Ed Royce

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Forbes).

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

Mr. ROYCE. I thank Mr. Engel, and I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, I would point out again that, in the past, State Department authorization bills that have passed the House--even under suspension--have failed due to inaction in the other body. Now, because of the strong bicameral interest in embassy security, we have an opportunity to break this bad habit and return to our core responsibility. Congressman Engel from New York and myself have discussed these issues not only with our Members, but with Members of the Senate. If enacted, this bill of course will only be the fourth time in the last 17 years that Congress has passed a State Department authorization. We need to seize this opportunity to move meaningful legislation at a time when Members of this body and in the Senate understand that this is a chance to direct this issue of embassy security and provide that additional security. I very much want to express my appreciation for the collaboration I've had with Mr. Engel, our ranking member, on this piece of legislation. This is a bipartisan bill, as he shared with you. Together, we have worked to incorporate the ideas of the members of our committee. A large number of those committee members have offered amendments that are in this legislation. So to conclude, I would point out that H.R. 2848 is a strongly bipartisan measure. It is fiscally responsible; it is constructive in its reforms; and it is deliberate in its efforts to keep our personnel stationed overseas as safe as we can keep them. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I want to assure the gentleman from Virginia, and all Members here, Mr. Speaker, that this committee has been highly attentive to the Benghazi attack. Indeed, that's one of the reasons we're here on this bill. To the gentleman from Virginia who spoke earlier, I would just note that if standing up a new Foreign Affairs Training Center in his district, as has been proposed, is a good use of our limited fiscal resources, then he has nothing to fear from this bill. While there have been proposals to completely prohibit such an expenditure, they are not included in this legislation. But what our bill does do is it requires an independent feasibility study first, to assess whether current facilities are inadequate, before we spend the better part of a billion dollars on a completely new facility. If the gentleman from Virginia is suggesting he's opposed to this legislation, then I would point out that initial estimates by the Department of State are that this new facility could cost up to $950 million--and at least $450 million. I would also call attention to the Members of this body that Congress has not received a copy of any feasibility studies related to the proposed new Foreign Assistance Training Center--FAST-C, as it's called. There are valid concerns that the FAST-C center is not needed and the same functions could be achieved by collaborating with the Department of Homeland Security Federal Law Enforcement Training Facility. Further, I would point out that the Federal Law Enforcement Training Facility has quoted a price nearly 50 percent lower than what it would cost to build the new FAST-C facility. Now, before State moves forward, the Congress needs more information, and the Department of State needs to demonstrate more due diligence on this endeavor, especially in light of the recent facility construction debacles that we've seen around the world, including in Afghanistan. I would further point out that in July, the State Department noted ``ongoing serious fiscal challenges'' and the need for ``additional due diligence in determining how to move forward with the FAST-C facility at Fort Pickett.'' Lastly, Mr. Speaker, there are serious questions about whether the existing DHS facility in Glynco, Georgia, could be used at a much lower cost to the American taxpayer. We all understand the responsibility to represent our districts, but it should not come at the cost of blocking legislation that will answer the need, in terms of security, for our personnel overseas. Again, I would point out that this does not prohibit such an expenditure. It merely requires an independent feasibility study to assess whether or not it is appropriate. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, and Science, cochairman of the Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission, author of this bill, and long a spokesman for religious freedom for those of all creeds.

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and that they also might have the ability to include extraneous material on this resolution in the Record.

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 301) to provide for the establishment of the Special Envoy to Promote Religious Freedom of Religious Minorities in the Near East and South Central Asia, as amended.

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, in the spirit that Mr. Meeks articulated there, we Americans who cherish religious liberty and all people of goodwill who value the rights of conscience cannot remain silent in the face of this rising regional intolerance. I think, as he put it, and as Mr. Wolf and Ms. Anna Eshoo put so eloquently, I think it is time to bring about this Special Envoy to deploy in the Middle East. I thank Mr. Wolf for his leadership and certainly urge passage of H.R. 301. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in support of this legislation because this legislation provides for a very needed Special Envoy to Promote Religious Freedom of Religious Minorities in the Near East and in South Central Asia. This bill, introduced by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), is substantially identical to one which we brought up last year and tried to get out of both bodies; it was H.R. 440. This body passed that legislation by more than 400 votes. Sadly, in the 2 years that have elapsed since then, the dangers motivating this bill have only grown more acute. In many areas of the Middle East, the first freedom, as we called it, the freedom of religious liberty, is disregarded. Minority communities are not merely under threat; those communities are now under attack. From Afghanistan, to Iran, to Syria, to Egypt and elsewhere in these regions, religious minorities have been increasingly subjected to unconscionable--often violent--persecution. These alarming trends are occurring in the midst of growing regional instability as brutal regimes and terrorists and insurgents seek to assert control over populations and seek to enforce their ideologies by use of fear, by use of brute force. As the bloody civil war rages in Syria, ancient Christian communities are being forced to flee the lands they have inhabited for centuries in the midst of this bloody civil conflict. In Egypt, Coptic Christians have experienced unspeakable abuses at the hands of radical Muslim groups and have been fleeing their country in droves to escape further violence. I have met with many from the vibrant Coptic Christian community in southern California. In Iran, more than 500 Baha'is have been arbitrarily arrested since 2005 by the Iranian Government. In Pakistan, 80 members of the Muslim Ahmadiyya sect were killed by terrorists in their places of worship in 2010, in addition to consistent incidents of violence and even judicial persecution of Christians there. Many of us are aware of the violations of the rights and the deaths of the Shi'a minority there as well. For all of these alarming reasons, this legislation is at least as timely as it was 2 years ago. I commend our colleague, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), for bringing it to our attention. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ROYCE

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

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, over the past six decades, the United States and South Korea have built a strong and enduring alliance, which is the cornerstone of peace, the cornerstone of security in the Asia-Pacific region. Ever since the dark days of the Korean war, our two nations have stood side by side to meet some of today's most pressing challenges. The alliance between our two countries is a model for global partnership in every field, whether it's in the economic field or political or concerning security. And earlier this year, my good friend, the ranking member, and I led a bipartisan delegation to South Korea to reaffirm our Nation's steadfast commitment to the good people of South Korea. It was during this visit that we witnessed the tremendous sacrifice that South Koreans made in order to live in freedom. The ranking member and I stood by the wreckage of the naval ship Cheonan, paying our respects to the 46 South Korean sailors who perished as a result of the unprovoked North Korean attack, a poignant reminder of the constant threat that our two nations face. When Madame Park Geun-hye, the first woman to be elected President of South Korea, addressed a joint session of Congress, she honored the deep sacrifice that Americans have made in protecting her beloved nation. I was pleased to serve on the host committee when she visited the Congress. Madam Park and her delegation were warmly received when in southern California as part of her official visit to the United States. Today, South Korea is at the forefront of global innovation, with the world's 13th largest economy; and as a result of the landmark U.S.- South Korea trade agreement, South Korea is our seventh largest trading partner. One of the most important areas of our close economic cooperation is commerce and, particularly, commerce in nuclear energy. And that is why, Mr. Speaker, it is so important that the Congress approve this piece of legislation before us today. South Korea's nuclear energy sector is extensive. It's critically important to its economy. Its 23 operating reactors produce one-third of the nation's electricity. In an effort to secure greater energy independence, the government plans to double this figure over the next two decades, with 11 more power plants to be completed. Much of South Korea's nuclear infrastructure is of American origin, and U.S. businesses provide millions of dollars' worth of spare parts and services every year to that nation. That is one of the reasons expansion of this vital sector will be good for the U.S. economy as well. South Korea also plans to become a major nuclear exporter in the international market. Given the truly global nature of this industry, American suppliers stand to make considerable gains as well. For example, in 2009, a consortium of Korean companies was selected to build four nuclear power reactors in the United Arab Emirates, a deal worth $20 billion. Of this total, American companies will earn up to $2 billion for this project alone through sales of equipment and of services. It is estimated that this one project will support 5,000 jobs in 17 States. The ability of American companies to export to South Korea's nuclear power sector rests upon our two countries' 40-year-old nuclear cooperation agreement, which expires on March 19, 2014. The U.S. and South Korean negotiators are currently negotiating a long-term extension of this agreement. But to prevent an unnecessary interruption that would have a major negative impact on our alliance with South Korea and on U.S. exporters alike, Ranking Member Engel and I introduced this bipartisan legislation to extend the existing agreement for 2 years, to March 19, 2016. The State Department is in support of this legislation. Testifying earlier this year on behalf of an extension, a top State Department official told the House Foreign Affairs Committee: An extension would also ensure there is no lapse in our ongoing civil nuclear cooperation, preserving stability and predictability in our joint commercial activities. This bill is a simple extension of the existing agreement--with no modifications or changes--that will allow negotiators time to focus on substance instead of the clock. The Foreign Affairs Committee voted unanimously in favor of the bill, which now has a total of 41 cosponsors from both sides of the aisle. I urge my colleagues to vote for this legislation so that it can be sent to the Senate and then on to the President for his signature and thereby ensure that the cooperation between our two countries in this vital area can continue without interruption. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen), chairman emeritus of the Foreign Affairs Committee, who currently chairs the Subcommittee on the Middle East and North Africa.

Mr. ROYCE. I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot), chairman of the Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific.

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I just want to stand in solidarity with the remarks of Mr. Meeks of New York. We're both in complete agreement here, as we've discussed in the past, about how vital this relationship is with South Korea. It is one that, for decades, we've stood side-by-side as South Korea and the United States have tried to promote policies in that region in defense of freedom, to support democracy, to support human rights, and, at the same time, to support economic growth. I think it is just as important that we stand together to extend the U.S.-South Korea civilian nuclear energy agreement. So I would urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan legislation. I think it is critical not only to our friend and ally, but I would say, without this bill, tens of thousands of American workers would be at a grave disadvantage. This bill extends, without modification, the existing agreement between the U.S. and South Korea for 2 additional years so that the current negotiations can continue uninterrupted. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I think we have one final Member who wishes to speak on this. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Collins), a member of the Foreign Affairs, Judiciary, and the Oversight Committees.

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and to include any extraneous material on this measure.

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2449) to authorize the President to extend the term of the Agreement for Cooperation between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of the Republic of Korea Concerning Civil Uses of Nuclear Energy for a period not to exceed March 19, 2016.

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (S. 793) to support revitalization and reform of the Organization of American States, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. ROYCE. I would like to thank Mr. Meeks. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I ask unanimous consent to yield the balance of my time to the gentlelady from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen) and that she be able to control that time.

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Affairs be discharged from further consideration of the resolution (H. Res. 222) recognizing the long-term partnership and friendship between the United States and the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, working together towards peace and security in the Middle East, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I have an amendment to the preamble at the desk.

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, had I been present on rollcall No. 445, passage of H.R. 367, the Regulations From the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act of 2013, I would have voted ``aye.''