Ed Royce

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. I thank the gentleman. This agreement will break down trade barriers. Frankly, it will level the playing field for 19,000 small and medium-sized businesses here in the United States and the farmers here who export into this market. It means 280,000 new American jobs and, frankly, it means $10 billion in new exports. And let's remember this: Europe has this trade agreement. It went into effect on July 1. They've seen a 17 percent increase in their exports into the market in South Korea at our expense. Why? Because, frankly, U.S. exports to Korea currently face an average tariff of 12.2 percent, and it's, frankly, 49 percent for agricultural products. If we can bring that down--their tariffs are higher than ours. If we can bring that down, we can get that market share. We can increase that trade and develop these jobs. And the agreement also removes the barriers and provides transparency. It provides property rights. It has rules on competition that make U.S. businesses much more competitive in Korea, that gives them access into that market.

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, today marks the 37th anniversary of the Turkish invasion of Cyprus. The 1974 invasion claimed the lives of approximately 5,000 Greek Cypriots, while 200,000 were forcefully displaced from their homes. This is a dark chapter not only for Hellenes, but for all of Europe. Thirty-seven years later, 43,000 Turkish soldiers still occupy over 35 percent of Cyprus illegally. This occupied area is one of the most militarized areas in the world, despite the fact that Turkish and Greek Cypriots live in relative harmony. An agreement for a bi-communal governance and power sharing between Greek and Turkish Cypriots would not only serve the best interests for all of Cyprus, but it would also serve the U.S. in promoting peace and stability in the Eastern Mediterranean. Cyprus has supported the U.S. in the efforts to counter terrorist- related activities and threats to peace and security. During the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq Cyprus has provided over-flight and landing rights to the United States aircraft and port access for U.S. ships. In Beirut barracks bombing in 1983 Cyprus provided the staging ground for the U.S. evacuation and rescue efforts. In July-August 2006, Cyprus served as the principal transit location for people evacuating Lebanon. Cyprus shares the United States' deep and abiding commitment to upholding the ideals of freedom, democracy, justice, human rights, and the international rule of law, making the unification of Cyprus important. History shows us that Cyprus is a reliable partner to the U.S. I've met with Cypriot President Demetrius Christofias and his dedication to reunifying Cyprus is commendable, and continues to be his top priority. If only he could be met halfway by Turkey, Cyprus could flourish faster in this global economy with a unifying identity and single sovereignty.

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Thank you, Mr. Broun. I will only take a minute here to close. You know, I am also for pure research in science. I am for scientific research where we can drive progress in the United States. But as I shared with you earlier, I am a former capital projects manager, and one of the things you learn is to identify those projects which have some ability conceptually to have a return on investment. All right? When you run into a project which is not only on the face of it uneconomical, but one which is hazardous, and on top of that you see a listing of all the ways in which you would extract energy at much less cost than you would ever get to this, and it would be the very last resort on the list, you would not keep that on your list of capital projects to entertain. And I can tell you this. If you were constricted in your budget, especially if you were going out and borrowing 40 percent on the dollar for your budget, you would certainly take this off the list of capital projects that you would commit to. So I commit to you, it is only logical at this point that we pass this amendment and we incrementally at least make progress where we know we can on reducing the borrowing and send back a little vote of confidence to the market that all of us here, when we see an opportunity, are going to shave back Federal expenditures in areas where there cannot possibly be a return on that investment for the taxpayers of the United States.

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would decrease the allocation of the Department of Science and the Department of Energy budget by $10 million. And let me give you an example of what $10 million is used for, by way of example, in this department. There's $10 million for appropriating money to methane hydrate research and development. Now, Mr. Chairman, I was once a capital projects manager and I understand the impulse to invest in technologies that are going to have a payback, that are going to provide a return. But to do that, not only do you have to be able to figure out whether or not it's possible to get that payback, but it has to be a viable alternative when compared against other competing alternatives. And that's what I want to speak to here. The government here in the U.S. has already spent $155 million on research and development commercialization for this technology, for methane hydrate, over the last 5 years. Taxpayers do not need to subsidize the gas hydrate industry to find equivalent alternatives to replace oil. We are at $100-a-barrel oil. There is already enough financial incentive in the commercial market to research methane hydrate if it, in fact, were a viable energy option. I just have to tell you, no one has tried to extract methane hydrates in a commercial way because it is not economical. Think about this for a moment: It is only found in the Arctic. It is only found offshore. It's essentially methane gas compressed under high-pressure conditions at great depths. And basically the point here would be, you'd liquify it. The reality is there are real hazards of developing gas hydrates. And because it's such an incredibly hazardous substance, I can't foresee gas drilling and production operations adopting this scenario, especially when you consider all of the other fossil fuels that would be utilized first before such a technology would ever be deployed. You've got oil shale. You've got oil sands, tar sands. You've got the existing conventional deposits of oil under capped wells. Now, with every one of these challenges, a solution could be found much more economically in terms of extracting energy than you would ever find by producing energy from natural gas in this particular methodology. So the government has spent 10 years researching and developing ways to extract methane hydrates. We are still at a very primitive phase. As I have shared with you, it is very hazardous if we were ever to deploy such a technology. There is a long list of alternatives which we certainly would go through first before we ever got to this. So it is time to eliminate the funding that can be appropriated toward methane hydrate research and development and use that more productively. And let me make one other observation about this. We are in a situation now where we're borrowing 40 cents of every dollar we spend. When we identify an area of the budget where we can make these types of savings, we should be cognizant of the fact that this type of borrowing, this sheer amount of borrowing has an impact not only on job creation, on economic growth, but also basically on the long-term solvency of the government. If we're running up debt at these levels and we find areas in the budget to slice off these sums, we can bring down that deficit. The impact on the market is such that the market sees us ratcheting down expenditures to come back into compliance with economic reality. And as a consequence of that, we avoid some of the adverse impacts that come with the overborrowing--as I indicated, 40 cents on every dollar--the overborrowing that is creating the kind of uncertainty in this economy today in which employers are reluctant to go out and hire, in which the impacts are not just felt in the jobless rates that we just saw climb up here in the United States but are also filled in the way in which we are perceived internationally in terms of our capacity to deal with our debt. Now is the time to make some commonsense decisions here, and here is $10 million that can be saved. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

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

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. ROYCE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much. A couple of quick points here. One, the administration is actively considering resuming food aid to North Korea. And I understand the humanitarian impulse here, but the unusual circumstances of North Korea make this a mistake--and make it a very bad mistake, frankly--which this amendment would correct. I remember the words of one North Korean defector, Kim Duk-hong. I had a chance to talk with him. He said actually in testimony here before the committee, we must not give food aid to North Korea because it is, in his words, the same as providing funding for North Korea's nuclear program. Why is that so? Because what invariably happens is they redirect these resources into support for the regime. This week we had reports that North Korea is making miniaturized versions of its nuclear weapons--ones that could fit atop ICBMs. That makes his statement all that more dire about the redirection of these resources into the regime's hands. The situation in North Korea is heartbreaking. I've been up there. I've seen the depravation. But this is a disaster made by the dictatorship itself. And let me say unequivocally, the food we send does not reach the hungry. So, who benefits from our good will? Well, the inner circle does and their military industrial complex does. We've had hearings in which the French NGO Doctors Without Borders--we're all aware of their good work around the world. They testified before the International Relations Committee that the vast majority of refugees they interview say they had never received any food aid. None of the children they had ever met had ever seen food aid during the years they worked up on the border. And this testimony is backed up by a survey of 500 North Korean defectors in which 78.2 percent of them never saw foreign food aid. And the reason for this is because it goes, again, into the black market. It is sold for the hard currency that the regime needs for its nuclear program and other programs. Some could argue that what we need is more oversight and maybe better monitoring on this food. Let me tell you about the testimony we've heard on that, because the North Koreans, I don't think they've got a word for ``transparency.'' No matter how airtight any monitoring protocol may be, they cheat. We had a Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission hearing where a North Korean dissident told us how the regime would mark all the houses that had received bags of food and would return to collect them after the monitors had left. So North Korea is always going to cheat. Some assert that the North is holding food, holding food for the future, hoarding a million tons of rice. That's the charge we hear from South Korea, from members of their Parliament. But the fact is that it's an asset that is converted by the North. So I urge my colleagues to support my amendment for the sake of the North Korean people. Providing this aid not only allows Kim Jong-Il's oppressive regime to divert scarce resources towards its military program, one that has grown increasingly threatening, but it also delays the day when real structural reform will come to North Korea. There is a Korean saying that ``pouring water into a cracked pot is worthless.'' Sending resources to Kim Jong-Il is even worse. It's enabling a regime with one of the world's worst human rights records but also with an atomic bomb. North Korea has played us like a fiddle for years. Conditions for North Koreans have only worsened. It's time for a new North Korea policy. Let's start now. I ask my colleagues to support the amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, this is an amendment supported by Chairman Lamar Smith, chairman of the Judiciary Committee. The reason he and I are in support of this is because this amendment reduces the Office of the Secretary and Executive Management account by $1 million and increases funding for immigration and customs enforcement by $1 million in order to facilitate new agreements under the 287(g) program. This bill, this amendment, will provide for better enforcement of our immigration laws. 287(g) has been very successful. It allows State and local law enforcement agencies to cooperate with the Department of Homeland Security to enforce immigration law. It was enacted back in 1996, and Congress implemented this program to give local communities help with illegal immigration in their area. A couple of points I would like to make, Mr. Chairman. There are maybe 5,000, 6,000 ICE agents in the United States. There are 650,000 State and local law enforcement officers--650,000. So the 10 million to 12 million illegal aliens in the country are much more likely to come into contact with local law enforcement than they are with an ICE agent. And for local law enforcement, it's important that they be properly trained so that they don't profile, don't discriminate, but properly identify those here illegally who are breaking our laws. Now, there is a backlog of cities that want 287(g) agreements, and what this legislation does is assist in covering that problem. One of the reasons so many cities want to be involved in this is because criminal alien gangs generally victimize people in the cities, often are victimizing other immigrants, often victimize legal immigrants. And, frankly, law enforcement should be trained in how to identify and remove criminal aliens, and this assists in that. It's a great force multiplier for ICE. It provides ICE with assistance such as following up on leads and performing investigative research and surveillance. It's had a positive effect on the workload for ICE by identifying removable aliens, and it gives ICE greater flexibility in directing its immigration law enforcement resources. Now, I want to make another point here. The CBO scores this amendment as costing zero in budget authority. Also, I think we should reflect on the fact that given that one of the 9/11 hijackers, Mohammed Atta, was pulled over in traffic 2 days before the 9/11 attack, there is a significant benefit to checking the immigration status of all individuals who are arrested. Had the officer inquired about Atta, he then could have found out that Atta was in the country illegally and may well have prevented his participation in the attacks. That is one of the benefits of having local law enforcement trained in this area. I also want to make an additional point. This brings tens of thousands of local law enforcement to help enforce our immigration laws. There are now 70 jurisdictions with these agreements, but many more communities want help. The 287(g) program also provides training to State and local police, giving them additional tools that they can use to prosecute crimes committed by illegal immigrants, especially gang violence and document fraud. Over the last few years, the open borders lobby has been successful in getting the administration to curtail the use of this program. Well, the 287(g) program is a solid improvement in terms of enforcing immigration laws. Particularly with the gang activity that we have today, with the drug lords sending local gangs across the border in order to participate in crimes here, it is very clear that we need this kind of a program. Before it was created, many illegal immigrants stopped by State and local law enforcement went free. Immigration laws were not enforced. Since the program was developed, it's helped the State and local law enforcement not only fight crime, as I've indicated, but get the gang leaders, get the serious criminals off the streets and enforce our laws. So instead of curtailing the program, we should be promoting the expansion of it. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and help local communities to enforce our immigration laws. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 310, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.'' Stated against:

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. I appreciate the gentleman yielding. The bipartisan deficit reduction commission has looked at the work of the GAO on this issue. The GAO has tried to get Federal agencies to look at reducing their vehicle fleet. They have put out studies, and one of the interesting examples was where the GAO found automobiles in a parking lot that had not even been used for 3 years that had been purchased. Their point is this: With 650,000 vehicles that the government uses now, there is a way to put in place, if you followed the recommendations of the GAO, a way to reduce that fleet and save money. And the Government Accountability Office has said that the government agencies are badly managing their vehicles. Now, we know that with one government agency, the Department of Energy, that decided to put in place these recommendations, they reduced their fleet. In their budget going forward, they can reduce their fleet by 35 percent. What we are saying with this amendment is we are following the recommendation of the GAO. The Heritage Foundation endorses this. It certainly was supported by the bipartisan deficit reduction commission. We have got a deficit of $1.5 trillion and growing. This is a way to shut it down and a way that has been recommended to us by the GAO to move forward. We support this bipartisan amendment.

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, in terms of a lack of regulation, I think it's interesting to note that it was the Republicans who attempted to regulate Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. It was the Republicans who were attempting to bring regulation against those government-sponsored enterprises because the Federal Reserve had approached us and told us that we faced a systemic economic consequence that might bring down, not only the housing sector, but the other sectors of the economy. And who was it that pushed for those zero down payment loans? Who was it who pushed for the arbitrage over at Fannie and Freddie? Now, here's the reality. The SEC has always had the ability to prosecute securities fraud. But what happened under Madoff for, what, 18 years, 20 years under President Clinton and under President Bush is that you had an inability on the part of the young lawyers at the SEC to find that fraud. And this is something I and others have pushed for. One of the things we tried to do during the Dodd-Frank bill was to get a reform of the culture over at the SEC. Why? Because that over- lawyered institution was incapable of even understanding what Madoff and others had done with these Ponzi schemes. And when we tried to push those reforms through, what did we get out of it on the other side of the aisle? They agreed to a study, a study, of the SEC culture. Now, in the meantime, we have 3,800 people over at the SEC. At a time when we're running a $1.5 trillion deficit, we're going to have to have haircuts. We cannot ramp up everybody's salary around here. We can't give promotions to everybody all the time. Everybody's going to have to take a little bit of the cut in order for us to get this budget back into balance. And I can share with you a couple of other thoughts, too, about the way in which we've approached this, because we've magnified too big to fail with what we've done with Dodd-Frank. Ask any economist about some of the consequences of this legislation. We've reduced the cost of capital for the largest institutions at the expense of their community bank competitors or their credit union competitors. It is the large institutions that have a 100 basis point, a 1 percent interest point advantage now in the market, because now we have made them too big to fail under this legislation. If we don't reform this, if we don't change our system in a way in which we get some commonsense regulations out there, it's not as though we're not competing around the world. Think for a minute about what's happening in Germany. Think about what's happening in Britain and Brazil and Singapore. They are competing against us because of the antibusiness environment we have created, and not only in terms of regulations that don't make sense many times. But I appreciate the opportunity to point this out.

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Madam Speaker, we do get $179 million back into the Treasury, which the CBO does not count as a savings, but if we pass this, we do get the money back. It is obvious that these security upgrades should be funded through the U.N. capital master plan, that is, the $2 billion 5-year effort to renovate the U.N. headquarters in New York. We do know that by raiding the TEF overpayments owed to American taxpayers, rather than funding the construction properly through the capital master plan, we do know that the State Department and the U.N. will stick American taxpayers with 100 percent of the bill rather than the 22 percent we would owe if it was funded through proper channels. That is what this debate is about. It is not about whether U.N. headquarters in New York should have adequate security. It is about how the costs of that security should be apportioned and whether the funding process can bear even minimal scrutiny. U.S. overpayments into the tax equalization fund are owed to the United States and the State Department should instruct the U.N. to return that money. Now, when the U.N. is sitting on hundreds of millions of dollars--in this case the U.N. actually told us about it. That is good to know. But one thing has kept it from being returned to the Treasury, and that is the U.S. hasn't asked for its money back. When we Americans are overassessed or overpay the IRS, we get a refund. Well, when the Obama administration overpays the United Nations, they say, keep the check. We had a Foreign Affairs meeting the other week. We were told the U.N. can't really give us an honest accounting of their annual budget. The budget is somewhere between $5 billion and $6 billion annually. Hundreds of millions is literally considered a rounding error there. But this is no rounding error to U.S. taxpayers. It is $179 million. We carry 22 percent of that budget over there. China carries less than 3 percent. They should at least be asked to carry their 3 percent of the costs going forward. So let's take this step. Let's ask for the money back that they have told us at the U.N. that we have overpaid, and let's put it into Treasury at a time when we are running a $1.5 trillion budget deficit.

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in commemorating President Ronald Reagan's centennial. President Reagan served as an inspiration for an entire generation of us to get involved in politics. I first had the honor of meeting Ronald Reagan as a young student in California, and in fact, this meeting led to my getting active in Youth for Reagan. He had a powerful message of economic freedom and limited government. Yet it was his ability to translate powerful messages like this into real reforms that set him apart from past leaders. At the heart of all of Reagan's policies, from supply-side economics to promoting democracy overseas, was the importance of the individual, not the collective. It was the importance of freedom, not statism. This great legacy is what we celebrate today. I remember, following the Carter administration, our economy was in a state of economic malaise--high unemployment and high inflation. In fact, that legacy led to the creation of the concept of the misery index--inflation plus unemployment--and that reached an all-time high. But through the enactment of a pro-growth agenda, Reagan was able to cut that number in half in that era of stagflation and lead us into prosperity.

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, in late 2009, Iranian dissidents took to the streets to protest the fraudulent election of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in what would become Iran's Green Movement. These protesters stood up to hard-line government militias, which fired on crowds and raided universities, killing dozens, injuring scores more, and imprisoning thousands. Today, the thuggish Iranian regime went a step further. In what was undoubtedly meant as a message to the pro-democracy opposition, two political activists who had protested the 2009 election--Ja'far Kazemi and Mohammad Ali Haj Aghaie--were executed. Hanged, Mr. Speaker. Death by hanging. . . . Last Congress, the President signed into law an Iran sanctions bill. One provision targets those in Iran committing the human rights abuses. So far, the Administration has targeted just eight individuals for their involvement in beatings and torture. Sadly, Monday's events show there are many, many more human rights abusers to target. Anybody who has quashed the human rights of those seeking democracy deserves to be on this list.

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, the claim that this new health care law will somehow cut our budget deficit is proof that logic does not always prevail here in Washington, DC. This is a $2 trillion additional entitlement; and just like past entitlement programs, this one will be far more costly than projected. As a result, our budget deficit is going to increase unless we repeal this. It's going to increase our dependence on China and Japan to finance our debt. The credit-rating agencies say we are on the verge of losing our AAA credit rating and this debt contagion, you all see it, is continuing to spread across Europe. Let us take this important step. Repeal this $2 trillion fiscal train wreck and begin work on market-based solutions that will actually lower health care costs. This will give us some hope in the future of bringing that budget into balance and not hitting that fiscal train wreck.

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. ``. . . but in no event more than the least populous State; they shall be in addition to those appointed by the States, but they shall be considered, for the purposes of the election of President and Vice President, to be electors appointed by a State; and they shall meet in the District and perform such duties as provided by the 12th article of amendment.'' Section 2: ``The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.''

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, as author of this resolution, I rise in support of House Resolution 20, calling on the State Department to list the Socialist Republic of Vietnam as a Country of Particular Concern with respect to religious freedom. I also want to say I appreciate very much the assistance of Chairman Berman in bringing this to the House floor, the assistance of Ranking Member Ros-Lehtinen, and Mr. Burton, but also the assistance of Congressman Joseph Cao in his support and his concern about this issue. I would like to share with the Members in this body today that the House of Representatives has an opportunity to send a very strong message to the Communist government in Vietnam. And that message, if we pass this resolution, is that its abuses against peaceful religious practitioners of all faiths and all creeds are unacceptable. As we reflect for a minute on some of the conditions that those who practice their faith have to contend with in Vietnam, you think about the 350 Montagnard Christians who remain imprisoned for their beliefs, other religious groups like the Unified Buddhist Church of Vietnam, the Hoa Hao Buddhists, the Cao Dai Buddhists. They face severe persecution from the Communist government of Vietnam. Recently, residents of Con Dau, Da Nang, have suffered severe violence, including beatings with batons, beatings with electric rods during a May assault at the hands of Vietnamese government officials. And what was the charge? Attempting to protect their historic Catholic cemetery from government seizure. I met with the Venerable Thich Quang Do in Vietnam. I had several conversations with him. He was under house arrest. He has spent the last 33 years of his life either in prison or under house arrest. I think for a minute about Pastor Nguyen Cong Chinh whose picture is right here. He has been interrogated more than 300 times, he has been beaten over 20 times, and this is a photograph after one of those beatings. He is one of the many faces, I would say battered faces, of religious freedom in Vietnam. In its 2010 annual report, the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom found as follows: ``Vietnam's overall human rights record remains poor and has deteriorated.'' They cite police officers and plainclothesmen and the Religious Security Police--yes, the Religious Security Police-- routinely harassing and intimidating those who pray outside of government-approved religions. They cite beatings with electric batons, sexual assault of monks, and confiscation of property and forced evictions. While the State Department has documented some of these abuses, real action is needed. By re-listing Vietnam as a CPC, as this resolution instructs, the State Department could bring about real change. In addition to the naming and shaming aspect of the report, a wide range of sanctions, from limitations on foreign aid to denial of visas for those in the government, can be levied on the regimes that carry out these abuses. Unfortunately, the Obama administration hasn't used this tool. This will make that tool available. Some will ask if a CPC redesignation can have any impact. Well, let's look at the prior experience on this. After being listed as a CPC in 2004, Vietnam immediately released several prominent dissidents and democracy advocates, and issued ordinances that prohibited the forced renunciation of faith. These were concrete results achieved with a CPC designation, and more can be achieved with a re-listing of Vietnam. Sadly, after Vietnam was permanently removed from the list in 2006, religious freedom and tolerance has been on a continuous downward slide. The Vietnam War is history. We have deepening relations with Vietnam. But that fact doesn't mean we should short-change religious liberty. Frankly, we know that raising these issues with Hanoi isn't on the top of our diplomats' list. They are uncomfortable with raising these human rights abuses. But by putting Vietnam on this list, where it belongs, we are at least giving promoting religious freedom a chance of being part of our policy towards Vietnam. Mr. Speaker, it is time to put the House on record in support of the Vietnamese people and religious freedom in Vietnam. Indeed, the right to freely practice your religion is a universal sacred right.

Mr. ROYCE. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom has one job, and that is to monitor religious freedom around the world. The conclusion they have come to is that the situation is so egregious in Vietnam today that that government needs to be put back on the Country of Particular Concern list now. What they cite as the reason, as the rationale, is that, over the past 2 years, those speaking out against restrictions on religious freedom and human rights continue to be arrested; they continue to be detained. Over the past year, they have said violence by contract thugs against peaceful prayer vigils and religious leaders continues. As a matter of fact, they cite it is accelerating. We are not talking about deaths that occurred in 1838 right now. My colleagues and I are talking about what happened 2 months ago in terms of people losing their lives in Vietnam because they are speaking out for religious freedom. Lastly, in terms of what was shared with me by the Venerable Thich Quang Do, he said, They are not allowing us to practice our Buddhist faith. The Communist government is trying to change the faith. That is why we are speaking out.

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. I thank the gentlelady. I rise to oppose this rule, Mr. Speaker. What happened to openness and transparency? We are operating here under same day consideration with no opportunity for a motion to recommit. We are in the 11th hour of this Congress, and even if we and even if the American people really had had a chance to read what was in this bill, it doesn't really matter what the seeming requirements are that have been explained here because the bill allows the Secretary of Homeland Security to waive the requirements--to waive the requirements. Under this bill, any illegal immigrant may apply for an application for cancellation of removal and for conditional non-immigrant status. DHS may not remove any alien who has a pending application for conditional status. This status is valid for 5 years. It can be extended by DHS for another 5 years. All the while, the individual will be allowed to work in the United States and travel outside of the U.S. With every amnesty, we have had a problem with massive fraud. About one-fourth of those legalized under the 1986 law received amnesty fraudulently. As one former U.S. Citizen and Immigration Service employee told us, the system that exists now can't handle the workload that exists now. There is a backlog now with 3 million people waiting to get their cases decided. What do you think is going to happen when we have millions of new cases on top of that that USCIS has to investigate? The fact is that right now you can go online and you can buy a fraudulent document. You can buy a fraudulent diploma for $180, along with a fraudulent GED. There is no additional staffing in this bill, no funding to actually authenticate it. The additional personnel necessary to handle the increase in the number of cases is not in this bill. So how do we prevent the type of fraud we saw in 1986? How do we deal with the fact that since 1986 we have had three times as many illegal immigrants come into the country as a result of passing that amnesty, many of them coming in fraudulently?

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Madam Speaker, since the Taiwanese election of President Ma Ying-jeou in March 2008, leaders in Beijing and Taipei have promoted cross-strait engagement. Yet it is important to realize that ``there have been no meaningful actions on the part of the mainland, however, to reduce [China's'] military presence opposite the island.'' That is a finding of the Pentagon's annual report to Congress on Chinese military capabilities, released last month. With its rapidly expanding arsenal of ships, missiles and aircraft, the cross-strait military balance continues to ``shift in the mainland's favor,'' according to the report. Indeed, in 2001, China had 250 missiles aimed at Taiwan. Today that number is over 1,400. This summer's Pentagon report comes months after the Defense Intelligence Agency concluded that Taiwan's air defenses are showing increasing vulnerability due to the aging of its fighter aircraft. While China rapidly builds its military forces, Taiwan is struggling. To help close this gap, Taiwan has had a pending request to buy additional F-16 fighter jets. In May, over 130 members of Congress wrote to President Obama and asked that the Administration ``move ahead immediately'' with the sale of these airplanes. The Administration is still ``studying'' this proposal. Taiwan faces one of the most complex and lethal military threats in the world. Across the region, in response to China's build-up and increasing assertiveness, China's neighbors are moving to strengthen their security relationships with the United States. This gravitation to the U.S. will only last as long as the U.S. is seen as a credible guarantor of stability. Moving forward with this F-16 sale would be an appropriate signal to Taiwan, and the region. Madam Speaker, if we want cross strait detente to succeed--Taiwan will have to do so from a position of strength.

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Con. Res. 266. For too long, Taiwan has been left out of international organizations at the demand of China. Taiwan was denied access to the World Health Organization, unable to participate as even an observer for over forty years. Thankfully, that changed last year as a Taiwanese delegation was able to observe meetings in Geneva. Infectious disease knows no borders. Congress had long pressed for this action through bills and resolutions, so it is fitting that we once again take to the floor to press for Taiwan's inclusion in the International Civil Aviation Organization. Despite being home to the world's 18th busiest airport, Taiwan has been kept out of an organization that aims to keep passengers safe. Indeed, as this resolution finds, Taiwan's exclusion from the ICAO has impeded Taiwan's government from keeping up to date with aviation standards, and prevented the implementation of new systems and procedures. The 35 million passengers that travel to and from Taiwan each year are done a great disservice by Taiwan's exclusion. Mr. Speaker, in merely decades, Taiwan has gone from poverty to prosperity and autocracy to democracy. We have a strong relationship that stretches back over half a century. Today, our relations remain strong. Passage of this resolution will only serve to strengthen this relationship, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Madam Speaker, today marks the 35th anniversary of the Turkish invasion of Cyprus. The 1974 invasion claimed the lives of approximately 5,000 Greek Cypriots, while 200,000 were forcefully expelled from their homes. This is a dark chapter not only for Hellenes, but for all of Europe. As this occupation continues, nearly 43,000 Turkish soldiers--nearly one soldier for every two Turkish Cypriots--are embedded in Cyprus, occupying over 35 percent of the island. This occupied area is one of the most militarized areas in the world. Yet despite this military presence, Turkish and Greek Cypriots live in relative harmony. Since Ledra Street was opened, connecting occupied Cyprus to the south, over 13 million Greek and Turkish Cypriots have crossed the partition without incident. One can't help but wonder whom the Turkish military is protecting. While Turkey's influence continues to wreak havoc on reunification negotiations, Cypriot President Demetrius Christofias continues to make the solution to the Cyprus problem his top priority. Having met with him in Nicosia last year, his commitment to finding a solution greatly impressed me. There was certainly no lack of will on the Greek Cypriot side. To conclude, as we remember the invasion that split Cyprus in two, it is important to note that there are concrete efforts underway by the heads of the respective communities to reunify. Greek and Turkish Cypriots alike want to see a solution. What stands in the way is Turkey. If it still cares about ascending to the European Union, Turkey would be wise to remove its troops and stop impeding progress. For the sake of Cyprus, I hope Turkey wakes up.