Ed Royce

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

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

Mr. ROYCE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, for the sake of freedom in China and throughout Asia, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 2232, as amended, the Radio Free Asia Act of 1997.

Mr. ROYCE. Madam Speaker, I want to thank our colleague, the gentleman from California [Mr. Cox] and his able staff, and I would like to thank the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter], who promoted Radio Free Asia over the years. A tremendous amount of work has gone into this effort. We have had a long and thorough debate throughout the last few days. There have been differences, but the Chinese people are yearning for information; not propaganda, but unbiased information, that is all. So I hope bolstering Radio Free Asia is something we can all support. This program has the opportunity to provide more than 1.4 billion, one-fourth of the world's population, with a daily dose of truth. I would like to close my time by reading one last letter Radio Free Asia received from one of its Chinese listeners. ``Congratulations on the first anniversary of your Mandarin broadcasts. I am one of your listeners writing to offer my thanks and congratulations. You have worked so hard and during this last year you have won some great victories. Here is hoping that your station in the future will gain a foothold in Asia and the world, and not fear cruelty and inhumanity.'' Madam Speaker, in closing, let me yield 3 minutes to my distinguished colleague, the gentlewoman from San Francisco, CA [Ms. Pelosi]).

Mr. ROYCE. Madam Speaker, I yield 2\1/4\ minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas [Mr. Hutchinson].

Mr. ROYCE. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California [Mr. Cox], chairman of the Policy Committee, a colleague who has spearheaded the Policy for Freedom package.

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, on Monday the President called taxpayers selfish for wanting to keep more of what they earn. Recently the Democrat leader in the Senate, Tom Daschle, said that Americans were not overtaxed. The President's deputy press secretary said that support of tax relief was based on selfishness. Stop the presses, Mr. Speaker. To say that people are shocked would be an understatement. Claiming that most people are undertaxed and calling Americans selfish is exactly the kind of mindset that make people furious at Washington, DC politicians who just do not get it. I have a news flash for them. When people work hard to earn more, they are not doing it for Washington. They are doing it to feed their children, enrich their lives and pursue their own happiness. This is the way it should be. Why do the defenders of big government and the status quo have such a problem with it? They are in Washington to represent their constituents, not tell them how much of their own money they can keep. Americans are overtaxed. The Tax Foundation found that Americans spend more on taxes than food, shelter, and clothing combined.

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] for yielding me the time. I rise in support of the Communist China Subsidy Reduction Act. And I want to commend the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] for all the work that he has put into this legislation and the entire ``Policy for Freedom China'' package that we have been considering today. We have had many debates on the floor about trade between our country and the People's Republic of China. We have a debate every year. It is one thing to disagree with the terms of trade between our country and China. But I hope we can all agree to end below-market-rate loans for China. There are many reasons for supporting this act and opposing below- market-rate loans made by U.S.-supported international financial institutions. We should oppose these loans to the repressive Beijing regime on human rights grounds alone. It is more than clear that the human rights situation in China is not improving. And these loans are financed by American taxpayers, and that is wrong. But let us leave aside the horrific human rights abuses and security concerns we need to have and focus on our economic side of this debate. The bottom line is that China does not need these loans. China is attracting all types of foreign investment, $50 billion in foreign investment in 1996 alone, much of it from U.S. companies. Beijing also has been raising funds through commercial loans and bond sales, all at market rates. The People's Republic of China is now sitting on the highest foreign exchange mound in the world, in large part because of its trade surplus with the United States made possible by restrictions on American access to China's markets. I share the frustrations that have been expressed in this debate about our economic playing field. Because of these high investments in trade levels, the Chinese economy is growing at unprecedented rates. In 1994, 12 percent. In 1995, 10 percent; 1996, 13\1/2\ percent. By contrast, the U.S. economy is growing at some 3 percent. Yet, we are providing China with below- market loan rates. What sense does this make? I have heard some from the administration argue that this legislation is unnecessary. There are plans to phase out these loans, they say. That may be true. But that, in and of itself, is no reason to oppose this legislation. Let us make a strong statement of principle that cheap loans to China financed by the American taxpayers are not something this Congress supports. It is the least we can do.

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to encourage the Senate to reject the nomination of Mr. Bill Lann Lee to head the Justice Department Office of Civil Rights. Mr. Lee's career has shown him to be little more than an ideolog, intent on bending the words and meaning of the law to suit his purposes. In response to last year's California civil rights initiative barring racial preferences by government, Mr. Lee made the preposterous argument that it was unconstitutional to treat all individuals equally before the law. A Federal court swiftly rejected such reasoning on the ground that the 14th amendment does not require what it barely permits. Similarly, with mind-bending reason, Mr. Lee argued that the decline in minority enrollment establishes that the use of grades and standardized tests as admissions criteria is discriminatory. Radicals like Mr. Lee are swimming against the tide of court opinions and popular sentiment in standing up for race-based government preferences, and they know it. He must not be furnished with the power of the Federal Government to further pursue his out-of-touch agenda. I urge the Senate to block this nominee.

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Madam Speaker, according to the Cato Institute about one- half of the 10 million correction notices sent out each year by the Internal Revenue Service are wrong. They are wrong. Yet the IRS has a very unforgiving view when others make mistakes. For example, the IRS once fined a taxpayer $46,000 for an alleged underpayment of 10 cents. That is why I have cosponsored the IRS Restructuring and Reform Act: to provide taxpayers new protections and rights to address many of the abuses spotlighted in the Senate hearings. Once we provide more protection for taxpayers, we must then simplify the current system and end the IRS as we presently know it. It is my goal, it is the Republican goal, to end overtaxation in America. It is my goal to help Americans keep more of the money they earn so they can do more for themselves, for their families, and for their communities. I ask my colleagues to join with me to make it happen, and I ask Congress to work with us to make sure Washington wastes less of our money and our families are able to keep more of what we earn.

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, the private sector and deregulation are the principal engine of this country's $8 trillion economy. It is not Government handouts. Government cannot claim credit for the personal computer phenomenon, cannot claim credit for the Internet, cannot claim credit for Microsoft or Bill Gates. The way a market system works, as opposed to a corporatist or socialist system, is that if there is a profit entrepreneurs will risk investing in order to reap the profits. For example, I share with my colleagues the pharmaceutical products that come to market. On average, it costs $400 million, takes 8 to 10 years to bring them to market. And yet, if there is a profit to be made, entrepreneurs will act with or without government handouts, as they do in these cases, to bring these things to market. Most of my colleagues here voted for this last year. We passed this out of this House, this very amendment to eliminate this program, and it was passed out of the Senate. It was subsequently curtailed because of other problems. But, basically, between 1985 and 1986, the Department of Commerce, which oversees ATP and MEP issued $1.23 billion in loans and loan guarantees through various programs. Not even half were paid back. The American taxpayers lost $650 million, and those loans still carried on the books are of questionable value. For example, the Economic Development Administration at Commerce, which lent $471 million some 20 years ago, has recovered only $60 million and sought congressional approval to sell off some of its bad loans for less than 10 cents on the dollar. Let us take some examples from Europe and Japan. High-definition TV is one of the clearest failures of the Government's targeted handouts. The Japanese businesses, with subsidies that totaled $1 billion in the late 1980's, sought to help HDTV using existing analog technology. The French did the same. One billion dollars in their government went to that. Here in the United States, luckily our administration at the time took a pass on investing $1.2 billion in subsidies to compete with these foreign rivals. As a result of being denied massive subsidies, American companies were forced to develop an alternative, and the alternative that AT&T and Zenith developed was a fully digital system that made analog Japanese and European systems obsolete. Before they were ever put into production, they lost $2 billion overseas because they were pushing these subsidies. We relied on the market, and again it showed that the market works. Many businessmen do not support this corporate welfare. I am going to quote one who appeared before committee, Dr. T.J. Rodgers, president and CEO of Cypress Semiconductor Corp., who told us before the committee that, ``I am here to say that such subsidies will hurt my company and our industry because they represent tax-and-spend economics.''

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Andrews]. (Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Paul].

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Rohrabacher].

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Ehrlich].

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/4\ minutes to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Jackson]. (Mr. JACKSON of Illinois asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shays].

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Jackson]. (Mr. JACKSON of Illinois asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/4\ minutes to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Miller].

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Campbell]. (Mr. CAMPBELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich].

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, the Royce-Andrews-Kasich amendment cuts the operating expenses of the Overseas Private Investment Corporation. It puts it to a level that is more in keeping with the level of business this House has authorized for OPIC. Specifically, this amendment reduces the administrative appropriations by $11.2 million, from $32 million to $20.8 million. This amendment is supported by a diverse coalition of 12 organizations, organizations who come at it from differing perspectives but groups united by the view that the U.S. Government should not be in the business of insuring American corporations to invest abroad and making loans to American corporations to encourage them to invest abroad. Now, there are many in this body who would like to see OPIC closed. That is the position of the 12 groups. Many of us fundamentally question why the American taxpayer should be supporting a government agency that makes loans and issues risk insurance when these services are available privately. And despite what OPIC and its supporters say, there are companies that would do this business. Maybe not at the rates that OPIC offers, but that is the point. OPIC is a business subsidy. So let me ask my colleagues, many of whom have worked hard to give to the private sector what government services can better be done by the private sector, let me ask them to ask themselves why should OPIC be an exception to this rule? Why do we have a government agency competing with the private sector? That is the American financial services sector that they compete with, the most efficient in the world. And also ask why the American taxpayers should be liable to potentially multi- billion dollar losses, and that is what we are talking about. Do Members in this body recall the S&L crisis? It was not that long ago. Yes, OPIC has not had large losses, but the problem is there. Remember, we were given assurances that there would be no S&L problem. So I want to point out OPIC's risky loans. Members, look at how many are rated D or D-minus or F or F-minus and FF-minus. Common sense should tell us something is not right here. And many of us wonder why some of our largest businesses should benefit from OPIC subsidies. Do Coca-Cola and AT&T and McDonald's really need OPIC to make a profit abroad? Let us not show so little faith in the power of American businesses and the American economy, which year after year ranks as the most competitive in the world, and please do not tell me that Coca-Cola, which just announced an 88 percent increase in earnings for the second quarter, is not a world class company because of the Overseas Private Investment Corporation. Do not get me wrong, these are great companies, the backbone of the American economy, but they do not need OPIC, and we hear that OPIC does not cost the American taxpayers a dime. That is a mantra of OPIC supporters, yet the Congressional Research Service has reported that OPIC has cost a minimum of $73 million over the last few years, and the Congressional Budget Office tells us that we would save $296 billion if we ended the program. Last, we hear that OPIC creates jobs. I ask my colleagues that logic. Members come down to the floor every day and praise the American economy. They say how dynamic it is, and they are right. We have the most dynamic economy in the world. That is not because we have OPIC creating jobs. Consider that the Congressional Research Service has reported there is little theoretical support or empirical evidence which supports claims that subsidizing exports or overseas investment offers a positive net gain in jobs in the U.S. economy. There is simply no justification for appropriating $32 million to OPIC today. This is a 50 percent increase in appropriations from 1994, and no more business is being authorized than was authorized then. I ask my colleagues why does OPIC need this additional money? Let us cut it back. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes and 15 seconds to the gentleman from New Hampshire [Mr. Bass].