Ed Royce

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. McIntosh) for yielding to me. As a former tax manager, there are so many things wrong with the current Tax Code that I could stand here all day and night talking about them. But there is one aspect of that Tax Code that in my view is the most unfair of all, and that is the marriage penalty. Under the current Tax Code, married couples usually pay more Federal taxes than single taxpayers, everyone knows this. We can ask any recently married couple about the shock that they received when they got their first tax bill. And it is wrong. It is wrong that the IRS charges a family more based on their marital status than they would when two single people are individually paying those taxes. The marriage penalty is essentially a tax on working wives, because the joint filing system compels married couples to identify a primary earner and a secondary earner and usually the wife falls into this latter category. This works out to be a tax on working women who become married. And therefore from an accountant's point of view, the wife's first dollar of income is taxed at the point where her husband's income has left her. And if the husband is making more money than the wife, then the couple may even conclude that it is not worth it for the wife to earn income. In fact, a woman working part-time may be working just to pay the tax man after the marriage. We need to instruct the IRS to be fair and not penalize married couples just for making the decision to get married, and the way to do this is to make married people equal to single people in the eyes of the Tax Code. And I am proud to be a cosponsor of this bill with the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller) and the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. McIntosh). This bill would benefit married couples regardless of whether they have children. Its ideas are simple. It allows families to decide how they file their income tax, either individually or jointly, whichever gives them the greatest benefit. And according to a recent Congressional Budget Office study, 21 million married couples paid an average of $1,400 in additional taxes last year because they had to file jointly, $1,400 in additional taxes. Mr. Speaker, I know all families have a better use for $1,400 than giving it to the IRS as a marriage penalty. Whether it is to be spent for a mortgage or extra groceries or kids, married couples should be allowed to keep that extra money they earn. They should not be penalized just because they made the decision to get married. The Republican Party stands for tax cuts, tax relief, and the marriage penalty should be one of the first things to go. Actually, this unfair excessive tax should have been removed years ago, but the Democrats who controlled Congress for 40 years raised taxes instead of cutting them. The marriage penalty slams middle-class workers. Economist Bruce Bartlett says that most of the people affected by the marriage penalty have incomes under $30,000 a year. So why does this marriage penalty exist? That is an easy one, because for years it has brought in a lot of money that the IRS would not normally have collected. And because big government is fueled by money, extra money provides even more government, more bureaucratic jobs, and therefore government does not have an incentive to eliminate the marriage penalty. They actually have an incentive to keep it in place. Make no mistake about it. Anyone who supports the marriage tax penalty and votes against this bill is simply saying they do not care if married people pay more taxes than necessary or than is fair. They are saying they do not care that an average married couple pays an additional $1,400 in taxes to the government when they make that decision to get married. They are saying they want a bigger government at the extra expense of working couples. We need to do everything we can to keep families together and to encourage marriage. Furthermore, we need to do everything we can to reduce the size and scope of government in our lives and reduce taxes on working Americans. The time has come to divorce ourselves from the marriage tax penalty. We need to pass the Marriage Tax Penalty Elimination Act. I encourage all of my colleagues to vote for this outstanding and much-needed legislation. I want to thank my fellow coauthors for their presentation here today.

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the gentleman from Nebraska, chairman of the Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific, for offering this very important resolution on the tragedy that is going on in Afghanistan. What this resolution does is bring attention to a country which has been largely forgotten. America was intensely focused on Afghanistan after the Soviet invasion and throughout the years of its occupation. The Red Army was driven out in the face of a courageous resistance by the Afghan people, with the aid of America. Looking back, that unfortunately for Afghanistan was the easy part. It has been much harder winning the fight for peace and stability in Afghanistan since then, but the United States has an interest in trying. We must try. The Afghan people are suffering. They have one of the highest infant mortality rates in the world. Millions of Afghans live as refugees, some in neighboring countries. Tragically, some of this suffering is almost a deliberate policy of the ruling Taliban in much of Afghanistan. This regime bans girls and women from attending schools, and it is blocking the delivery of humanitarian aid to thousands of suffering people in Afghanistan. The U.S. has an interest in seeing this stopped. More direct interests are at stake, too. Afghanistan is now one of the world's leading producers of opium. This reaches America's shores. Afghanistan harbors terrorists who have the potential to attack our Nation. Terrorists with Afghan roots have wreaked havoc throughout the world. This resolution addresses all these American interests. For too long the U.S. has been indifferent to the fate of Afghanistan. That has been changing a bit of late. My conversations with the former king of Afghanistan, King Zahir Shah, have led me to believe there is reason for hope. Events are moving rapidly. There are plans for peace talks among the factions. This resolution says that what happens in Afghanistan matters to the U.S. and that we have an interest in seeing the peaceful resolution of this long-running and depressing conflict. I urge its adoption by my colleagues.

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 374) expressing the sense of the House of Representatives regarding the ongoing violence in Algeria, as amended.

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on H. Res. 374.

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. ROYCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, this resolution makes note of the ongoing crisis in Algeria and condemns the horrific wave of killings there. Throughout the Muslim holy month of Ramadan that begins on December 30 nearly 1,300 innocent Algerians, including women and children, were brutally murdered. Another 100 Algerians were killed earlier this month; and, according to the U.S. State Department Human Rights report, 70,000 Algerian men, women and children have been brutally murdered during the last 6 years, 70,000. Much of this crisis in Algeria began after the annulled 1992 elections. An attempt at political reform by the government at the time included the legalization of opposition political parties. One of the parties, the Islamic Salvation Front, or FIS, wanted to create an Islamic state. They were on the brink of a parliamentary victory in January, 1992, when the military forced the President's resignation and annulled the election. The banned FIS has since renounced its violence, but a new group, the radical Armed Islamic Group, or GIA, is a terrorist group that neither the FIS nor the government can control. These radical Islamic insurgents, many of whom were trained and fought in Afghanistan, call themselves holy warriors and believe that during holy periods like Ramadan their barbarism will be doubly blessed by God. Some of the arbitrary and radical decrees of the GIA state that women who pursue formal education or fail to wear a veil are infidels deserving of having their throats cut. But this violence really extends to any Algerian who fails to join with the GIA. Combating this fanaticism has taxed the Algerian government. Despite this crisis, Algeria has made some progress toward building democracy, even with the random violence that is bleeding the country. Among the positive measures is a new law that would extend the political and social rights of Algerian women. Yet the Algerian government has been sharply criticized for human rights abuses and its inability to prevent these terrorist attacks. Because of these concerns and the sheer scale of the killing, pressure has been building on the Algerian government to allow international observers to investigate the massacres. In mid-January, the European Union was permitted to send a delegation of junior ministers to Algeria, but the dialogue was limited. More needs to be done. Recently, the Algerian government arrested two mayors and 10 other local officials for suspected involvement in the massacre of civilians. Religious and ethnic disputes as well as attempted extortion were cited as reasons for the alleged killings. While some see these arrests as evidence of government involvement in the massacres, others see the arrests as a positive indication of the government fighting killers wherever and whomever they may be, an effort that we need to encourage. Offers of humanitarian assistance to the victims of this tragedy have been made to the Algerian government. So far, they have been rejected. This resolution cites assistance that could be provided to the Algerian people in their time of need. Given the arrests of local officials, maybe the Algerian government will reconsider its opposition to outside assistance. The United States has an interest in seeing an end to the suffering and the building of democracy in Algeria. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleagues on the Subcommittee on Africa for their work on addressing the Algerian crisis. We held a hearing in February in which we heard differing views of this situation. That hearing helped two Members craft this resolution, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot) and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Alcee Hastings). Unfortunately, Mr. Chabot of Ohio could not be with us at this time due to the death of his father. The funeral was this morning, and he is expected back in Washington later today.

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne). (Mr. PAYNE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished chairman of the Committee on International Relations, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman). (Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. This is a balanced statement of the U.S. House of Representatives' views of the troubling situation in Algeria. It takes into consideration the democratic progress being made by the Algerian Government, but does not ignore human rights concerns involving the government either. I call on my colleagues to make a positive statement on the crisis in Algeria at this crucial time in this country's history.

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I urge the adoption of this important resolution, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, since their establishment in the early 1990s, credit unions have played a critical role in our economy by providing their members with a source of affordable credit. The value of credit unions is evidenced by the millions of American consumers who have selected them as their financial institution of choice. This ability to choose was recently challenged by a narrow 5-4 Supreme Court decision, which jeopardizes the current membership status of millions of credit union members, and the right of all consumers to choose their financial institution. I am committed to preserve and protect this right, which is why I am a cosponsor of H.R. 1151, the ``Credit Union Membership Access Act.'' I am pleased that this legislation was favorably reported out of the Banking Committee, of which I am a member, on March 26, 1998. I continue to support this legislation and urge my colleagues to vote for financial passage of H.R. 1151 when it is considered by the House of Representatives today.

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, 1 week ago the administration issued a waiver of the Jackson-Vanik amendment, opening the way for OPIC and Exim funds to filter into Vietnam. I was expecting this decision to come from the administration; however, I had hoped that common sense would guide that decision. Vietnam is a Communist country. Its citizens enjoy no religious freedom, little economic freedom, and no freedom to vote, and it is not getting better. The recent promotion of a hard-line Communist to the Secretary General position, a man who once stated that his government has concerns that foreigners are somehow out to undermine Vietnam's independence, has stalled all hopes of changing the economy in Vietnam. Vietnam is not ready for OPIC. Your support or opposition to OPIC and Exim is not in question here. What is is the government subsidies for businesses in Communist Vietnam. In anticipation of this decision by the administration, I introduced H.R. 3159, legislation which will now make this waiver null and void. The United States should not extend these benefits to a country that has done little in the way of granting freedom to its citizens. I ask my colleagues to cosponsor this important legislation.

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 373) commending democracy in Botswana.

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on H. Res. 373.

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, this resolution recognizes the government of Botswana and the people of Botswana for their long-standing commitment to democracy. Since he took office in 1980, President Ketumile Masire has presided over a government that has honored the democratic process. His government has been a model of democratically-rooted stability and development for Africa, and it has been a model for the world. Botswana also is a long-standing friend of the United States and has played a constructive diplomatic role in Africa and in the world. Yet Botswana is a bit of a forgotten African country. This bill brings attention to Botswana by commending its people for their democratic commitment. After nearly 18 years in office, President Masire is stepping down within days of our action here today. The resolution commends him for his service to his country. All too often, we criticize African leaders for the things they do wrong, but we seldom take the opportunity to commend them for a job well done. This resolution offers us the chance to send such a positive message. Botswana has been at the vanguard of African democratic and economic reform. This southern African nation has been a model for its neighbors and in several forums has worked diligently to promote peace and cooperation. At this time of renaissance for Africa, it is altogether appropriate for us to acknowledge the positive role Botswana has made in Africa and on the world stage. The bill has bipartisan support, as demonstrated by its unanimous approval by the Committee on International Relations last week. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on International Relations. (Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter), a member of the Committee on International Relations. (Mr. BEREUTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, President Clinton is scheduled to visit Botswana later this month. I am scheduled to accompany him on that trip. We have spoken with the administration about this resolution, and they strongly support this measure as a positive sign to our friends in Botswana. It would be my honor to present this resolution to President Masire on behalf of this House. I urge my colleagues to make this possible by approving this resolution today.

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot).

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell), who also serves on the Subcommittee on Africa.

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton).

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, before I speak in opposition to the amendment, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne), my colleague on the Subcommittee on Africa, who wished to speak on the last amendment.

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time, and I want to commend the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez), who I have enjoyed working with on shaping this bill and on other legislation that has come before our committee. Let me respond quickly to some of the discussions on the criteria in the bill. The criteria call for such participation requirements as protection of property rights, reduction of high import taxes, elimination of corruption, observance of the rule of law. These and other criteria are minimal reasonable standards for nations doing business with one another. The criteria in this bill represent international standards. They are not U.S.-imposed standards that are unworkable in the African context. Ugandan Ambassador Edith Ssempala has said they are necessary to encourage African nations to address issues they might choose to ignore otherwise. Human rights, the importation, the development of a court system, the rule of law, these are important policies. And, frankly, these are policies, these are criteria that have brought economic progress worldwide, and they are supported by the African ambassadors. They have embraced this bill. As chairman of the Africa subcommittee, I have had the chance to speak with many Africans, both at home and in their own countries, about this bill. I will be traveling with President Clinton and a few of my House colleagues in 2 weeks. For my colleagues, I cannot overestimate this bill's importance to Africa. It is so well received because Africans desperately want to be part of the world economy and they realize that a special economic relationship with the United States, not a perpetual aid relationship, is a big step in that direction. Now, this body should not pass this bill because of that alone. It should pass this bill because it helps Americans. We have heard of the growing American business interests in Africa, brought about by the reforms this bill encourages. We have heard about why a prosperous Africa matters to the United States. Africans can reach their limitless potential, or Africa's many social and environmental problems, problems that increasingly impact Americans, can overwhelm the continent. So the stakes are high, but I believe the future of many African countries is bright. This bill will help make it brighter, and I urge my colleagues to support this landmark piece of legislation. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.