Ed Royce

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, claims have been made that OPIC is a large benefactor of small business; 97.6 percent of the beneficiaries are corporations with revenues that exceed $1 million. In fact, only one beneficiary had annual revenues less than $2 million. Private political risk insurance is regularly advertised in publications like The Economist. Recently Exporters Insurance Co. offered to reinsure much of OPIC's insurance portfolio at all existing terms and conditions. Last, we have got $23 billion at risk, taxpayers' dollars at risk. CRS says that there are savings if we cut this back. There is a cost, according to the CBO, $73 million. 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 being authorized. This amendment is about stopping the train. It is about saying that the House wants to stay in the future of OPIC, this should not be a deal cut in conference committee. This may be the only say this body has on the future of OPIC. Vote to hold the train. We are talking about a modest reduction.

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Andrews]. (Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Madam Speaker, the Overseas Private Investment Corporation, known as OPIC, provides loans and insurance to corporations operating overseas and at below-market cost. It is a subsidy. OPIC competes with private banks and insurers, only OPIC operates outside of the market, with the full faith and credit of the American taxpayer behind it. The American taxpayers are at risk. The Royce-Andrews-Kasich amendment, which will come up on Thursday, is a modest proposal. It calls for spending no more than $20.8 million on this program. We are asking that OPIC live within the administrative expenses budgeted for it in 1994, when its current authorization level was established. In this time of corporate downsizing and shrinking budgets, is it really so much to keep OPIC's budget from growing by $12 million, or 50 percent? I do not think so. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' for this amendment on Thursday.

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 175) expressing concern over the outbreak of violence in the Republic of Congo and the resulting threat to scheduled elections and constitutional government in that country, as amended.

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Since violence in the Republic of Congo escalated several weeks ago, an estimated 3,000 lives have been lost there. What started as an effort by Congo President Pascal Lissouba to safeguard upcoming elections by neutralizing the so-called Cobra militia, operated by a political rival, has degenerated into ethnic cleansing. All this has developed beneath the media's radar. As the world watched the unraveling of the Mobutu regime in the neighboring country then known as Zaire, the Republic of Congo was seen as a safe haven for refugees from that collapsing nation. But today nearly a quarter of the population of the city of Brazzaville has left town to avoid being caught in the fighting. Unfortunately, these refugees have found themselves stopped along the way and killed if they belong to the wrong ethnic group. This resolution is a reinforcement of our Government's commitment to the democratic process in Congo-Brazzaville. It calls for a disengagement of forces and a lasting cease-fire and applauds the African efforts to resolve this crisis. It unanimously passed the Committee on International Relations several weeks ago. Mr. Speaker, when this resolution was before the House last week, there was some confusion over whether it called for an international peacekeeping force. Let me say clearly that this resolution calls for any such force to be an African force. Mr. Speaker, a resolution of the crisis in Congo-Brazzaville is not only a priority for regional strategic reasons, but the example of a democracy unraveling is a poor one for other African nations. I ask for my colleagues' support. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to thank the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Hamilton] and ask my colleagues to support this resolution, which sends an important message to the region. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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 this resolution.

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague, the gentleman from California [Mr. Kim], for yielding to me this time. I want to commend the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Hastings] for offering this resolution. This resolution makes an important statement that the House of Representatives supports our troops on the Korean peninsula. We support our friends and allies in the Republic of Korea and we support the proposed North-South four-party talks that at long last seem to be moving forward. We are all hopeful that the recent agreement of the North Korean Government to sit down and agree to the final details of four-party talks will lead to substantive negotiations. Now more than ever, it is important to have such channels of communication open to discuss the future of North Korea, and future relations between the North and South. And I really want to take this opportunity to urge all of my colleagues to support this resolution.

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support to eliminate this program which uses taxpayers' dollars to subsidize the overseas advertising budget of major corporations. Since 1986 this program has spent several billion dollars in this way and, incredibly, has even supported advertising by foreign-owned corporations, including some in Tokyo and in Paris. Studies from several government offices and groups across the political spectrum have blasted the MAP. A U.S. General Accounting Office study reported that MAP funding goes to corporations that have no need for taxpayer funds to support their products. I urge an ``aye'' vote.

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, since violence in the Congo escalated several weeks ago, an estimated 3,000 lives have been lost. What started as an effort by Congo President Pascal Lissouba to safeguard the upcoming election by neutralizing the so-called cobra militia which is operated by a political rival, this situation has degenerated into ethnic cleansing and into political wrangling. All this has developed beneath the media's radar. As the world watched the unraveling of the Mobutu regime in the neighboring country then known as Zaire, now the Congo, the Congo itself was seen as a safe haven for refugees from the collapsing nation. Western nations sent military forces to Congo to evacuate their citizens from Zaire. So it was shocking to find several weeks later that foreign nationals had to be evacuated from Congo Brazzaville and that refugees from that nation were running for safety to what is now sometimes called Congo-Kinshasa. Today nearly a quarter of the population of the capital city of Brazzaville has left town to avoid being caught in the fighting. Unfortunately, these refugees have found themselves stopped along the way, and if they belong to the wrong ethnic group, militia men do what is called there making them travel, and to make someone travel means being taken away and killed. More than 2,500 Congolese were killed in ethnic fighting after the disputed 1993 election, and now ethnic tensions in the central African nation has dramatically worsened. It is too late for elections to be held as planned on July 27. A dispute between President Lissouba and former President Denis Sassou Nguesso on the elections now threatens the future of Congo's developing democracy. President Lissouba has called for a 3-month postponement of elections and for his ruling mandate which expires next month. However, Mr. Sassou Nguesso wants the President to leave office next month and be replaced by a transitional government for 2 years. This resolution is a reinforcement of our Government's commitment to the democratic process in Congo-Brazzaville. The threat to elected government and rule of law in Congo must be dealt with now, and a lasting solution to this ethnic and political crisis must be found. African nations and African leaders have been trying to broker a peace. There have been several cease-fires since the fighting began in June, but none of them have held longer than a few days. We are in the midst of yet another cease-fire as we speak. Meanwhile, a peacekeeping force is being gathered, but it will not be deployed until both factions agree to stand down. U.S. encouragement of the ongoing peace process as expressed in this resolution would bolster the peace process at this point. This resolution I am offering calls for a halt to the fighting and a lasting peace that will allow for considerable humanitarian needs of the Congolese people to be met and for the holding of elections at the earliest agreeable time. Moreover, we call for the disarming and disbandment of the private militias, which are a continuing threat to peace and stability. And, finally, we call upon the parties involved in the elections to address and resolve questions concerning the election process so that there can be fair and free elections in the Congo. Over the past several years nations caught in seemingly intractable conflict have managed to successfully complete a democratic transition: South Africa, Malawi, and Mozambique are but three examples of this process, and Liberia, we will see if that will be a new example. There is no reason to expect any less from the Congo. Although these developments are halfway around the world, they matter. America has a great deal to gain from a healthy democratic Africa, and a stable Congo is a part of that. We have discussed this measure with the administration, which supports the approach taken on the resolution to the current crisis in the Congo. I urge the House to approve this resolution and to address the worsening crisis in the Republic of Congo.

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution. I want to commend the gentleman from New York [Mr. Houghton] and also the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Hastings], coauthors of this resolution, as well as members of the Subcommittee on Africa for their support. They unanimously endorsed this resolution. When democratic government was restored through elections in Sierra Leone last year, as the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Hastings] reminded us, it was counted as a great achievement for the people of west African nations. This country had suffered two coups and 4 years of military rule. It was the scene of a ferocious civil war as we have heard today. The military tried its best to extend its rule, but the people were so eager for democracy that they demanded that elections be delayed no longer, despite threats of reprisal. I remember the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Hastings] telling me that some had their hands cut off in reprisal for casting ballots by rebels trying to frustrate a democratic transition in this country. Yet, they had the bravery to go to the polls and cast those votes. Imagine now how the citizens of Sierra Leone must feel when on May 24 a group of military officers staged another coup. That coup, of course, sent the President into exile. Since then, this group of thugs in uniform have looted the country, virtually holding the nation hostage to their shifting demands. The long-suffering citizens of Sierra Leone have responded by resisting the coup leaders. They have staged strikes. Labor unions, professional associations, and civic groups have opposed the coup. The Kabbah government is broadcasting to the nation on a secret transmitter to bolster the people's resolve to resist this illegal power grab. There is a positive trend in Africa today toward political and economic reform. The transition in Sierra Leone often was cited as part of that positive trend. Their very worthy efforts are made meaningless if we accept the undoing of reform in a nation in which the people have supported the democratic process. In many cases they supported it with their lives. Let us join the Organization of African Unity in supporting a west African diplomatic and military initiative to free Sierra Leone from its unelected leaders. I urge passage of this resolution.

Mr. ROYCE

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

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment. The clean coal technology program is unnecessary. Financial incentives already exist for private industry to develop cleaner burning technologies; the recipients of these funds represent several corporations that do have billions of dollars in revenues a year; and, lastly, even the Department of Energy has stated that demonstration projects such as those supported by the clean coal technology program are not, quote, ``the proper place or certainly in these fiscally constrained times the wisest place for Federal funding.'' This is from the Department of Energy. The clean coal program has a history of waste and mismanagement. According to a General Accounting Office Report, almost half of the program's ongoing projects have exceeded their budgets, fallen behind schedule or scaled back their scope. If the program proceeds as planned, taxpayers will hand out a total of $2.3 billion to the private coal industry and receive little in return. According to the General Accounting Office and the Department of Energy, it is unlikely that we will ever be able to recover taxpayers' investment in clean coal projects. Join with me and Citizens Against Government Waste in ending this unnecessary program and take a step towards balancing the budget. Vote ``yes'' on this amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Klug].

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

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, my amendment simply cuts funding appropriated above the administration's request for five fossil energy research and development programs, programs earmarked for coal, natural gas, and the oil industries, programs that have been discussed at some length tonight. Mr. Chairman, I believe none of these programs merit Federal funding. U.S. private industry does not need these programs, period, but my amendment at least saves the American taxpayer some $21 million, about 7 percent of the total spending, for the many fossil energy research programs contained in the appropriations bill. This savings is why this amendment is endorsed by Citizens Against Government Waste, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, the National Taxpayers' Union, and Americans for Tax Reform, among several other organizations. Why do American corporations not need these programs? Let me refer to a report done by the Congressional Budget Office that looks at the Department of Energy's fossil fuel programs. It reports, and I quote from that report, ``The major new technologies for enhanced oil recovery have come from private industry, not the Department of Energy.'' The Energy Department says, ``This has little in the way of commercial applications to show for its investment.'' The fact that technological innovation and new commercial applications is found in the private sector, not the government, comes as no surprise. A Brookings Institute study found that Federal energy R&D has been an abject failure. It reported, ``The overriding lesson is that the goal of economic efficiency is so severely constrained by political forces that an effective, coherent national commercial R&D program has never been put in place.'' As we have heard tonight, the 1997 budget resolution reached a similar finding about DOE energy R&D programs. No, these corporate research subsidies, and subsidies is what they are, going to large corporations, some of the largest multinationals in the world, as a matter of fact, is not the direction we should be going. We praise the American economy for being the most productive economy in the world. I will tell Members one thing, our economy was not built on government subsidies like the one this amendment modestly cuts, and those economies in the world that are built on subsidies, think of the European countries, those are economies that are hurting. Mr. Chairman, let me close with this argument. I want to make the point that tonight we have heard a lot about the importance of research to our economy. We have heard a lot about the importance of energy to our economy. No one doubts this. It is obvious, but that does not mean that every DOE research program deserves immunity. These five programs certainly do not. I ask Members to consider that these five programs targeted by this amendment are administered by the Department of Energy. That alone should give Members of this body pause. We have been hearing about waste and inefficiency in the DOE for years now. Many Members in this body as well as former Energy secretaries have supported abolishing the Energy Department. They are right, the Department of Energy was founded in 1976 on a dubious idea; that this country needs a national energy policy coordinated by Washington. It has since grown into a multi-billion dollar bureaucracy with numerous wasteful missions. We do not have a national energy policy today, thankfully. By the way, the price of gas at the pump is at an historic low. This is due to market forces, not government research programs. But we are stuck with the DOE and its many wasteful programs. The Department of Energy itself has not asked us to spend this money. It does not request these funds. Yet, we are going to go ahead and spend it anyway? What kind of sense does that make? There is no reason to plus up these subsidies. I urge my colleagues, even those who support government-supported fossil fuel programs, to support this fiscally responsible amendment.

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 9:30 a.m. today.

Mr. ROYCE

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

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment to the preamble.

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on International Relations be discharged from further consideration of the resolution (H. Res. 115) concerning the promotion of peace, stability, and democracy in Zaire, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, this resolution has been cleared on both sides of the aisle and no recorded votes are anticipated. Mr. Speaker, we have seen the headlines. Zaire is in crisis. Its government has collapsed, having lost much of its territory to rebel forces. There is humanitarian suffering throughout the country. This is a complex crisis. Mr. Speaker, one of these forces has been a constant throughout this, and that has been the corrupt and despotic rule of President Mobutu. For more than 30 years, Mr. Mobutu has ruled Zaire with disdain for its people. Zaire is now politically collapsed. It is also economically collapsed. What should be a prosperous country is now one of the world's poorest. Meanwhile, Mr. Mobutu is one of the world's wealthiest men. Simply put, Mobutu has bled Zaire. Repairing this economic damage will not be easy. Repairing the political damage of Mobutu will be a bigger challenge. The immediate task is to stop the fighting, develop a transitional government, and start on the path toward democracy. Let us be clear: Mr. Mobutu has no role to play in this process. He should immediately resign from the office of the Presidency, leave Zaire, and withdraw from all political activity. That is what the resolution states. Mr. Mobutu should leave Zaire now. This is a strong statement for the U.S. House of Representatives to send. It is an important statement. America has a big stake in Zaire, and what the United States Congress says about Zaire is taken seriously in Zaire. This resolution is directed against Mobutu, but it is really about bringing democracy to Zaire. It calls on the administration to support democratic, multiparty elections. Getting to that goal is a tall order. Multiparty democracy is difficult under the best of circumstances. But single-party democracy long ago proved to be a mirage. Zaire does not need another leader emerging from the chaos to become a tyrant. That is what Mobutu did. Zaire can do better. This is a bipartisan resolution. It is the work of the members of the Subcommittee on Africa, who have been very interested in Zaire's political and humanitarian crisis, interested in making things better for the people of Zaire. I want to thank the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Menendez], the ranking member on the subcommittee, who has spoken forcefully on Zaire's crisis; and I want to thank the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Payne], who has long been engaged in Zaire; and I also want to thank the gentleman from New York, Chairman Gilman, and the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Hamilton] of the Committee on International Relations for supporting this resolution. As I say, this is a good resolution for Zaire and for the United States.

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on the matter just considered.

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, if we went back two generations ago, we would find that American families paid 5 percent of their income in income taxes; and if we went back one generation ago, we would find it was 10 percent. And now we find today that it is about 20 percent. And that is just income tax. If we add on the State taxes, if we add on all the indirect taxes, we find that more is being spent on these taxes than if we add up clothing and food and housing combined. If we look at the States that have tried to put tax limitation to work, 14 States have done it, it works there. Taxes grow more slowly, spending grows more slowly in those States, the economies expand faster. That is what is important to me, the economies expand faster when they are limited as to taxation, the job base grows more quickly. The Federal Government and the National economy, I argue, should get the same benefits. Now, the House of Representatives is already on record for tax limitation. The House rules here require a supermajority vote for income tax increases, but this rule only covers this House, it does not cover the next Congress. If we go back to that vote that put those rules on this House, it was 279 to 152. Now, that is just 9 votes short in the 104th Congress of what we would need for a supermajority. Tax limitation is necessary because of the current bias in the Federal Government toward tax increases. Most Government benefits benefit distinct special interests. These groups have strong economic interest in banding together to lobby for additional increases in spending. Taxpayers, however, are spread evenly throughout the country and find it difficult and uneconomical to band together to lobby to stop any particular tax increase. The inherent bias toward tax increases can be balanced by this amendment requiring a two-thirds provision of this House to increase taxes. And I will close by pointing out that the Tax Limitation Amendment would have stopped the 1993 Clinton increase, which was the largest tax in U.S. history. The $275 billion in new taxes passed by only one vote in both the House and by one vote in the Senate. If a supermajority requirement for tax increases had been in effect then, the tax increases would have been much smaller or never passed at all.

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. I thank my good friend for yielding. I want to thank Speaker Gingrich for putting together this delegation. The Congress plays a key role in making our country's foreign policy and a trip like this gives us a much better understanding of the important issues we decide each year. We worked hard, it was grueling and we made the most of our time, and the Speaker of the House deserves our thanks. It is important to me that this was a bipartisan delegation. America stands tallest when its foreign policy is widely supported. One of the things all of the members of the delegation agree on is the importance of Asia. There is no question the security and the prosperity of the United States is on the line. We saw this in North Korea when we visited some of the 37,000 American service men and women in Korea. These are Americans who believe passionately in their mission. Their mission is maintaining peace and helping to run out the clock on one of the last vestiges of the cold war, the last Stalinist regime there in North Korea. As we talked to the young men and women of the Second Division, many of them from California, from my home State, doing the job that they do in this most difficult of conditions, it was a great honor. It was a great honor for us. We owe these Americans our strongest support, including, in my view, the best missile defense system that we can give them. We saw the importance of Asia when we visited the American business men and women in Hong Kong who are the center of Asia's pounding economic heart there in Hong Kong. They are bringing America's economic prowess and our exports to this booming region. We saw it when we visited Taiwan, which has moved now to democracy. Asia in general has made strides toward economic prosperity and political freedom, and America is stronger and safer because of this. But I think the stakes are high. We would suffer great damage if we decided that the world's greatest Nation should disengage in the Pacific. That is no course for us to take. Some of the lessons learned on this trip. We learned that America is viewed as the world's greatest nation. Our Government is respected the world over. Our economy has produced amazing prosperity. But there are lessons to be learned from the countries we visited, and the Speaker stated, I think yesterday, he said, ``I believe our economy can do better.'' Well, our economy runs at a rate of less than 3 percent growth. That is what we are stuck with a year. And here we are viewing these Asian economies, South Korea where the growth rate was 9 percent last year. Taiwan at 7 percent. These are growth rates 2 and 3 times the rate of growth in the United States. Our delegation visited Hong Kong. Many consider Hong Kong the freest economy in the world. Hong Kong has a far lower tax rate than the United States Fifteen percent is their top tax rate. Hong Kong is free of the excessive regulation that shackles our economy. And in many ways, Hong Kong is much more encouraging of the entrepreneurial spirit our country celebrates. I think the United States needs to take notice and lower our taxes and cut our redtape. I think we need to heed the words of Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan when he said that we should at the very least index capital gains for inflation taking the inflationary bite out of investments. I have a bill to do this, and having seen Hong Kong's miracle, I am more committed than ever to give American taxpayers this relief. Other trade issues that we should discuss: You know, many of our allies in Asia need to look at Hong Kong also because Hong Kong has become an economic powerhouse because of trade, and that means they have no trade barriers. The people of Hong Kong are free to purchase goods and services from whenever they want to. They buy the best goods at the best price. It is no secret that the U.S. economy is the most competitive in the world. We are the world's biggest exporter. We are selling more and more goods to Asia. These exports support over a million jobs in my State of California alone. But we should be selling more in Asia, and the problem is that too many Asian countries are shutting out too many U.S. goods and U.S. services. So our delegation pressed and pressed every government that we met with to open their markets to American goods and services. I serve on the Committee on Banking and Financial Services, and in China American insurance companies are shut out, they simply cannot operate, and we raised that issue with China. The message was that we on this delegation gave, we said trade, including trade in the ever more important service sector, is a two-way street. We talked with South Korea who is shutting out California agricultural products, and we said, well, if South Korea wants to sell autos and electronics in the United States, then American companies should be allowed to sell grapes and oranges and autos and electronics in South Korea. This is right for the American worker, it is right for the Korean consumer who should, after all, have a chance to buy the best goods at the cheapest possible price. And right now in South Korea the government hassles Koreans who buy American cars. It actually sends the tax auditor after Koreans who buy American cars. That practice has to go, and we told that to the South Korean Government. But it is more than trade. Trade is important, but it is not all the United States is about. Our delegation has focused on democracy. On this trip we focused on human rights, too. Our country has always taken its values seriously and our foreign policy. It matters to us how other governments treat their citizens. This meant confronting the Chinese leadership about its terrible treatment of its citizens. I presented the Chinese Government a list of 75 political prisoners, and locking up people because of their beliefs is intolerable. And I hope that the White House begins to understand that when it comes to China, yes, trade matters, but so do human rights and nuclear proliferation and Taiwan. The administration would like to treat trade as being above these issues. My view is America is a superpower, not a salesman. The administration's willingness to stand up for American values will be tested as Hong Kong falls under Beijing's control in the next 2 months. Already there are signs that China may not honor its one country, two- systems pledge. Just yesterday, as we heard, it announced that it would severely restrict fundamental political rights to publicly meet. Beijing's future ruler for Hong Kong, Mr. Teng-hui, who we met with, is touting Asian values. This is shorthand for the idea that universal democratic and civil rights norms are inappropriate for Asia, as if Taiwan and even Hong Kong itself, where these values are honored, are not in Asia. The world will be watching Hong Kong, and the world will be watching Washington's response. Acting on human rights concerns is just; it is not idealism, it is justice. The reality is that the United States will never be fully at peace with a government that is not at peace with its own people, and to the extent that the United States encourages change by raising these concerns, especially with the Chinese people, through efforts like Radio Free Asia, we strengthen our security while honoring our values. Again thank you, Mr. Speaker, for making this so very important trip.

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I insert the following for the Record: Statement of the Honorable Don Ritter--Former Co-Chairman, U.S. Congressional Task Force on Afghanistan, June 6, 1996, Near East and South Asian Affairs Subcommittee, Senate Foreign Relations Committee I want to thank you Chairman Brown and the other distinguished Members of this Committee for holding this important and timely hearing on Afghanistan. I would also like to express my appreciation to my former colleagues, Congressman Dana Rohrabacher and Congressman Charles Wilson, as well as the other witnesses offering testimony today before this Committee. Congressional leadership on this issue has always played an important and historic role. We are gathered here today out of concern for the people of Afghanistan and that war-torn country that has suffered unspeakable brutality and neglect. Clearly, the United States, so active over so many crucial years, needs to place a higher priority now on the agony and devastation of Afghanistan and its people. Mr. Chairman, the United States has a moral obligation to the people of Afghanistan because of their pivotal role in defeating the Red Army at a time when Communism was on the march around the globe. This seems like ancient history sometimes but, ultimately, Afghanistan proved to be the Achilles Heel of the Soviet Communism and military expansion. One can make a strong case that the Soviet Empire would not have met its demise, nor would the Berlin Wall have come down and the people of eastern Europe and the former U.S.S.R. made free, if the people of Afghanistan had not had the courage to fight the Red Army when it invaded. For over a decade, the Afghan people paid a heavy and horrible price fighting the Soviet Union for their beloved country--mass executions, chemical attacks, cities destroyed, villages burned, the countryside mined, children orphaned. Millions of Afghans fled or were murdered by the communists. The point is this Mr. Chairman: Freedom loving people in the United States and around the world thus owe an important debt to the Afghans for helping to win the Cold War and the course of world history. The bipartisan Congressional Task Force on Afghanistan that I helped lead with Senator Gordon Humphrey, Congressman Charles Wilson, Congressman Bob Lagomarsino and others pressed for U.S. humanitarian and military support for the Afghan people during some of the darkest and most brutal periods of Soviet military operations in Afghanistan. In recent years, after the Soviet withdrawal and the communist defeat, I have grown increasingly troubled by the tragic fate that has overtaken Afghanistan. The United States must again reassert a leadership role to help the people of Afghanistan. The point is this: We fought together with the Afghan people to win the war. In a very real sense they served on the front lines for us. Now is the time to fight together to win the peace. Its the right thing to do. We have the responsibility. Although I no longer serve in Congress, I am willing to step forward once again to join you, Mr. Chairman, along with Congressman Wilson, Congressman Rohrabacher and others committed to helping to find solutions to the situation in Afghanistan. I would encourage others to join me in this effort--Americans and Afghans, those in government as well as in the private sector. Now is the hour. Now is the time for the United States to launch a new initiative to help bring peace, stability and prosperity to the war-weary and suffering people of Afghanistan. Finally, the United States, as this Committee well knows and will explore today, ignores the situation in Afghanistan at great peril. Afghanistan remains important to the national interest of the United States for geostrategic and national security reasons because of its pivotal role regarding Central Asia, the Middle East, and South Asia. If the United States will not take a leadership role in Afghanistan, Iran and other hostile terrorist forces will. In a world that for us grows ever smaller and more integrated all the time, this prospect in South Asia is more threatening to the United States. America must act with resolve and courage to help the people of Afghanistan while there is yet time.