work the Peace Corps is doing in Africa, and throughout the world. It deserves our recognition and support.

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. I thank the gentleman for yielding me that time because this is not the solution. We are going to compound the problem. We are going to put in motion here a reticence on the part of those who loan. And once the principal amount is reduced in these loans, once people know that they can go through the process of bankruptcy, they will be more hesitant to work through the process that Treasury has set up with this Hope Now Alliance. There's 2.3 million loans last year that were reworked with lower interest rates. And if you think about it, it's in the borrower's interest and it's also in the lender's interest to sit down and do these reworks. That's where our focus should be. We should be encouraging those voluntary arrangements. We should be bringing resources to bear, to contact homeowners that are having trouble right now making those payments and remind them that instead of filing for foreclosure, if they get in touch with a lending institution, you can voluntarily right now run those out to 30-year loans now at 6 percent. And when people are contacted, we find that most of these don't go into foreclosure. That's where the focus should be.

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I think I want to comment here on the marked difference that I've seen between the sanctity of the mortgage contract in the United States and what I've seen around the world. Hernando de Soto, the Peruvian economist, touches on this in his book, ``The Mystery of Capital: Why Capitalism Succeeds in the West and Fails Everywhere Else.'' And his point is that, long term, this private mortgage contract is essential. If we begin to undo that contract, there isn't any reason to believe that interest rates won't climb up commensurate with the kinds of interest rates that we see with respect to what you pay on your Visa card or Master Charge. The reality really is that Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens was right some 15 years ago when he cited that legislative history indicating that favorable treatment of residential mortgages were intended to encourage the flow of capital into the home lending market. And his point was that, without that capital flow coming in and pushing down interest rates, that long term we were going to face a considerably higher interest on home mortgages for the next generation. Now, to those skeptics that have been convinced this is a temporary solution, I would just say that we should all remind ourselves that here in Washington there is nothing more permanent than a temporary solution. These things have a way of becoming permanent, and that is what I'm concerned about. I am also concerned that we haven't recognized the role we played in this. And maybe, in terms of the good intentions of many of these Members who, frankly, if you look at the erosion of standards, once 20 percent was the down payment for a house, then it went to zero. And one of the reasons it went to zero was because of political pressure, because of the perception that we would make homeownership more affordable. One of the reasons Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were allowed to over-leverage was for this same reason. This is not the solution.

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Madam Speaker, pursuant to the Republican Leadership standards on earmarks, I am submitting the following information regarding earmarks I received as part of the FY 2009 Omnibus. Requesting Member: Representative Ed Royce Bill Number: H.R. 1105--Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009 Account: Office of Justice Programs--Byrne Discretionary Grants Account Legal Name Requesting Entity: The City of Westminster Address of Requesting Entity: 8200 Westminster Blvd, Westminster, CA 92683 Description of Request: Provide $312,200 in FY 2009 to be used for the Criminal Enterprise Initiative, following the Year 1 federal funding provided in 2008. The detectives assigned to the Little Saigon Substation are already in operation, specifically focusing on identifying, investigating and dismantling criminal enterprises, having both national and international implications, within the Little Saigon area. Under this project, the Westminster Police Department's Crimes Against Public Unit occupies office space within the Little Saigon district of Westminster, placing a powerful ``investigative engine'' into the heart of the area where Asian Criminal Enterprises operate. The total cost of project is $1,061,181 (local match of $748,981). I certify that neither I nor my spouse has any financial interest in this project. Requesting Member: Representative Ed Royce Bill Number: H.R. 1105--Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009 Account: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Construction Legal Name of Requesting Entity: County of Orange, California, Watershed and Coastal Resources Division Address of Requesting Entity: 300 North Flower Street, Santa Ana, CA 92702 Description of Request: Provide $2,612,500 to complete the restoration of the Upper Newport Bay being conducted by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The funding will be used for dredging costs. The ecosystem restoration project has started with the $14.7 million of federal funding received for the project through the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers since FY03. The project includes dredging 2.3 million cubic yards total, dredging sediments basins and side channels, restoring estuarine and other habitats, and creating a new Least Tern island. The Upper Newport Bay is one of the last remaining coastal wetlands in Southern California, and continues to play a significant role in providing critical habitat for a variety of migratory waterfowl, shorebirds and many threatened and federally endangered species. It will improve the bay's water quality by reducing sediment inflows and algal blooms, and will preserve Federal navigation channels. The project has significant support at the local, state, and national level, including the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service. The project was authorized by Congress in the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (P.L. 106-541, Section 101), and is consistent with the intended and authorized purpose of the Army Corps of Engineers, Construction Account. The County of Orange, CA has already made available the 35 percent local cost share required for the project. The County received a $13,000,000 Coastal Conservancy Grant, which it has front-loaded for the project. I certify that neither I nor my spouse has any financial interest in this project. Requesting Member: Representative Ed Royce Bill Number: H.R. 1105--Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009 Account: Higher Education FIPSE Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Cal State University, Fullerton Address of Requesting Entity: 800 North State College Blvd, Fullerton, CA 92834 Description of Request: Provide $238,000 in FY 2009 to establish the Center for the Advancement of Teaching and Learning in Mathematics and Science (CATLMS). The proposed center addresses a national problem. One of the core drivers of innovation in the U.S. is its strength in STEM disciplines. Yet, in an increasingly interconnected world, the U.S. has not been keeping pace with its economic competitors. Federal investment would be used for the initial phase to carry out research studies, pursue external funding, and develop collaborations with private sector parties, educational institutions, and governmental agencies. I certify that neither I nor my spouse has any financial interest in this project. Requesting Member: Representative Ed Royce Bill Number: H.R. 1105--Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009 Account: Higher Education FIPSE Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Cal State University, Fullerton Address of Requesting Entity: 800 North State College Blvd, Fullerton, CA 92834 Description of Request: Provide $238,000 in FY 2009 to build upon existing intermediate level language courses to develop a full Bachelor's Degree program, a Minor, and an International Business Sequence in Vietnamese Language and Culture designed to prepare a new generation of Vietnamese Americans and others to take advantage of the rapidly growing business and professional opportunities resulting from trade between the United States and Vietnam. Project Funding details included: Faculty salaries $237,594; Graduate assistants--20 hrs/week/term $70,862; Materials-- resource & language lab/library $162,519; Internships $137,500; and Facilities & Administration (IDC) $91,525. I certify that neither I nor my spouse has any financial interest in this project. Requesting Member: Representative Ed Royce Bill Number: H.R. 1105--Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009 Account: Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Bus & Bus Facilities Legal Name of Requesting Entity: The City of Anaheim Address of Requesting Entity: 200 S. Anaheim Blvd, Ste 733, Anaheim, CA 92805 Description of Request: Provide an earmark of $2,612,500 in FY 2009 to be used toward the completion of the Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center (ARTIC). ARTIC will be the premier transportation hub serving international tourist destinations that are major contributors to the state and national economies. In 2006, Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) acquired the necessary property with $32 million in local funds and launched the master planning effort for the site with the City of Anaheim, which contributed $6 million of city-owned property located adjacent to the ARTIC. In addition, a recent voter-approved sales tax extension assures that OCTA will be able to direct a $2 billion, 30-year revenue stream for improved rail service serving ARTIC. The federal funding requested for FY 2009 will support preliminary engineering and environmental study. This request is consistent with the intended and authorized purpose of the FTA Bus & Bus Facilities Account. The total project cost is estimated at $245 million. The City of Anaheim has previously received $600,000 in the FY 2008 Transportation Appropriations bill and will provide a minimum 20% local cost share toward the project's cost. I certify that neither I nor my spouse has any financial interest in this project.

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I also agree that on the issue on this omnibus spending spree that we're calling a stimulus bill, that where we increase from $1 trillion, add another trillion and push up the deficit to 10 percent of the GDP, this is not the answer. But let me talk for a minute about the stalker bill because I'm the author of the first stalker act, both here in the Federal Government and at the State level in California. In Orange County, California, we had four young women who were killed in the span of 6 weeks, and law enforcement had told me at the time that if they had been able to intervene they could have protected them. One law enforcement officer said the hardest thing he ever had to do in his life, he was waiting to try to apprehend the man who was going to kill his girlfriend. The man succeeded and then killed himself. It was 30 seconds too late for the officer to prevent that, or a minute too late. So the Federal law and the State law, the California law has now, frankly, been copied by all 50 States. But I wanted to share with my colleagues here that our Federal anti-stalker law has now been passed in Japan. It's been passed in countries in Europe and elsewhere around the world. I'm still getting calls from legislators about the need to set up this deterrence, so that when a credible threat is given against a victim of a crime, she knows when she's being threatened and stalked, that that's a felony, that she can take out a restraining order; she can thus make that a felony and get law enforcement involved in order to protect her. Let me just say that I think this resolution is important because what it does is raise the level of awareness around the country as to the necessity of not only law enforcement, judges, but the average citizen to be aware of this. And those who are involved, men and women who are involved in stalking their victims should understand that under State and Federal law they risk serving serious time in Federal and State penitentiary if they continue with this pattern of threats and behavior. Let me also say that I think that in our society it is really time to figure out how the victims can get access to the information about the laws that we pass, because too many times we have people--and this even includes in law enforcement--who are not cognizant of the fact that they can step in here and get involved and prevent serious harm before it occurs. So just in closing and yielding back my time, I commend the sponsors and cosponsors of this resolution, because in calling attention to this special week, National Stalking Awareness Month, calling attention to this, my hope is that all of you can make those potential victims of this crime more knowledgeable so that they understand they have recourse, so that steps can be taken before they're physically harmed.

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, for years I have introduced government waste legislation that would set up a commission to identify waste, fraud and abuse in the Federal Government. It's similar to the Grace Commission of the 1980s. I believe strongly, as does Mr. Tanner, the sponsor of the resolution we're debating today, that we have a responsibility to oversee the spending of taxpayer money. And clearly, the American people feel that we have all abdicated that responsibility, both Republicans and Democrats. It is an indisputable fact that Washington is excellent at spending money on new programs. It almost never ends programs. Today we are on the eve of passing a second stimulus bill that may cost $1 trillion. These are dollars we don't have. If it does pass, with this one bill, Congress will double the already $1 trillion deficit. I can remember when we were concerned about the total national debt being that large--and now the national debt is $10.6 trillion. This debt level is an economic and national security calamity. So what are we doing about this? 'We are debating this bill, which changes the House rules to require the committees to hold hearings on waste, fraud and abuse. That's good, as far as it goes. The Washington Post recently editorialized, ``It's easy to find the fat in the federal budget. What's hard is getting rid of it.'' One of my committees is Foreign Affairs. President-elect Obama has committed to ramping up foreign aid spending. With today's resolution, I'm looking forward to my committee finding the waste in what we already are spending on foreign aid. Then we'll see if Congress does anything about it. In selling the trillion dollar stimulus to the American people, the President-elect has said, ``We will go through our Federal budget--page by page, line by line--eliminating those programs we don't need, and insisting that those we do operate in a sensible cost-effective way.'' Despite the strong Washington bias towards spending, despite years of failed efforts to end wasteful Government programs, I take our incoming President at his word, and wish him well. But it is important to realize, even if the President and Congress are successful far beyond any level of cutting that has ever been seen, total cutting would pale in comparison to the deficit and debt we are wildly running-up. This bill, which is the right thing to do, is no offset to the trillion dollars this Congress appears set to approve.

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. I guess part of my concern here is philosophical, but I think that ideas have consequences, and bad ideas have bad consequences in policy. And specifically what I worry about here are two challenges that the U.S. faces; one is a budget deficit right now which, when we look forward, it's going to be about 7 percent of GDP. And with the Fed's balance sheet continuing to expand, I think it's now at about $2 trillion. With the promise of another stimulus package coming, which will be somewhere between $800 billion and $1 trillion, we are becoming increasingly dependent upon our rescuers. Now, in this case our rescuers are the American taxpayers and U.S. debt purchasers, most of them overseas. Why worry about this? Well, I think one of the reasons we have to be concerned is that eventually bond investors might begin to reconsider purchasing that U.S. debt, they might begin to second guess that. And that consequence would really be catastrophic. Avoiding such a scenario would require us, then, to take a step back from where we are and require us to begin to eliminate unnecessary spending and not go forward with compounding the problem with the deficits. But beyond the impact of the budget, there is a second concern that I have, and that's the ill effect of this bailout trend in terms of the rapidly increasing role that government is playing inside financial firms, that it's playing in the board rooms. And I will just cite this December 17 article in the Wall Street Journal entitled, ``U.S. Ratchets Up City Oversight.'' And in that story they describe the active role that regulators are playing in the day-to-day operations of the financial institution. Earlier this week, headlines focused on an effort by U.S. banking regulators to encourage Citigroup to shake up its board and to replace its chairman, Win Bischoff. And they said this would be an effort to restore confidence in the beleaguered financial giant. But then as the argument is put forward, one of the leading candidates is Richard Parsons, who is Time Warner's chairman, and he is a member of Citigroup's board, but he also happens to be a member of President- elect Barack Obama's transition economic advisory board. Additionally, it should come as no surprise, I think, that earlier this week Citigroup announced it would support legislative efforts to allow bankruptcy judges now to rewrite mortgage contracts. Now, that's a provision that would restrict the flow of capital into the mortgage market, it would increase the cost certainly going forward of obtaining a mortgage for anybody. And traditionally the financial press has called this a ``cram down'' provision that's been adamantly opposed by the financial institution. Now we have $45 billion of taxpayers' cash, we have a $249 billion taxpayer guarantee for bad assets on the balance sheets of the institution. And the institution, which now has seen this bureaucratic control within the firm reverse itself on a position, and I begin to wonder if political pull is going to replace market forces, if government bullying is going to determine the actions that firms are going to take. And this is my second concern. Because, to me, a major reason we're in dire financial straits is the market distortions caused by bureaucratic and regulatory manipulation of the quasi public entities. We've had 16 hearings where we've heard the Federal Reserve Board, we've heard the Treasury warn over the last few years about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. And these institutions took on that excessive risk. It was Congress that encouraged it and prevented the regulation that the Treasury wanted in order to prevent it.

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. I thank the gentlelady. I would just like to quote for a minute from Hamas. They say Allah is the goal, the Prophet its model, the Quran its constitution, jihad its path, and death for the cause of Allah its most sublime belief. Now, that is the charter; that is the opening of the charter for Hamas itself. These are the words that drive these ideological jihadists. And it's an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood, which was the Egyptian group whose ideology actually spawned al Qaeda. So Hamas, in this case, as we know, wants to replace Israel and wants to replace it with an Islamic state. Now, Israel withdrew its soldiers and all of its settlers from Gaza in 2005, and in return Hamas came to power in the Gaza Strip. Over 6,000 rockets have been fired into southern Israel, leaving a quarter of a million Israelis just seconds away from a rocket attack. And I wonder how Americans would feel if citizens in San Diego or in Buffalo had a matter of 20 seconds to rush to a bomb shelter. I had an opportunity in August, a year and a half ago, back when rockets like these were being fired into Haifa, to see the results of that targeting of civilian neighbors. And I was in Rambam Hospital, and indeed on that very day there were attacks on the city; 80,000 ball bearings in each one of these rockets designed to inflict maximum casualties on the civilians, and this is what Israel faces. And of course Israel has been harshly criticized for its so-called disproportionate response. But what is proportional? Should Israel fire 6,000 rockets into Gaza indiscriminately? Israel would not do that. On the contrary, it seems as though Israel has gone out of its way to even contact noncombatants who live next to the rocket launchers in advance to warn them of approaching danger. Hamas has been deliberate in the locating of its security forces in residential neighborhoods. They put these rocket launchers in areas that are intended both to deter Israel from attacking in the first place, as well as to turn world opinion against the democratic state when it does try to silence with counter-battery fire these rockets. Madam Speaker, no one wants to see human suffering. I would like to see this come to an end. And the longer this goes on with Hamas, the longer international attention will be taken away from the even more serious threat of Iran's nuclear program. More delays in terms of taking out Hamas only work in favor of the Islamic state over in Iran at this point, and they are helping provide the rockets.

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Madam Speaker, I wish to recognize the Republic of China's National Day, which is October 10th. Madam Speaker, Taiwan and the U.S. have a long and valued partnership. For over half a century, a close relationship has existed between the United States and Taiwan, which has been of significant political, economic, and cultural advantage to both countries. Taiwan is one of the few vibrant democracies in the region, and its citizens enjoy all of the civil liberties found in the United States and Europe. Freedom House, in its ratings of freedom, consistently rate the people of Taiwan to be among the freest in Asia. As a member of the Congressional Caucus on Taiwan, it gives me great pleasure to witness the impressive democratic and economic transformations that Taiwan has undergone. Mr. Ma Ying-jeou was elected president of Taiwan in March of this year and took office in May. The transfer of power from the Democratic Progressive Party to the Nationalist Party was smooth and peaceful. President Ma stresses economic competitiveness for Taiwan, strong bilateral relations with the United States, and gradual improvement of cross-strait relations. Again, I extend my congratulations to the people of Taiwan on their National Day.

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation. I just want to commend Chairman Berman and Ranking Member Ros-Lehtinen's leadership on the issue. This has been a long road. In the last Congress, I managed on the House floor approval of the Hyde Act, which was a legal framework for facilitating civil nuclear cooperation with India. And that was a tremendous foreign policy achievement of the last Congress. Failure by this Congress to push this agreement across the finish line, I'm afraid, would be foreign policy malpractice. Indian officials have told me about their ambitious plans to expand nuclear power to fuel their growing economy with clean-burning energy through this source. And with this deal, the Indian nuclear industry will overcome international restrictions and they will reach their full potential to do this. This deal, frankly, has consumed Indian politics. The far, far left in India sought to turn the nuclear deal into a referendum on India's relationship with the United States. They lost in that. Let's seal the deal today helping cement the new U.S.-India relationship. And strictly speaking, this deal really isn't about the United States. The Nuclear Suppliers Group, an organization of 45 countries to control the spread of nuclear technology, okayed this agreement. That NSG decision represents the will of the international community to make the nuclear rules conform to the realities of India's energy situation. Opponents are deriding the exception made for India as a blow to nonproliferation rules. But while this deal may not be a net gain for nonproliferation, neither is it a net loss because under the deal, India stays outside the NPT, but it separates its civil and military nuclear facilities, it gives the IAEA increased access to its nuclear facilities, and it continues its unilateral moratorium on nuclear testing. Indeed, Mohamed ElBaradei, the chief of the IAEA, supports the agreement. Sure it makes changes to the rules that were set down decades ago, but the world is not standing still. Critics can not ignore the security, political, economic, and environmental reasons, frankly, to support it. Opposing this won't affect India. It will only hurt our relationship with India and U.S. interests. With the NSG agreement, other countries, notably France and Russia, can enter the Indian nuclear market--with a potential for up to $100 billion in investment. It has been reported that India will soon sign their own nuclear cooperation agreements with these countries. Now U.S. companies, however, would be blocked out of India until Congress finally approves this agreement. Mr. Speaker, either we continue to try to box in India and hope for the best, or we act to make India a true partner. This agreement works through a difficult nonproliferation situation to strengthen a very important situation. India will be a major power in the 21st century. Let's approve this legislation.

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 653, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Madam Speaker, pursuant to the Republican Leadership standards on earmarks, I am submitting the following information regarding earmarks I received as part of H.R. 2638, the Consolidated Security, Disaster Assistance, and Continuing Appropriations Act: Requesting Member: Congressman Ed Royce. Bill Number: H.R. 2638. Account: U.S. Army, Research, Development, Test & Evaluation (RDT&E). Legal Name of Requesting Entity: California State University, Fullerton. Address: 800 N. State College Boulevard, Fullerton, CA 92831. Description of Request: This bill provides $1,600,000 to continue the Prader-Willi Syndrome (PWS) Research project being led by the California State University, Fullerton. Specifically, funding would be used for equipment and supplies (such as indirect calorimeter machine, microarray machine for genome scans, DNA sequencer), and for testing (such as brain and abdominal MRIs; extensive cognitive and behavioral testing; analysis of total energy expenditure) and personnel (lab technicians, nutritionists, psychologists, neuroradiologists, PWS physicians). This funding would allow for the continuation of this vital research on Prader-Willi Syndrome, which will serve as a resource to the Department of Defense for the many military families with children affected by this disorder. More importantly, the research will serve as a resource to the Department for the treatment and study of obesity in general. The strong manifestation of obesity in children with PWS makes it an excellent model. Military health experts have characterized the growing problem of obesity amongst active duty and potential recruits as a national security issue because of its overall impact on the health, performance, and readiness of our armed forces. With 54 percent of military personnel overweight, obesity has been identified as a public health priority by the surgeons general from the Army, Navy and Air Force. Furthermore, obesity places a significant cost burden on the military and veterans' health care systems. This request is consistent with the intended and authorized purpose of the Army, RDT&E Account and consistent with the DoD mission. This funding will build on the two-year series of studies on PWS and obesity that are already underway. California State University, Fullerton will provide any statutory matching required through institutional sources as well as in-kind contributions of staff time and indirect costs. Requesting Member: Congressman Ed Royce. Bill Number: H.R. 2638. Account: Military Personnel--Operations & Maintenance. Legal Name of Requesting Entity: California State University System. Address of Requesting Entity: 401 Golden Shore, Long Beach, CA 90802- 4210. Description of Request: This bill provides $1,600,000 for the Strategic Language Initiative. Our nation's defense, diplomatic, and business employers need affordable, accessible strategic language instruction programs. The 5 California State University (CSU) campuses originally comprising the Strategic Language Initiative (SLI) Consortium have worked collaboratively to create an effective model capitalizing on campus language expertise, student heritage language diversity, and local linguistic communities in Arabic, Mandarin, Korean, Persian, and Russian. No single university has the resources to meet this rapidly changing need for global and regional expertise in a wide range of world languages. National efforts have concentrated on developing flagship programs in languages such as Chinese, Arabic, Russian, and Korean, and creating demonstration materials for offering languages online. This effort provides an opportunity to tap into the diverse heritage language communities in California, home to the densest concentration of linguistic and cultural diversity in the nation. Collectively, the California campuses of the CSU system have collaborated to provide an innovative approach to intensive language learning that can be a model for other metropolitan consortia. These universities serve the most linguistically diverse populations in the country, with large heritage communities near different campuses, and collectively enroll over 100,000 students each year. Data collected from SLI participants showed an average language development progress that significantly exceeds traditional classroom and course-based program in Arabic, Korean, Mandarin, and Persian. Compared to other models of critical language development, the SLI Model is very cost-efficient and effective in advancing a large group of undergraduate and graduate students through several language proficiency levels across multiple campuses in a relatively short time period, for a fraction of the funding available to other programs. This request would build the programs within the current Consortium, and add CSU campuses. Lessons learned from the current programs will shape the new programs. The legacy of this federal investment will be an instructional model sustained by the CSU system that effectively responds to the national challenge to graduate more professionals with language and cultural knowledge and skills for an increasingly interdependent global world.

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I want to just begin by thanking Congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, our distinguished ranking member on Foreign Affairs, for bringing this bill up before us. And, of course, this bill requires the State Department to provide detailed briefings to Congress on defense sales to the Government of Taiwan. Mr. Speaker, I think it's clear to us Taiwan and the U.S. have a long and valued partnership. Taiwan is one of the few, very vibrant democracies in the region, in Asia, and we continue to build on our already strong economic partnership that we have with that country. Taiwan is an important ally, and we have long considered its security a priority. We have commitments there with regard to that security. That is why this administration's decision to sit on an arms package worth approximately $11 billion is of concern. Today, the People's Republic of China continues to expand its military capabilities, amassing hundreds of short-range missiles pointed across the strait. Now they're pointed at Taiwan. Now some of us support arms sales to Taiwan. Others may not. But we can all agree, I think, that Congress should be involved in this process. The 1979 Taiwan Relations Act, legislation that governs U.S. arms sales to Taiwan, stipulates that both the President and Congress, this body, shall determine the nature and quantity of such defense articles. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, Congress has been left out. This bill, however, helps right that wrong, and I commend its author, Ranking Member Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, for bringing this bill before us today, and I urge its passage.

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, let me just start by thanking Ileana Ros- Lehtinen, who's the ranking member, for her work and Chairman Berman's work in bringing this legislation to the floor. I am in support, of course, of this bill. I authored this bill. But I wanted to share with you that today the House really has an opportunity to strengthen the relationship that we have had historically between the United States and Korea. That alliance is a very important one to us and to our soldiers. The interoperability of U.S. and Korean soldiers in the Korean peninsula can be secured and, frankly, can be strengthened for years to come, and I think is important because our own Secretary of State, Condi Rice, wrote a letter recently to Chairman Berman, and she said in that letter that this ``will serve as an important symbol of the renewed strength of the U.S.-Korea alliance.'' With this legislation in law, foreign military sales with Korea would be treated just as we treat those sales that we have today with NATO or what we call NATO+3, NATO plus Australia, New Zealand and Japan. So the NATO+3 list would become NATO+4. And the upgrade in South Korea's military procurement status would mean a streamlined process; the monetary thresholds that trigger congressional review would be raised and congressional review time would be reduced. Mr. Speaker, the Republic of Korea, as we all know, is a vital, strategic, and enduring ally to this country; 29,000 U.S. troops stand side by side with the Korean Army, and they've helped keep the peace there in northeast Asia for nearly 60 years. We had testimony to the United States Congress earlier this year. We had General Bell, a four-star general. He was commander of the U.S. Forces Korea, and he called it ``bizarre and strange'' that Korea did not have this status in U.S. law, and he urged the adoption of this very measure that we're discussing today. Furthermore, the U.S.-South Korean alliance is distinct. With a mutual defense treaty dating back to 1953, Korea and the U.S. form perhaps the most integrated alliance of interoperable forces I think that exist in the world. On the Korean peninsula, interoperability is not just a buzz word. It is a real-life practice that passage of this legislation would help cement. U.S. and Korean soldiers need to be operating, frankly, on American equipment. South Korea is a larger foreign military sales partner than any of the NATO+3 members. Last year, Seoul purchased $3.7 billion worth of American defense equipment, making it one of the largest partners in U.S. foreign military sales. And this has led South Korea to formally request this preferential status through its Foreign Ministry and its Defense Ministry. Indeed, South Korean President Lee Myung-Bak raised this legislation when he met with congressional leaders here last spring. As our alliance has matured, the Koreans are rightly on the path towards assuming the lead for their own defense. With that, Korea plans to invest $290 billion in military hardware over the next dozen years. Without updating our laws to reflect the strategic nature of our relationship, we run the risk of South Korea looking to other suppliers as it continues its defense transformation, perhaps jeopardizing interoperability of our U.S. forces that work with the Korean forces. So today, we can help prevent that from happening, while at the same time benefiting the strength of this alliance. I urge adoption of the legislation. I thank the chairman and ranking member for their support in bringing it to the floor.

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. I appreciate that. Our own United States Air Force would like to try coal-to-liquid. They would like to try gasification out of coal. This is used by South Africa to make gas. That is prohibited. The Democrats won't lift their moratorium on that. Clean coal, nothing in here for clean coal. Another prohibition brought to us by our friends on the other side of the aisle.

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, the point I want to make here is that the Republican bill, which has all of the above, sets aside $8.8 billion that would be taken from the profits of this oil leasing, and that money would be put into alternative and renewable energy. That money would go to the long-term solution, which is electric vehicles. Lithium-ion car batteries would eventually come on to the market. But the reality is in the short-term we cannot afford to do what the Democrats want to do. In the last 2 years that they have run the Congress, they have doubled the price of gas by putting in place moratoriums, including one on oil shale development, a moratorium, by the way, that is on three States, Utah, Wyoming and Colorado. We lift that moratorium in our bill because of the reserves there. They do not. We have a situation today where what we would do is allow offshore drilling. Gazprom, the Russian oil giant, is up in the Arctic drilling. No. They say no drilling in the Arctic. Off the coast of Florida, we watch as the Cubans drill. No, we are not going to be allowed to drill there. They take 88 percent and take it off the table, and the other 12 percent, they say you have got to get the State to go along with. That means they just continue this moratorium. This is outrageous.

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Madam Speaker, I am rising today to speak about the consequences of some 80 percent of oil reserves around the world now being controlled by a foreign cartel, a foreign cartel that works in concert with Russia. And if you take Russia into the mix, you now have over 90 percent of the oil reserves of the oil that's being pumped around the world controlled by this cartel, OPEC. Now, many of us remember when Aramco was nationalized, where the U.S. fields were seized in Saudi Arabia. And we remember when British Petroleum in Iran was nationalized by that government. Not too many years ago, Hugo Chavez seized the European oil companies, their derricks, off the coast of his country. This is a phenomenon that, as it has occurred, has allowed, according to our former CIA Director Jim Woolsey, the cartel to pick a price. And what he suggested some years ago to us in the Congress was that there was an attempt to set that price at $140 a barrel of oil. And, specifically, what the cartel did, what OPEC did, was to curtail production in order to drive up the price. Frankly, we need a long-term and a short-term solution to this problem. The long-term solution is to continue the investment in lithium-ion batteries that the market is driving and continue incentives for hybrids so that we reach the point where you can actually go 100 miles per gallon of gasoline used because the first 40 miles that you would use to go to work typically or back will be off a battery. In other words, his argument is that long-term electricity is going to be the solution to this by converting the economy, which today 95 percent of the transportation costs dealing with fuel are petroleum, converting that over to electricity. But that's 10 years out. And in the meantime, we have a short-term solution that we need in order to break this cartel's ability to hold that price as high as they hold it. And as the price began to dip down the last few weeks, you saw the cartel again doing what? Saying they were going to, again, curtail production in order to increase the price of gasoline. This represents, according to the former CIA Director, a $10 trillion transfer in wealth over the next 10 years out of this economy into their economy, billions of dollars every day going into their sovereign wealth funds in Saudi Arabia or throughout the Persian Gulf and some of it also going into the madrassas, the special religious schools that they're setting up across Central Asia, across Africa, even in Europe, which, frankly, are radicalizing a younger generation. So how do we take some of the profit out of this? What we do, frankly, is we lift that moratorium on drilling. And our hope on the Republican side was that we might see a series of moratoriums which were put in place lifted. One which was put in place a little over a year ago was the moratorium on using oil shale from Wyoming and Utah and Colorado. We have more oil shale in this country by threefold in terms of what the Saudis have in reserves in the Persian Gulf. So with 2 trillion in oil shale reserves, frankly, we could do a lot. But there has been a moratorium put by those who do not want to burn fossil fuels. Then we have the moratorium on drilling offshore. We know that the Cubans are drilling off the coast of Florida; we're not allowed to drill off the coast in those waters. We know that in the Arctic we have Gazprom, which was nationalized, seized by the Russian government a few years ago. They're bringing their two biggest derricks up to the Arctic. They're going to drill, whereas we can't expand in Alaska, in the Arctic, and drill there on the U.S. side. So what we are witnessing is the fact that we have hamstrung our ability. Gasification, as the South Africans use a process to transfer coal into gasoline, a moratorium on that. Nuclear, well, France has 80 percent of its grid supported by nuclear power. In my State, California, it's 12.5 percent, and there is no chance of getting more because of the restrictions and moratoriums. And, frankly, when a lease is let, there is a lawsuit that follows it instantaneously. So the question I have is why are we moving legislation which purports to lift only one of these moratoriums, which is the drilling offshore, but with it says that no State can take a percentage of the profits of that drilling to help its State budget? All that guarantees is that no State will allow drilling offshore. Right now if you're in the State of Louisiana and you have a certain area where drilling is occurring, part of that goes back to the State of Louisiana. The fact is that this measure, this legislation, will prevent, will absolutely stop any State from going forward and allowing additional drilling. And that's what it's intended to do because the intention is not to have any energy produced in the United States, not to create jobs here, and not to help the inflation that, frankly, is being driven right now by these high energy prices. And I am very concerned about it.