Ed Royce

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution, which condemns the illegal extraction of Madagascar's natural resources, although it does so without identifying who's doing the extracting, which I think I'd like to comment on. I have traveled to Madagascar; and as the co-chairman of the International Conservation Caucus, I have seen the pristine habitat of this island. It has got a very unique biodiversity, as has been mentioned. Ninety percent of the species there are endemic to that island, and that's one of the reasons a lot of people call Madagascar the ``eighth continent.'' It is because it is so unique in this way. And the inhabitants of that island rely very heavily on that biodiversity and on biotourism as an industry. The biotourism draws about $400 million a year. So preserving Madagascar's unique beauty is important not just from an ecologic standpoint; it's also very critical as an economic necessity, basically, for many of the inhabitants of that island. And, rightfully, this resolution condemns the act. It condemns the litany of natural resource degradation that's occurred. But it's important that it mentions the plundering of precious forests. Unfortunately, from my standpoint there's no mention of who is doing the plundering or where these resources are being sold. From my standpoint, this would be similar to condemning an act of terror without naming the terrorist. This resolution would be greatly strengthened by including such information. Reports that I have read from Global Witness identify rosewood taken out of Masoala National Park as being for sale in China. That is the destination of the illegal logging. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution but also to take a closer look at China's role at resource exploitation in Africa and across the developing world. I chaired the Africa Subcommittee for 8 years. I can tell you, the picture of China in Africa is not pretty, and this action in Madagascar is one more example of it.

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlelady for yielding, and I rise in support of this resolution, of which I am a cosponsor, and to note that for 60 years, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty has been basically a free press for societies suffering authoritarian rule, and that is the intent. The RFE/RL has said that this model of surrogate broadcasting irritates authoritarian regimes, inspires democrats and creates greater space for civil society, and that is the goal. Vaclav Havel and others have testified to the role that the radios played in bringing down the Iron Curtain. As noted in the resolution, Warsaw Pact intelligence went to great lengths to silence these broadcasts. We have heard some of the examples of the correspondents who were murdered and the headquarters that were bombed. RFE/RL has expanded its work to countries that are critical to today's national security challenges. Shortly after September 11, the House passed legislation establishing Radio Free Afghanistan, RFE's brand in that country. Actually, I authored that legislation. And today, with 50 percent market share, it is the most popular radio station in the country, offering an alternative to the Taliban's dark leaflets and the type of radio that people hear in that part of Central Asia and South Asia from the Taliban. The Iranian regime has targeted RFE/RL broadcasts. They have spent a lot of money to jam those broadcasts. RFE/RL has still managed to provide valuable coverage of the recent uprising there, allowing Iranian democrats to know that they are not alone in this world. These broadcasts are all the more important now that the administration has muffled itself when it comes to the Iranian democratic movement. As it trims back on programs supporting democracy- seeking Iranians, one expert notes that the administration views the green revolution as a wrench in the works of nuclear negotiations with the Iranian regime. These broadcasts could be greatly complimented by the White House bully pulpit. They aren't. A divide between the broadcasters and the diplomats is not new, frankly. In the 1960s, Washington moved to improve relations with Ceausescu's Romania, despite its abysmal human rights record, but RFE kept a spotlight on Bucharest, irritating some of the diplomats. Today, it keeps a spotlight on Tehran's transgressions--the jailing, the abuse, the murder of those who abuse the regime. Importantly, this resolution commends the employees and reporters of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty for their services and acknowledges their sacrifices. Just as the communist police took steps to prevent the truth from penetrating their house of lies, so has the Iranian regime. The Iranian Government harasses the journalists for RFE/RL's Persian service, its headquarters in Prague, and their families back in Iran. Those inside Iran who might provide the station with information have been threatened. This fall, two young journalists with the service were killed and a third went into a coma when their car was struck by a truck outside of Prague. This is the information war happening today. Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty and its sister surrogates are keeping us in the game. As technology evolves, they can and need to do better, while staying true to their support for freedom and respect for human rights and for the rule of law.

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, freedom to choose your own health care plan is what is at stake here. The drumbeat for entitlement, for government control of health care, for a health choice commissioner who will decide himself essential benefits, for setting a precedent that will devolve into a rationing of medicine through politics, this is driven by an appetite for a government-run economy that is blind to the consequences. One of those consequences is a $1.3 trillion cost in this bill. Another is the job-killing mandates and the cuts to senior Medicare plans, including a gutting of Medicare Advantage that is in this bill. The cost of the tax increases on business. How high can we stack these taxes? We have one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world. We will see the consequence in higher unemployment. Should health care be nationalized, medical rationing is inevitable, and we will see the adverse effects on economic growth and opportunity, unfortunately, that will be left.

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. I thank the gentleman for yielding. What brings us here today, of course, is this resolution, intended to address a longstanding problem but really brought to light again earlier this month when we had nine young bloggers in Vietnam, all of them convicted under Article 88 of the Government of Vietnam's statute, which the interpretation of Article 88 is in direct conflict with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights to which the Government of Vietnam is itself a signatory. So what is happening is that Article 88 is now being used in Vietnam as just a tool to basically criminalize what they call propaganda against the state, but which is simply the free speech rights which are recognized everywhere else and to which Vietnam is a signatory to the agreement. It is being used to go after anyone who argues against the concept of a one-party state. So, if you get into the realm of religious liberty or you get into the realm of freedom of association, freedom of speech, you suddenly run afoul of this Article 88 and you find yourself facing a long prison term. That is why I rise in support of House Resolution 672, because what this bill does is call on the Government of Vietnam to release those imprisoned bloggers and basically to respect Internet freedom. Mr. Speaker, the one-party Communist government in Hanoi is a serial human rights abuser. Citizens are denied basic rights, such as the right to freedom of religion, the right to freedom of speech. And like most despotic regimes, Hanoi seeks to censor all information that it deems in any way damaging to a one-party state. As longtime dissident Dr. Nguyen Dan Que correctly stated some years ago, he said, ``The state hopes to cling to power by brainwashing the Vietnamese people through stringent censorship and through its absolutist control over what information the public can receive.'' These are the actions of a totalitarian tower that has no respect for the rights of the individual citizen. Those last words were mine. Newspapers, television and radio stations remain under strict government control in Vietnam, of course. Now, with a greater percentage of the population seeking an alternative way to express itself, seeking a way to even communicate in ideas, the government has dramatically stepped up its campaign to confront and to curtail the country's vigorous blogosphere because, in Vietnam, just like in the United States, the young Vietnamese really enjoy the ability to use the Internet to engage in a simple dialogue between each other with respect to ideas. International press freedom groups rank Vietnam alongside China and Burma, right now today, as the riskiest countries for bloggers; and as you saw, human rights groups are increasingly speaking out about the violent nature of the crackdown in Vietnam on human rights. As I have, there are those of us who have traveled to Vietnam. In the past, I met with the venerable Thich Quang Do, with Le Quang Liem and with others who have been involved in the issue of religious freedom. We saw the consequences of monks who had been beaten, some of whom had been killed. Certainly, many of them were under arrest for attempting to counter the state with respect to their assertion--Father Ly would be an example--that the state should not rewrite religious text. For the Buddhist faith, this is a particular problem because the Communist Party in Vietnam is trying to change their faith by rewriting the text. The reason the venerable Thich Quang Do is under such pressure and is under such constant attack by the state is that he objects to this. He says religious freedom should exist in this society without control by the state. Certainly, Bui Thanh Hieu and Pham Doan Trang would agree with this because these two bloggers were detained after writing in opposition to policies by the Vietnamese Government. Now, what were they writing about? They were writing about an environmental issue, about the new bauxite mining project in Vietnam's central highlands. Chinese mining in this region has already caused severe environmental damage, and that damage comes at the sole expense of the local residents in this area because this is the area that grows much of the coffee, rubber and so forth in Vietnam. So, now, with the runoff from these mines and the way in which it's polluting the local lakes and the way in which it's killing off the vegetation, basically, you've created a no-man's area. It is absolutely incapable of supporting any crops in the future in much of this area. Dieu Cay, another prominent blogger, also knows the lesson well, as he was sentenced to 2 years for running a series of articles, exposing what? Exposing government corruption. Now we have another introduction of Chinese bauxite mining on top of what is already occurring that is going to cause further environmental damage in the central highlands. What you basically have is the state's cracking down in Vietnam, saying nobody can tell the people about what's happening to their land, that nobody can tell the people about the health hazards to their children in this region as a result of the state's making this decision to invite the Chinese in to do this kind of bauxite mining. Hanoi knows that its grip on power is shaky and that the ideas that these journalists spread carefully chip away at the monopoly on power which the state has. That's why they spend so much time trying to shut them out. The practice of detaining these bloggers for spreading ideas like freedom and democracy is very odious. We are here today to call on the Communist Government to end this practice. That is what this resolution does. It calls on the Government of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam to release these imprisoned bloggers and to respect Internet freedom. I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. I thank the gentlelady for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House Resolution 800, expressing condolences to the people and Government of the Philippines in the aftermath of the devastating storms that struck the Philippines. Several weeks ago, Tropical Storm Ketsana and Typhoon Parma inundated the Philippines with heavy rains, forcing the evacuation of more than half a million people and killing more than 600. Typhoon Parma was particularly savage, making landfall twice--which of course complicated rescue efforts--and destroying much of the crop in one of the Philippines' main rice-producing regions. While the loss of life from these storms is tragic, that tragedy is compounded by the survivors' loss of livelihood. U.S. troops have been quick to respond in the aid efforts, helping in rescue and clean-up missions. So, again, we express our sincerest condolences to the people of the Philippines; and we let them know that their friend, the United States, stands with them in solidarity as they begin the process of recovering from this tragedy.

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, let me thank the gentlelady from Florida. As cochairman of the Congressional Caucus on India and Indian Americans, I rise in support of House Resolution 603, recognizing the 140th anniversary of the birth of Mahatma Gandhi. Today, we give special remembrance to one of the most revered people of the last century. Preaching nonviolence, Gandhi dedicated his life's work to helping others. As a leader in the Indian National Congress, Gandhi led campaigns to ease poverty. He led the campaigns to expand women's rights. And of course he is remembered for his efforts to build religious amity. Above all else, however, Gandhi worked tirelessly to free his nation and helped direct India into a new era of democracy. His methods to do this included leadership by example. It included his organizational ability. It also included peaceful civil disobedience as a tool and his power to persuade by force of argument. These were the ways in which he motivated those not only in his own nation, but around the world to this cause. Having traveled to India during the second round of voting during India's recent election, the largest democratic display the world has ever seen, I would have to say that Gandhi himself would indeed have been proud of how far his nation has come. Under his guidance, India has become a pluralistic democracy of many religions and ethnic groups, I think probably as pluralistic as the United States. We are here today to help keep the spirit of Gandhi alive and to remember his remarkable achievements. Before I close, I would also like to extend my best wishes to the millions of people that will celebrate Diwali this Saturday; I certainly hope it will be a joyous occasion.

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation, and I commend Chairman Berman for his Pakistan assistance legislation, which is the basis of the Senate bill that we are considering here. I also want to thank Ranking Member Ros-Lehtinen for pressing the important issues that have made this a better bill. There is no doubt that Pakistan is critical to America's security. Having made several trips to Pakistan, I observed that large parts of that country are a hotbed of radical jihadism. It's a country, of course, with a nuclear arsenal. And while its security situation has improved since last spring, Pakistan very much remains a country in crisis. Pakistan is a partner, too. Any country receiving this amount of U.S. aid had better be one. But there can be no carte blanche. This bill's conditions on aid reflect years of bad experiences. It's only right that Pakistan not be proliferating, or covertly aiding militants, as an aid condition. It's only right that those positions are in that underlying bill that Chairman Berman has brought forward here. We should also proceed with the understanding that aid has the potential to worsen economic and political conditions. Operating in Pakistan is very difficult. U.S. aid workers are limited in their in-country travels because of security. I have concerns about establishing too big a footprint in Pakistan, in other words, the so- called diplomatic surge. The fact is that if the U.S. isn't welcomed in much of Pakistan, it may not be the case that this addition of personnel on the ground is helpful. So I think a balance is needed in that, and that's an issue that I hope and trust that the State Department will reflect on. I am pleased that the trade position, the provision on trade, that was added to this bill when it passed the House was dropped in the Senate. And the reason I am pleased with that is that that provision, allegedly a development-plus for Pakistan, was at best a do-nothing provision. Some argue it would actually decrease U.S./Pakistan trade. It's a shame that this Congress can't muster the will to liberalize trade with Pakistan, which would do far more for its development than development aid. Finally, I would like to second my colleague's concerns about neighboring Afghanistan. Trends there aren't moving in our direction. It's past time for decisive action.

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution. What this resolution does is to express the condolences on our part to the people and Government of the Republic of China, Taiwan, in the aftermath of this very devastating typhoon that struck this region and that affected so many families. Last month this typhoon ripped through South Asia, and it drowned that region in about 7 feet of rain. It killed over 600 people. Government officials called it the worst storm that has hit the island of Taiwan in over 50 years. Later today, this House of Representatives is going to take up a resolution expressing condolences to the families of the individuals killed during the storms and floods in the State of Georgia. So we know all too well that these storms can be devastating, and so it is with sorrow that we take up these two resolutions today. I rise today to express my heartfelt condolences, especially because Taiwan and the United States have such a valued partnership. For over half a century, this close relationship has brought significant economic advantages, I think, as well as cultural and political advantages to the people of Taiwan and the United States. We have seen in mere decades Taiwan go from poverty to prosperity; and, of course, with the Taiwan Relations Act, Taiwan will remain a close ally of the United States. It is a country, one of the few, that has gone from U.S. aid recipient to international provider of aid across the globe. Without question, Taiwan is one of our key partners in Asia. So again, we express our sincerest condolences to the people of Taiwan. This devastating typhoon may have ravaged the landscape and infrastructure, but it didn't rattle their will and determination.

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that. I rise in support of this bill. I just want to take a moment here to thank Chairman Berman and also Ranking Member Ros-Lehtinen for their assistance in moving this bill so expeditiously to the floor. There is a timing issue here. We need to pass this out soon, and this, of course, will allow us to broadcast for an additional year. September 30 is the day on which this authority will expire. I wish we could do more. I do. Earlier this year, as you know, Chairman Berman passed a State Department authorization bill out of this House that would have established permanent authority for RFA. The other body, the Senate, has yet to take up this legislation. We wish they would. We can debate the merits of a long-term extension versus sunset repeal, but there is one thing certain in all of this, and that is that the target countries that we broadcast into, countries like North Korea and China, like Burma and Vietnam, they give no indication of allowing a free local press any time soon. At a practical level, I understand that RFA's sunset restriction has hampered RFA's operations. It hampers the ability to go out and hire, obviously, on a permanent basis. You can't negotiate a lease or capital improvements and so forth. So it is important that we address this issue. I think it is important that we focus on the success of Radio Free Europe-Radio Liberty and Radio Free Asia. Radio Free Asia was founded in 1996, and it attempts to replicate what RFERL did in Eastern Europe. Its mission is to act as a surrogate news service, performing as a free press would if it was allowed to operate in any of these countries. Quite simply, its broadcasts are devoted to the enlightenment of people, to letting people know what is actually happening in their country and around the world. My interest in these broadcasts stems from a trip I took to Dresden, East Germany, years ago, where a man told me about the damage that these broadcasts were inflicting on Soviet tyranny and shared with me the effect that they seemed to be having, an effect without firing a shot, an effect in which the world was changed without the loss of a human life. Surrogate broadcasts, mainly radio but increasingly these new media, provide people with the news and information about their countries that otherwise they couldn't possibly obtain. As one observer has noted, this type of broadcasting irritates authoritarian regimes. It inspires democracies. It creates greater space for civil society. Yes, it does. It does change societies. Irritate totalitarian regimes? Yes, that has happened. China has attempted to erect a ``great wall of sound'' to block RFA transmissions. They are not successful, but they block some of them. Vietnam has heavily jammed RFA since the first days of the broadcast. You may not be able to get it inside the capital, but you can get it in the countryside. We know what news these Communist regimes are afraid of. In North Korea, broadcasting such as this is one of the only sources chipping away at Pyongyang's propaganda machine. When I talk to defectors out of North Korea, as often as not they have listened to these broadcasts, especially the senior civil servicemembers. And military members who defect tell about how it changed their view of the world. All around the globe, an information war is at play. Iran is spending heavily to block our broadcasting, while beaming its own message into Afghanistan and even the Balkans to sow division. Russia is broadcasting into southeastern Europe as well. Hugo Chavez is crippling local media while bolstering Venezuela's state broadcasts around Latin America, and he is preaching anti-Americanism with those broadcasts. Then there are the 150 sharia-friendly radio broadcasts in Pakistan's Swat Valley. Those are the broadcasts that the Taliban are making in Afghanistan and in northwest Pakistan. So, from Caracas to Tehran to Pyongyang, these totalitarian regimes understand that controlling information is central to their being. Radio Free Asia is one of our pieces on this chess board. I look forward to the passage of this legislation and to working with the chairman and ranking member to seek a more important standing for this critical organization.

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I'd like to thank the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Himes) for sponsoring this resolution. And this resolution recognizes the 75th anniversary of the passage of the Federal Credit Union Act and the vibrant Federal credit union community that was created as a result of this important piece of legislation. The purpose of this law passed back in 1934 was to make credit available and to promote savings through a national system of nonprofit cooperative credit unions. This act established what is now the federal credit union system, and it created the Bureau of Federal Credit Unions, which eventually became the National Credit Union Administration. Its intent was to charter and to regulate Federal credit unions. While much of the economic downturn originated in the financial crisis, credit unions, for the most part, did not play a major role in the excessive risk-taking, over-leveraging or lax underwriting standards. Unlike many of the other mortgage originators throughout the housing bubble, credit unions held most of the mortgages they originated. They held them in their portfolios. As of late last year, roughly 70 percent of credit union mortgage originations were held in portfolio with only 30 percent having been sold into the secondary market. Because credit unions generally took a conservative approach to banking, they avoided many of the problems that we saw in other institutions. This approach has left them well-suited to play a significant role in the economic recovery. Certainly, the 90 million credit union members nationwide will continue to rely on these institutions for their everyday banking needs. I think it is worth noting the impact credit unions have had on communities around the world. Credit unions provide a great opportunity for people to pool resources. Thereby, they create an important source of liquidity for personal or capital investment. Serving on the Foreign Affairs Committee has given me the opportunity to work on issues impacting countries around the globe and to see credit unions at work around the globe. In this capacity, I have seen credit unions take shape and give hope to thousands looking for a better life. Credit unions have helped and continue to help many African countries build a safe financial system for the first time. The fact of the matter is that credit unions work whether they're in Orange County, California or in Johannesburg, South Africa. They help families save hard-earned money, buy cars, purchase homes, and send their children to college. Indeed, credit unions are helping the futures of over 90 million members across this country and of countless others around the globe. In closing, I would like to again thank the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Himes) for taking the lead on this resolution. Hopefully, the credit unions that have served so many communities around our country will continue to do great work.

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Madam Speaker, I rise today to commend the success of the Asian American Hotel Owners Association (AAHOA). Founded in 1989, the AAHOA has grown to nearly 10,000 members who own more than 22,000 hotels valued at $60 billion. These small business owners have created or supported more than one million jobs. It is my understanding that their business acumen and dedication to the hospitality industry has made AAHOA a strong leader in the tourism sector of our economy. It was my honor to attend AAHOA's national convention earlier this year, where its members celebrated 20 years of excellence and service to their respective communities. Many AAHOA members belong to their local chambers of commerce and network with pro-business associations. I share many of the concerns of AAHOA's membership, including card check, our spiraling deficit, excessive litigation, and the proposed expansion of government into the health care arena. This is not what our country needs. We need to allow private sector businesses, like AAHOA members, to do what they do best: grow the economy, create new jobs, and provide safe, reliable, and affordable hospitality for millions of travelers. I want to recognize the officers and leadership of AAHOA for their service to the organization: Chairman Tarun S. Patel; Vice Chairman ChandraKant I. (C.K.) Patel; Treasurer Hemant D. (Henry) Patel; Secretary Alkesh R. (Al) Patel; past Chairman Ashwin (Ash) Patel; President Fred Schwartz; Washington District Regional Director and Co- Chairman of the Legislation Committee Paul (Prashant) Patel; Southwest Regional Director and Co-Chairman of the Legislation Committee Hitesh L. Patel; and Vice President for Fair Franchising and Government Affairs and General Counsel Laura Lee Blake. I understand that the AAHOA donated more than $100,000 for the victims of Hurricane Katrina, contributed more than $25,000 for the victims of the Asian tsunami in 2004, they have helped open doors for investment opportunities in India, and they partnered with the United Service Organizations (USO) to create the ``101,000 Room Nights for America'' program, which provided complimentary rooms for deployed members of the U.S. Armed Forces. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to recognize AAHOA and the Indian American community and look forward to working together in the future.

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Madam Speaker, pursuant to the Republican Leadership standards on earmarks, I am submitting the following information regarding earmarks I received as part of the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2010. Requesting Member: Representative Ed Royce Bill Number: H.R. 3326 Account: Operations & Maintenance--Defense Wide Legal Name of Requesting Entity: California State University Address of Requesting Entity: 401 Golden Shore, Long Beach, CA 90802- 4210 Description of Request: To provide $3,600,000 for the Strategic Language Initiative. Our nation's defense, diplomatic, and business employers need affordable, accessible strategic language instruction programs. The five California State University (CSU) campuses originally comprising the Strategic Language Initiative (SLI) Consortium worked collaboratively between 2005 and 2007 to create an effective model capitalizing on campus language expertise, student heritage language diversity, and local linguistic communities in Arabic, Mandarin, Korean, Persian, and Russian. No single university has the resources to meet this rapidly changing need for global and regional expertise in a wide range of world languages. National efforts have concentrated on developing flagship programs in languages such as Chinese, Arabic, Russian, and Korean, and creating demonstration materials for offering languages online. These efforts have not adequately tapped into the diverse heritage language communities in California, home to the densest concentration of linguistic and cultural diversity in the nation. Collectively, through the establishment of the CSU Consortium for the Strategic Language Initiative, the southern California campuses of the CSU system have collaborated to provide an innovative approach to intensive language learning that can be a model for other metropolitan consortia. These universities serve the most linguistically diverse populations in the country, with large heritage communities near different campuses, and collectively enroll over 100,000 students each year. Initial participating campuses are CSU Long Beach, Fullerton, Los Angeles, Northridge and San Bernardino. Preliminary assessment data collected from SLI participants showed an average language development progress that significantly exceeds traditional classroom and course-based program in Arabic, Korean, Mandarin, and Persian. Compared to other models of critical language development, the SLI Model is very cost- efficient and effective in advancing a large group of undergraduate and graduate students through several language proficiency levels across multiple campuses in a relatively short time period, for a fraction of the funding available to other programs. The Consortium's success in southern California can be enhanced by developing a similar model in northern California. This request would build the programs within the current Consortium, and add CSU campuses in San Francisco and San Jose. Lessons learned from the current 5 programs will shape the 2 new programs. The legacy of this federal investment will be an instructional model sustained by the CSU system that effectively responds to the national challenge to graduate more professionals with language and cultural knowledge and skills for an increasingly interdependent global world. Requesting Member: Representative Ed Royce Bill Number: H.R. 3326 Account: U.S. Army, Research, Development, Test & Evaluation (RDT&E) Legal Name of Requesting Entity: California State University, Fullerton Address: 800 N. State College Boulevard, Fullerton, California 92831 Description of Request: Provide $2,000,000 to continue the Prader- Willi Syndrome (PWS) Research project being led by the California State University, Fullerton. This funding would allow for the continuation of vital research on Prader-Willi Syndrome, which will help the Department of Defense and its many military families, with children affected by this disorder. More importantly, the research will serve as a resource to the Department for the treatment and study of obesity in general. The strong manifestation of obesity in children with PWS makes it an excellent model for the study and control of obesity in general. Military health experts have characterized the growing problem of obesity amongst active duty and potential recruits as a national security issue because of its overall impact on the health, performance, and readiness of our armed forces. Furthermore, obesity places a significant cost burden on the military and veterans' health care systems. This request is consistent with the intended and authorized purpose of the Army, RDT&E Account and consistent with the DoD mission. Funding will be used to provide better understanding of how individuals with PWS progress from an initial failure to thrive to morbid obesity. Improved understanding of the various nutritional phases of PWS will not only benefit the treatment and management of PWS, but also provide valuable insights into obesity in general. Researchers will also test the effectiveness of various intervention programs.

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, tort reform would create tens of billions in health care savings. There is no reform of the insane cost and arbitrary rewards of our malpractice system in this bill, because lawyers on the other side won't allow that in the bill. Instead, according to the Congressional Budget Office, we have the Democrat proposal, with its public option, which will increase costs in excess of $1 trillion and will cover millions of individuals here illegally, which will drive additional illegal immigration and will drive future costs for health care in this country. With the subsidized public option and existing businesses shifting out of their current plans into this subsidized public option, as many as 114 million individuals could lose their current insurance, leading to Federal bureaucrats, not patients and doctors, making important decisions about their treatment options. I urge we revisit this proposal.

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Madam Speaker, pursuant to the Republican Leadership standards on earmarks, I am submitting the following information regarding earmarks I received as part of H.R. 2847, the Energy and Water Appropriations Bill, 2010. Requesting Member: Representative Ed Royce Bill Number: H.R. 3288 Account: FTA--Buses and Bus Facilities Account Legal Name of Requesting Entity: The City of Anaheim Address of Requesting Entity: City of Anaheim, 200 S. Anaheim Blvd., Ste. 733, Anaheim, CA 92805. Description of Request: Provide $725,000 in FY 2010 to be used for the Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center (ARTIC). ARTIC will be the premier regional, multimodal transportation hub in Orange County. It is needed to accommodate the travel needs of 45 million annual visitors and will strategically facilitate bus, rail and air travel. The ARTIC project has been federally authorized in two previous transportation bills: 1991 ISTEA and 1998 TEA-21. These authorizations illustrate a federal commitment to the project.

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Madam Speaker, pursuant to the Republican Leadership standards on earmarks, I am submitting the following information regarding earmarks I received as part of the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services and Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010. Requesting Member: Representative Ed Royce Bill Number: H.R. 3293 Account: Higher Education FIPSE Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Cal State University, Fullerton Address of Requesting Entity: 800 North State College Blvd, Fullerton, CA 92834 Description of Request: Provide $350,000 in FY 2010 to build upon existing intermediate level language courses to develop a full Bachelor's Degree program, a Minor, and an International Business Sequence in Vietnamese Language and Culture designed to prepare a new generation of Vietnamese Americans and others to take advantage of the rapidly growing business and professional opportunities resulting from trade between the United States and Vietnam. Funding would be used for faculty program development; graduate assistants; salaries; materials, resources and language lab/library; internships; and facilities and administration. Requesting Member: Representative Ed Royce Bill Number: H.R. 3293 Account: Higher Education FIPSE Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Cal State University, Fullerton Address of Requesting Entity: 800 North State College Blvd, Fullerton, CA 92834 Description of Request: Provide $300,000 in FY 2010 to establish the Center for the Advancement of Teaching and Learning in Mathematics and Science (CATLMS). The proposed center addresses a national problem. One of the core drivers of innovation in the U.S. is its strength in STEM disciplines. Yet, in an increasingly interconnected world, the U.S. has not been keeping pace with its economic competitors. Funds are requested for to support a Director and one supporting staff member in their work to carry out research studies, pursue external funding, and develop collaborations with private sector parties, educational institutions, and governmental agencies. Faculty would be released from their teaching duties to accomplish the objectives for which funding is being requested. Requesting Member: Representative Ed Royce Bill Number: H.R. 3293 Account: Elementary & Secondary Education (includes FIE) Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Orange County Department of Education Address of Requesting Entity: 200 Kalmus Dr, Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Description of Request: Provide $400,000 in FY 2010 to implement Internet safety programs for all Orange County. Federal law requires all schools receiving E-Rate funding to implement Internet safety programs, yet includes no funding to achieve this requirement. State and local agencies place responsibility for teaching youth Internet safety in the hands of educators who have not received adequate professional development in this area. Interactive teacher training will serve as an effective tool to educate children to safely, securely, and ethically use the Internet and a variety of other technologies. Funding will be used for programmatic expenses, including software and training, substitute teachers, and meeting materials and expenses.

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, accompanying the spike in the private sector job losses throughout our economy, we have seen a massive government intrusion into the private market. This Chamber recently passed cap- and-tax legislation which gives Washington 17 percent over the economy. If we move towards nationalized health care--the next priority for the administration--it could shift another 16 percent of our economy towards Washington, D.C. The Federal Government already runs General Motors and Chrysler. It now has a huge equity stake in dozens of our financial institutions. We've witnessed a massive $800 billion stimulus package that has failed to deliver the promise of an increase in job growth. And this flawed approach has failed to deliver because government spending does not increase the size of the economic pie. What it simply does is take money out of the private sector and shift it to the government. Real economic growth has always and will always come from the private sector. And instead of continuing this trend, shifting our economy to one centered on bureaucrats, which is exponentially increasing our deficit and killing off the private sector, we should be spurring job creation.

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Madam Speaker, I don't know where this ends. This cap-and- trade bill would give Washington 17 percent control of the economy. Nationalizing health care, which is next on the majority agenda here, would give it another 16 percent. The Federal Government right now runs General Motors. The government has a huge equity stake in many of our financial institutions. This Congress is relentlessly politicizing our economy. It has got to stop. And this bill is an expensive job killer that won't achieve its objectives, and I will just give an example--and that's what's left out of the bill. The bill does nothing to encourage nuclear power plant construction, a sure job creator, a source of clean energy. The Department of Energy reports that the best way for utilities to reduce carbon emissions is nuclear energy, yet nothing here in this bill. This bill is a bureaucrat's dream, the scheme that we see before us. It gives the EPA, the DOE, the IRS, and many other bureaucracies levers over our energy markets. Some in Congress will have these bureaucrats in their cross-hairs aiming to game the system as this massively complex plan is implemented. I oppose this bill.

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Madam Speaker, pursuant to the Republican Leadership standards on earmarks, I am submitting the following information regarding earmarks I received as part of H.R. 2847, the Commerce, Justice, Science and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill 2010. Requesting Member: Representative Ed Royce Bill Number: H.R. 2847 Account: Office of Justice Programs--Byrne Discretionary Grants Account Legal Name of Requesting Entity: The City of Westminster Address of Requesting Entity: City of Westminster, 8200 Westminster Blvd., Westminster, CA 92683 Description of Request: Provide $290,000 in FY 2010 to be used for the Criminal Enterprise Initiative, following the Year 2 federal funding provided in 2009. The detectives assigned to the Little Saigon Substation are in operation, specifically focusing on identifying, investigating and dismantling criminal enterprises, having both national and international implications, within the Little Saigon area. Under this project, the Westminster Police Department's Crimes Against Public Unit occupies office space within the Little Saigon district of Westminster, placing a powerful ``investigative engine'' into the heart of the area where Asian Criminal Enterprises operate. The total cost of project is $1,061,181 (local match of $748,981).

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of Congressman Peter King of New York's legislation. I think it's very important at this point in time to recognize, as we have discussed today, the importance of that relationship that we have with South Korea and to recognize also just how much of a test North Korea's provocative actions have been for our allies in South Korea. If we think back to the aftereffect of the Korean War and how South Korea lay in ruins and think today about the fact that South Korea has one of the highest per-capita incomes in the world and yet we look at North Korea and it has the lowest, it is truly dramatic. I have been in North Korea, and it's phenomenal to me to see the kind of devastation that that misrule has led to in terms of the population, the stunted growth, the malnutrition that you can see when you meet people. But particularly for our friends in South Korea, who today are one of our strongest trading partners, particularly for them at this point in time, when we see this North Korean foreign policy, which has always been aggressive but lately has included long-range missile tests; has included three-stage ICBMs; includes booting U.N. inspectors from the country; the sentencing of Laura Ling and Euna Lee, two young American journalists, sentencing them to 12 years hard labor; the ongoing counterfeiting of U.S. $100 bills; missile proliferation out of North Korea; drug trafficking and other illicit activities, so many illicit activities that I think some of us are confounded by the fact that almost half of the hard currency that goes into that regime is money they make through illicit activities. And now North Korea has conducted a second underground nuclear test in 3 years. We are in the midst of a leadership struggle, and many expect as a result more provocations, more missile tests, even more nuclear tests perhaps over the ensuing months. Weeks after the North Korean test, the U.N. Security Council has passed a watered-down resolution. And just as the previous administration did after North Korea's October 2006 nuclear test, this U.N. action will be touted. It will be touted by our spokesman as an effective response. Well, we've heard this story before, unfortunately. It is not an effective response, and it is because, frankly, with the lowest common denominator U.N. resolution approach, where China and Russia get that opportunity to water down that resolution so that it won't be enforced effectively, frankly, we come to a conclusion. And the conclusion for me--and I've followed this issue for many years--is that the United States can achieve an awful lot by deploying measures to further undercut North Korea's economy and to target its proliferation activities. We have found that the source of doing that before; we should do it again. Past attempts to squeeze the wallet of North Korea have proven very successful. When banks from across Asia refused to do business with the North Koreans after a bank in Macau was shut down by U.S. sanctions for laundering counterfeit U.S. currency for North Korea, it brought enormous pressure. It was at a point in North Korea where the previous ruler, Kim Jong Il, temporarily the ruler, could not pay his generals. And that was until this effort was dropped with the belief that North Korea would bargain its nuclear program away. Those sanctions were lifted. North Korea got back on its feet. The work that they were doing on missile proliferation could begin again because they had the hard currency again. There were reports that North Korean counterfeiting of our $100 bills has been ramped up in recent months. News reports indicate that South Korea has given us the information on between 10 and 20 North Korean bank accounts, most of them in China, one of them in Switzerland. One former U.S. official has called that Macau bank--and I have been in Macau and we have seen those $100 bills--he calls that the tip of the iceberg of North Korean illicit activity. We know what to do now. We know what worked in terms of shutting them down when we were willing to do it. So if we have the will, we can do that again. Mr. Speaker, North Korea's second nuclear test in 3 years offers a silver lining: clarity of the intentions of that regime. In case we didn't know it before, in case we didn't suspect it when we found that they were helping Syria on the banks of the Euphrates, when they were helping Syria develop a nuclear program, North Korea has dropped the pretense of being willing to negotiate away its nuclear program. We have learned, as Peter King, our colleague from New York, has told us, about the work done on uranium enrichment in addition to the plutonium program. They had a secret underground program that they never divulged to us. South Korean President Lee Myung-bak, who will be visiting Washington this week, advocated for a new approach with respect to the Six-Party Talks in a weekend interview. That South Korea, our ally for over 60 years, is pressing for a fresh approach should speak volumes to us, and I hope we are listening.

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. I rise in support of this very important legislation, and I think there are a few points that we should keep in mind. The first is that Pakistan is a tinderbox; its government is very weak, and social and economic trends are moving in the wrong direction and that is fostering extremism. The Pakistan Government has killed many militants over the last few weeks, but the insurgency remains potent. And, clearly, Pakistan is going to be troubled for some time. Second, this region is the center of international terrorism. And most importantly, Pakistan has a growing nuclear arsenal. Now, we can either stay engaged and try to shape events, or go to the sidelines and see a bad situation become a possible disaster. Third, to date, Pakistan has taken us for a ride. Since 9/11, we have provided Pakistan with some $12.3 billion. We spent billions before that. I've been to Pakistan a number of times; I have seen what has happened without conditions. I have also seen the need there. A school that I visited in the North-West Frontier has now been blown up, and madrasas now educate kids there in jihad. I have been to Peshawar. I've been to the regions where this militancy has to be confronted. Little has improved without conditions, and there has been significant waste and corruption. So this legislation is the proposal we have with the best conditions. It best conditions that aid. It takes the position that while we must work with the Pakistani Government, our experience demands greater accountability from that government. No blank checks. That the Pakistan Government denounces this bill's conditions, frankly, should be a selling point. I do, however, have one significant reservation. The trade provision that the Rules Committee majority added to this bill is sheer window dressing. As this bill goes to conference with the Senate, as the process continues, this trade provision must be liberalized. Increasing trade should be an important goal. In short, the situation in Pakistan is dire, and with its nuclear arsenal, the stakes could not be any higher. We need all the accountability we can get. And that's why I support this bill.

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, let me say that Pakistan is at a very critical juncture. We have radical militants. We have radical madrasas that are graduating an ever-increasing number of jihadists out of those schools, and we have a weak government with nuclear weapons. This Pakistan bill is a good attempt to guide our engagement in Pakistan in a way that gives us the best chance to see that our aid is spent in a constructive and responsible fashion, which hasn't been the case. I commend its author, Chairman Berman. As to the rule, I think it is problematic. The State Department authorization bill, quite simply, spends money we don't have, over a third increase at a time when we're borrowing money from China and elsewhere. Amendments to cut this amount were not made in order. I think that was a mistake. I am very disappointed, let me add, though, at the addition done by the Rules Committee of a flawed trade provision. Don't get me wrong. Trade can do far, far more than aid for Pakistan's economic development and social stability, which is in our interest. The problem is that this provision is far too restrictive and burdensome as to do any good. In fact, it may be harmful to trade. At a time when Pakistan is perhaps the greatest threat facing us, this is no time for window dressing and business as usual. This preferential trade provision as it came out of Rules Committee is simply unacceptable.

Mr. ROYCE

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

Mr. ROYCE. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I currently serve as the ranking member of the Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Terrorism. Previously, for 8 years, I served as the chairman of the Africa Subcommittee, so I long have followed the issues surrounding Eritrea and the Horn of Africa. And this particular amendment calls on the Secretary of State to designate Eritrea as a ``state sponsor of terrorism.'' The Horn of Africa is a combustible mix. You have al Qaeda, you have piracy, a failed state in Somalia, border tensions, and a key instigator of this violence has been the government of Eritrea. As the amendment indicates, U.N. report after U.N. report cites Eritrea for providing arms and military training to members of the Shabaab, and that's an al Qaeda-linked group that has been designated by the United States as a ``foreign terrorist organization.'' Mr. Chairman, if you take a look at this picture which appeared in a U.N. report, this is the actual Shabaab fighter who shot down a cargo plane with that shoulder-fired missile supplied by Eritrea. And the reason that we know that is the propaganda footage used by this al Qaeda-linked organization in order to try to recruit fighters to their goal. And they showed the footage of the successful attack on the cargo plane. Now, what if that had been a civilian jetliner? How many lives would have been lost? Indeed, our FBI is greatly concerned about Somali Americans who have gone missing from American cities. They are worried that they have gone to Somalia and are linking up with these terrorist groups. And it is Eritrea that is providing the weapons, including shoulder-fired missiles that can take out an airliner and that are providing this military training. The case for adding Eritrea to the state sponsor of terrorism list is compelling. It's even overwhelming. It has been so for some time. The Obama administration's Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs, Johnny Carson, has noted that ``we have clear evidence that Eritrea is supporting extremists,'' and that ``the government of Eritrea continues to supply weapons and munitions to extremists and terrorist elements.'' And this isn't new. The previous administration took a similar view of the destructive role that Eritrea plays in the horn. Some will say that this is counterproductive or the wrong time. Well, it has been a delicate time in this region for a decade now, and it's gotten a whole lot worse. It is a complex region. One thing, though, is not complex; this is a clear national security threat. U.N. reports have noted that over 100 Shabaab terrorists have traveled to Eritrea for their military training at an Eritrean military base and then traveled back. The same U.N. reports have identified Eritrea as a ``principal violator'' of the arms embargo on Somalia and have asserted that these violations ``take place with the knowledge and authorization of senior officials within the Eritrean government.'' Plainly, it is state policy of Eritrea to support international terrorism. The U.N. Security Council has made similar statements citing Eritrea's destructive role in the horn, and so have many neighboring countries. So it is time that Eritrea should be named a state sponsor of terrorism. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. ROYCE. Let me respond that, first of all, I have a great deal of respect for Chairman Payne. We have worked together for years on Africa issues. We worked together on Darfur, Sudan. But this is the very issue of why we disagree here, because all Members should know that it was Eritrea that was the first country to invite Sudan's President, al- Bashir, to visit Eritrea following an arrest warrant for his crimes against humanity in Darfur. Now, with respect to the issue, I can think of numerous issues and times when Congress has had to push--and we'll take Sudan as an example, since the example I'm giving here is an example in which Eritrea has welcomed al-Bashir at a time when the international community is trying to get him to prevent the crimes that he has committed in Darfur. We have had to push to take more assertive actions. We did that with genocide in Sudan. And in my view, there is nothing wrong now, especially with respect to a state sponsorship of terrorism. I think that the Assistant Secretary of State for Africa's words speak for themselves. Again, this is Secretary Carson before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee last month, in which he said, We have clear evidence that Eritrea is supporting these extremist elements, including credible reports that they continue to supply weapons and munitions to terrorist elements. I ask for an ``aye'' vote.