Ed Royce

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I am rising today to recognize the 1-year anniversary of the brutal murder of Hrant Dink, the newspaper editor and leading figure in the Armenian genocide debate in Turkey. On January 19, 2007, freedom of speech suffered a setback as Dink was shot outside his office in Istanbul. As a Turkish citizen of Armenian descent, Dink had gained notoriety in Turkish society for the court cases brought against him in which he faced jail time for simply talking of the Armenian genocide. While many will give speeches to remember Hrant Dink, the most meaningful tribute would be a rescinding of article 301 of the Turkish penal code that outlaws ``insults to Turkishness.'' Under this law, journalists like Dink and Nobel Laureate Orhan Pamuk continue to be persecuted by draconian laws that seek to stifle debate or discussion on matters that could be seen as insulting to Turkish identity. It is my sincere hope that the Turkish government will use this occasion to reflect upon this restrictive article and rescind it before it does more harm.

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize Korean American Day, which was held this past Sunday to honor the achievements, to honor the contributions of Korean Americans to our country. Back on January 13 of 1903, the first Korean immigrants came here to the United States; and since that time, Korean Americans have taken root and thrived in this country through their strong ties, their hard work, their commitment to their rich heritage and values, education, and entrepreneurship. But, Madam Speaker, we have an ally and friend in South Korea, and they have been a friend for the decades. Over this time, South Korea has emerged as a major economic power, our seventh largest trading partner. It is vital that Congress take up and pass the Korean-U.S. trade agreement. Let me tell you why: this particular agreement, the U.S. International Trade Commission, just released its report. They say this agreement can benefit the economy of the United States of America to the tune of over $10 billion, between $10 billion and $11.9 billion. We stand to gain if this passes. It's vital that we continue to open up new markets for our goods and services. This agreement accomplishes that.

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. I thank the gentleman. I do rise in opposition to this bill and to explain a line of reasoning that the Wall Street Journal and other critics have pointed out on their editorial pages. This proposal, in fact, is a trial lawyer's dream. What this bill does is it, with very murky language, forbids banks for signing up borrowers for what is termed ``overly expensive loans.'' It requires banks to make sure that the consumer has a ``reasonable ability to repay the loan'' and insist that loans must be ``solely in the best interest of the consumer.'' This kind of murky language would invite litigation from every borrower who misses a payment. The Wall Street Journal says that if this bill becomes law, we can expect to read billboards reading, ``Behind on your mortgage? For relief, call 1-800 Sue-Your-Banker.'' For the first time, under this act, banks that securitize mortgages would be made explicitly liable for violations of lending laws. This is a version of secondary liability that holds the bundlers and resellers of mortgages responsible for any mistakes of the original lenders. Now, the reselling of mortgages has been both a boon to the housing liquidity and risk diversification and, therefore, to lower interest rates for all of us that have taken out a loan. So to the extent that the bill adds a new risk element to securitizing subprime loans, and it surely will, the main loser will be the subprime borrower who will pay higher rates if he or she can get a loan at all. Now, this debate is occurring during a challenging period for our mortgage market. What has transpired over the last few months has spread throughout our capital markets. It has the potential to slow the economy even further if we do this wrong. This bill is the wrong approach. Now, we have had some signs of self-correction in the mortgage market. Lenders are underwriting mortgages much more carefully as a result of market discipline. Products which have proven to be unfit for certain borrowers such low-doc loans, short-term hybrid ARMS, interest-only products, those are becoming increasingly hard to find. Those have been pushed out of the market. But the legislation before us today ignores such advances. Not only does this bill fail to account for the progress made in the market, it has the potential to seriously restrict access to credit for millions of Americans looking to purchase a home or refinance their mortgage. In its present form, a borrower will have the ability to recover all of the principal and interest paid over the entire history of the loan as long as he can convince a court that he didn't have a reasonable ability to pay, as I said. At the time the loan was originated, again, it is not hard to imagine how language such as this is going to be abused and run up the costs of home mortgages for everyone.

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition as ranking member of the Foreign Affairs Terrorism Subcommittee. And I can share this: there has not been a terrorist attack on our soil since 9/11, and that is due in part to the improved surveillance in real-time that we are able to conduct against foreign terrorists. There is no disputing that. I cannot help but feel that many of my colleagues have become so blinded by their hatred of this administration that they have put the threat from radical jihadists in the back of their mind. But given the threat, it is unfathomable that we would weaken our most effective preventive tool, and that is exactly what this bill does. Before we unilaterally disarm, before we hobble our ability to listen in real-time to the very real terrorists who are plotting against our country around this globe, shouldn't we have something of an accounting of the supposed civil liberties price we are paying? I asked the Congressional Research Service for such an accounting. They reported there is no available evidence of the type of privacy violations critics are pointing at. The case can't be proven. But under this bill, for the first time this bill would stop intelligence professionals from conducting surveillance of foreign persons in foreign countries unless they can read the mind of their terrorist targets and guarantee that they would not call into the United States, that they would not call one of their people here. This is more protection than Americans get under court-ordered warrants in Mob and other criminal cases here in the United States that we are now granting these terrorists under this act. We are, frankly, confronting a virtual caliphate. Radical jihadists are physically dispersed, but they are united through the Internet; and they use that tool to recruit and plot their terrorist attacks. They use electronic communications for just such a purpose. They are very sophisticated in that. So how has the West attempted to confront that? Well, the British use electronic surveillance in real-time. They used it last year to stop the attack on 10 transatlantic flights, and they prevented that attack in August of last year by wiretapping. The French authorities used wiretaps to lure jihadists basically into custody; and, thereby, they prevented a bomb attack. Given this threat, it is unfathomable that we would weakened our most effective preventive tool, and that is exactly what this bill does. Before we passed the Protect America Act in August, the Director of National Intelligence told this Congress we are losing up to two-thirds of our intelligence on terrorist targets.

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlelady for yielding, and I want to take a moment and thank Chairman John Tanner, as well as of course Ranking Member Ileana Ros-Lehtinen and Chairman Lantos for their support in bringing this bill to the floor of the House of Representatives. I would also like to thank Congresswoman Diane Watson. She is the coauthor of this resolution, and in August Congresswoman Watson and myself traveled to South Korea as Chair and vice-Chair of the U.S.- Republic of Korea Interparliamentary Exchange. We also had an opportunity to go to North Korea at that time. In Seoul, South Korea, we held a day-long discussion with our counterparts in the National Assembly there in South Korea and took part in a forum of parliamentarians from across the globe. We had parliamentarians there from seven different countries to discuss the plight of North Korean refugees, and this resolution is a product of those discussions and what we learned from the defectors that we talked to, and we listened to the defectors during these hearings. Mr. Speaker, we're all too familiar with the miserable human rights conditions in North Korea, and I would just remind the Members of this body of reports by the State Department and NGOs that paint a very grim picture. There is a total denial of political, civil, and religious liberties. There is no dissent or criticism allowed of Kim Jong-Il. The media is tightly controlled there by the regime. Severe, severe physical abuse is inflicted on any citizen who violates these laws and restrictions. NGOs describe a system of concentration camps. They say this is akin to the Soviet gulags, and they house somewhere up to 200,000 inmates. Food shortages are a regular problem because the regime distributes food based on perceived loyalty and, of course, favors the ruling elite and the military. This dismal state has led a large number of North Koreans, perhaps as many as 300,000, to cross into China. There they seek food, and they're looking for work, and hopefully from their standpoint, they're looking for resettlement in South Korea. It is thought that nearly 75 percent of these refugees are women, and according to the NGOs that study this problem, 90 percent of those women end up trafficked. In northeast China, North Korean refugees live in constant fear of being rounded up by Chinese authorities, and this despite the international obligations that China is supposed to keep. China forcibly repatriates these refugees; and for many of them, it's effectively a death sentence. Some are shot on the spot. Some go to these concentration camps or work camps. Many of them live out their lives in these concentration camps. The Government of North Korea deems leaving their country a crime, in some cases a capital offense. If not that, the expense is the gulag. China's mistreatment of these refugees is not new but has really intensified, according to the State Department, in the last couple of years. During 2006, several thousand North Koreans were forcibly detained and forcibly returned to North Korea, the State Department reports. As part of its stepped-up campaign of repatriation, Chinese authorities reportedly also have established new detention centers along the border with North Korea to accommodate greater numbers of North Korean prisoners prior to the repatriation. The Congressional- Executive Commission on China, on which I serve, recently released its annual report finding that during the past 1 or 2 years the Chinese Government has intensified its efforts to forcibly repatriate North Korean refugees, in part as security preparation for the 2008 Olympic Games. These refugees deserve better. Certainly, Kim Chun-hee did. Ms. Kim is a North Korean woman in her 30s who sought refuge at a school in Beijing in December of 2005, only to be repatriated, this despite attempts by the United States and others to raise her case to the Chinese Government to convince the Chinese Government not to do this. To this day it is not known whether she was executed or whether she is still alive. There are thousands of similar stories. Those associated with humanitarian groups who assist North Korean refugees in northeast China are also targeted by Chinese officials, and this includes U.S. citizens. Last month, American businessman Steve Kim was released from a Chinese prison after serving 4 years. His supposed crime was helping North Korean refugees who had escaped their homeland and were hiding in China hoping to make their way to South Korea. Mr. Kim, who recently spoke on Capitol Hill about his experiences, recounted, ``When I was in prison, I saw North Korean defectors who I shared the prison cell with beaten to a pulp by prison guards.'' Now, this is in China. This is before they are sent back to North Korea. We have documented the kind of treatment they get when they are sent back. This resolution sends a strong message to Beijing. This practice must stop. Specifically, the resolution calls on China to honor its obligations under the 1951 U.N. convention relating to the status of refugees and its 1967 protocol, and to honor that by halting the forced repatriation of these refugees, terminating the practice of automatically classifying all North Korean border crossers as illegal economic migrants and granting the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees unfettered access to get into these areas to see these refugees. China is signed up to respect refugees. It is past time for them to live up to the protocols they have signed to do this. The human rights situation in North Korea is a nightmare. These human rights abuses are worthy of this House's attention, because North Koreans are suffering. Two million were killed at the hands of this regime over this last decade. They also tell us something about the regime we are expecting to carry out commitments under the Six-Party Talks on North Korea's nuclear weapons program. It tells you something about this regime. I will quote Andrei Sakharov, the Soviet dissident who once said, ``A country that does not respect the rights of its own people will not respect the rights of its neighbors.'' Teeing off that quote, Jay Lefkowitz, the State Department's Special Envoy for Human Rights in North Korea, wrote in The Wall Street Journal last year, ``North Korea is a prime example of a regime that doesn't respect either. It wouldn't have surprised Sakharov that a government that inflicts on its citizens repression reminiscent of the most cruel totalitarian rulers of the 20th century is today counterfeiting U.S. currency, trafficking in narcotics, building a nuclear arsenal, and threatening other nations.'' In testimony last week before the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Assistant Secretary Christopher Hill reported that he is moving the ball forward with North Korea in respect to disabling their nuclear program. I hope he is right. Part of the February agreement to do so involves a U.S. commitment to move toward full diplomatic relations with North Korea. The administration insists that it still has a clear eye on the North Korea human rights situation. However, the Congressional Research Service reports that Ambassador Hill increasingly has linked normalization of U.S.-North Korean relations solely to a satisfactory settlement of the nuclear issue. This body must let it be known that relations with North Korea will be far from normal as long as North Korea continues to treat its people as we have heard about today. I urge the passage of this important resolution.

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. I'm rising to oppose the rule. For the first time, this bill would stop intelligence professionals from conducting surveillance of foreign persons in foreign countries unless they can read the mind of their terrorist targets and guarantee that they would not call the United States or one of their people in the United States. This is more protection than Americans get under court-ordered warrants in mob and other criminal cases. So the issue we're debating today is very important. It is a matter of life and death essentially. I serve as ranking member of the Terrorism and Nonproliferation Subcommittee. That there has not been a terrorist attack on our soil since 9/11 is due to the improved surveillance in real-time that we're able to conduct against foreign terrorists. That good record, though, in no way should lead us to discount the jihadists, because the image of Osama bin Laden's allies operating in some remote terrain somewhere may give the impression that our foes are isolated. They are not isolated. We are confronting a virtual caliphate. Radical jihadists are physically dispersed, but they're united through the Internet, and they use that tool to recruit and plot their terrorist attacks. They use electronic communications for just such a purpose, and they're very sophisticated in that use. So how has the West attempted to confront that? Well, the British use electronic surveillance in real-time, and they used it last year to stop the attack on 10 transatlantic flights. They prevented that attack in August of last year by wiretapping. The French authorities used wiretaps to lure jihadists basically into custody and prevented a bomb attack. Given this threat, it is unfathomable that we'd weaken our most effective preventative tool, and that's exactly what this bill does. Before we passed the Protect America Act in August, the Director of National Intelligence told Congress that we are losing up to two-thirds of our intelligence on terrorist targets. Admiral McConnell went on to testify, ``We're actually missing a significant portion of what we should be getting.'' Though Admiral McConnell has served both Democrat and Republican administrations with distinction, now his credibility has been attacked. I'd ask those so distrustful: Go ahead, discount his estimate, cut them in half, say we'd lose one-third of our intelligence by passing this bill. Isn't that too much to give up? I don't want to lose a single percent of our intelligence on terrorist communications. With nuclear and biological material floating around this globe, we don't have that margin of error. We've heard the ACLU concerns, but before we unilaterally disarm, before we hobble our ability to listen in real-time to the very real terrorists who are attacking our troops in Iraq every day, shouldn't we have something of an accounting of the supposed civil liberties price we're paying? Frankly, I don't see the troubling cases. What I do see is the very misguided concern for the civil liberties of foreigners having conversations with terrorists. This bill grants privacy protection to foreigners, those believed to be terrorists, by requiring the intelligence community to seek court orders to collect foreign intelligence on foreign targets. This process in the past has clogged the FISA Court, it has wasted untold intelligence hours, it has pulled Arabic and Urdu and Farsi speakers off of listening to terrorist cases and put them on filing hundreds of pages of paperwork. FISA restrictions hindered the search for kidnapped Americans in Iraq. My colleagues, it has come down to this: Are we interested in best protecting American lives, or giving away privacy rights to foreigners involved in conversations with terrorists?

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Madam Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment, and I rise in opposition to the financing of an affordable housing fund. I don't believe that this fund should be included in legislation to update and improve the Federal Housing Administration. I hope my colleagues will join me in opposing the underlying bill if this provision is included in the legislation. In 2005, I offered an amendment in the Committee on Financial Services to strike the creation of an affordable housing fund. Part of this is philosophical, but ideas have consequences and bad ideas have bad consequences in the long run. As I said 2 years ago, this fund is straight out of central planning 101. It should not be supported by this body. I think by now we should be able to agree that government housing grants do little to increase homeownership levels in this country. If these funds must be derived, they should be geared towards ensuring that the FHA remains solvent rather than supporting an experiment in socialism here. Furthermore, this fund could not be proposed at a worse time, as we see the current spike in foreclosures in the subprime mortgage market, many of which are backed by the Federal Housing Administration. Homeownership rates improve when real interest rates are low and when consumer incomes are rising, are going up. I believe free market policies are the most effective way to generate those results, creeping towards socialism will not. This fund will waste resources and provide false hope for those who wish to increase homeownership.

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I also rise in support of the Vietnam Human Rights Act of 2007. I join Congressman Smith, and the efforts made by others here that have been tireless, the strategy of trying to shine some light on Vietnam, trying to get the international community to look at what is happening there. I've worked with Congressman Smith on this legislation since 2001, and I know the importance of having it passed, but also, I know the trouble that it has been met with in the other body. And if we can overcome the objections of a few in the other body, this bill will be an important tool in pressing Hanoi to end its wanton disregard for human rights. I think the necessity of this legislation is because since early this year the crackdown has intensified in Hanoi, in Vietnam to such an extent that especially students, especially spokesmen for religious organizations there are receiving these one-hour show trials where afterwards they're being sent to a penitentiary, 8 years in the case of Father Ly. It was 14-some years ago when he was sent away the first time. And Mr. Speaker, I've had the opportunity there, in Vietnam, to meet with the venerable Thich Quang Do, when he was under house arrest, and Le Quang Liem and see the incredible repression that they face, and to see what is really a slow strangulation of the culture and of the traditional religion as the state attempts to rewrite religion without the support of the religious leaders, and thus come down hard on those religious leaders and try to remove them from society and try to imprison them certainly when they speak out. As Human Rights Watch said, this is the worst crackdown that we have seen in Vietnam in 20 years. In the past year, Vietnamese officials brought this harassment to religious leaders and political dissidents and student activists to these new draconian levels that, unfortunately, force us to act here. This bill's focus on Vietnam suppression of the democratic movement and its tight control over the media will be an important component in bringing change. Why? Because with this legislation, Radio Free Asia will now better be able to bring objective news and to be a surrogate voice for opinions and news outside of the state-sponsored propaganda, so the Vietnamese people will hear of the spread of democratic values in Asia. Frankly, the spread of democratic values in Asia is critical to U.S. security interests. It is important to note that Vietnam has recently ratcheted up its efforts to block radio broadcasts from Radio Free Asia. This tells me that not only are these broadcasts having a positive effect in combating state propaganda, but Hanoi is feeling increased political pressure. This bill provides the means to overcome radio jamming and the funds for continued broadcasts. So, Mr. Speaker, I urge passage of the bill. I think it sends a firm message to Hanoi that abuse of this kind to nonviolent citizens in the country will not be met with silence, but, frankly, that we will take action not only in terms of the broadcasting, but this also authorizes our administration to provide U.S. assistance through appropriate nongovernmental organizations and the Human Rights Defenders Fund for the support of the individuals and organizations to promote human rights and to promote nonviolent democratic change inside the country. So besides capping U.S. nonhumanitarian assistance, this other leverage will be very helpful in terms of trying to protect the human rights and dignity of the students and of the religious leaders right now that are facing such persecution inside Vietnam.

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res. 121, the Comfort Women Resolution--a resolution that I have supported since its initial introduction in the 109th Congress. Beginning in the 1930s, the Imperial Government of Japan orchestrated the enslavement of up to 200,000 young Korean women. Many were abducted from their homes and sent to Japanese military brothels. Others were lured from their homes under the false pretense of employment. In what was one of the worst cases of human trafficking of the 20th century, the trauma that these women suffered drove many to conceal their past, either too embarrassed or scared to speak of it. The surviving victims deserve the recognition that they so desire. To this day, Japan maintains that this issue is closed and the sufferings of individuals inflicted in the war have already been dealt by treaties normalizing its ties with other Asian countries. Some have pointed to Prime Minister Abe's April 27th statement as a formal apology, yet both the Prime Minister himself and Japan's Foreign Ministry went on record to disavow any alleged apology. It is important that the Japanese government confronts this dark part of Japanese history. This resolution is as much about today as it is about yesterday. The world's strength to oppose killing today is made greater by accountability, for actions present, but also past. It's weakened by denial of accountability and obfuscation of past acts. History is a continuum that affects today and tomorrow. It's much harder to get tomorrow right if we get yesterday wrong. I urge my colleagues to support this important resolution.

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I support this amendment to keep the subsidies for sugar from increasing in this bill. The inflation of sugar prices that our misguided sugar policy drives costs U.S. families a total of almost $2 billion every year. Every time you buy chocolate or breakfast cereal or any product that contains sugar, you pay a premium, and these subsidies inflate the price of sugar for Americans to twice the world price. The subsidies are driving businesses out of the country. A GAO study confirms that 42 percent of these subsidies, by the way, go to just 1 percent. So I urge my colleagues to put an end to these harmful handouts.

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would prevent the expenditures of any funds for the purpose of enforcing the judgment or imposing the sentences handed down in the case of United States v. Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean. As most of you know, President Bush so far has rejected appeals by many of us for a pardon for these two Border Patrol agents who are now sitting in Federal prison for shooting a professional drug smuggler who worked for the cartels, who was fleeing back across the Rio Grande. These two agents are now serving 11 and 12 years, respectively. I have talked to many Border Patrol agents about these cases, about the circumstances they face down there. I haven't found any that don't support Jose Compean and Ignacio Ramos, and certainly their association supports them fully. In the meantime, of course, the great irony here is the smuggler they apprehended for attempting to smuggle some 750 pounds of drugs into our country is free. The U.S. attorney here claimed that the agents fired on an unarmed man, but how do we know that? Because the U.S. attorney asked the jury to take the smuggler's word for that and to disbelieve the two Border Patrol agents who testified they thought he had a gun. I can tell you I held numerous hearings down there on the border in Texas in the past, over 400 attacks on our Border Patrol agents. The family members of the individual here who was smuggling say he would not move drugs without a gun on him. That is what his own family says about him. Frankly, it does take a stretch of the imagination to believe that an employee of a cartel down there would not have a gun somewhere near him moving this quantity of drugs. Now, the U.S. attorney said the agents failed to file a report for their actions, and that proved they tried to cover up the shooting. I am not sure that was true. Two of their supervisors were on the scene within minutes, and the agents made a verbal report to them, according to Ramos and Compean. Failing to file a written report is an administration violation and normally punishable by a 3-day suspension, but it is the supervisor who is supposed to file that report, as I understand it, not the agents. The U.S. attorney says that Ramos and Compean were convicted by a jury in Texas after all the evidence was presented. But, the U.S. Attorney, his team, prevented crucial evidence from being admitted in the trial. For example, the jury did not learn that the smuggler committed a second smuggling operation while he was under the grant of immunity given by the U.S. attorney. That information was withheld from the jury while it was argued that the agents, that the Border Patrol agents, couldn't have known he was a drug smuggler, even though there was this quantity of drugs in his van. The U.S. attorney had prosecutorial discretion in choosing to do this, and he chose to throw the book at Ramos and Compean while giving the professional drug smuggler a visa that allowed him free passage across our border to smuggle again. The attorneys for Ramos and Compean have filed an appeal with the U.S. circuit court asking for a new trial. They deserve a new trial. Yet the quickest and surest way to manifest this injustice is for President Bush to grant a full pardon or, at a minimum, a commutation of the prison sentence. These men deserve better, and today we have an opportunity to right that wrong. By voting for this amendment to free these men, Congress will not only be correcting a terrible mistake, it will begin repairing the morale and effectiveness of our Border Patrol that have been damaged by, frankly, these reckless actions. It's time to send a different message to both the courageous men and women of the Border Patrol and to the mules and to the bosses in the drug cartels. Let's send that message today by telling the cartels that our Border Patrol means business, not business as usual.

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I want to recognize Subcommittee Chairman Sherman for his work on this legislation. He worked this bill thoroughly, and while we disagree on OPIC's merits, he supported my text to reform its investment funds. OPIC's investment funds, as some may remember, have a troubled history. In the 1990s, then-OPIC president Ruth Harkin said, ``If you're an investor in an OPIC-supported fund, the worst you can do is get your money back at the need of 10 years.'' That's not the free market OPIC professes to support and not surprisingly, these funds were subject to political cronyism. There have been reforms to the funds of late, including competitively selecting fund managers, but we should mandate them. My language does this. Fundamentally though, I remain unconvinced that OPIC is doing something worthwhile that the private sector wouldn't do. The burden of proof should be on OPIC, especially in times of accelerating change in financial markets. Several companies have jumped into the political risk insurance business, for example, offering increasingly sophisticated products, . . . so why are we reauthorizing government- backed OPIC to continue competing against them? We have heard much on the floor trumpeting OPIC's supposed benefits. However, most economists believe that subsidizing investment--which is what OPIC does--merely shifts it around, often to lesser productive locations and uses. The Congressional Research Service has reported, ``From the point of view of the U.S. economy as a whole, there is little theoretical support or empirical evidence that supports claims that subsidizing exports or overseas investment offers a positive net gain in jobs to the U.S. economy.'' That's persuasive evidence against OPIC's claims, and its case for reauthorization. OPIC makes much of the fact that it returns money to the U.S. Treasury. OK. But let's consider that this money is held against potential liabilities stemming from OPIC's activities. And give most anybody U.S. government-backing to trade on, and they'd turn a profit in financial markets. One OPIC critic gave a useful description. Investment is like a rope. Less developed countries can only pull it in with good policies; efforts to push in investment, which is OPIC's mandate, are bound to be inefficient. Mr. Speaker, these are some of the reasons I oppose this legislation reauthorizing OPIC.

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, S. 966 will help provide relief for the massive influx of passport applications due to a change in passport rules. This problem has frustrated many constituents in all of our districts. Last week, the House Foreign Affairs Committee held a hearing focusing on this issue. As a result of questions I raised, it became apparent to Members of the Committee that the demands on the Bureau of Consular Affairs to get passports to Americans as fast as possible does raise fraud concerns. While the number of adjudicators has gone up, the number charged with investigating passport fraud, has not. In that respect, I'd like to thank Chairman Lantos for including additional language that would allow for the hiring of retirees to assist in investigation of fraud in connection with an application for a passport. These additional investigators are critical, as many times they uncover a broader fraud ring. We should be able to serve Americans in a timely matter and ensure their security. This bill will help do that.

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Madam Speaker, I rise in recognition of a great American, Mr. Jim Bowman, of the United States Air Force Academy. After 49 years of service to the Academy, Mr. Bowman has announced his retirement from his position of Assistant Athletic Director in charge of recruiting support for 27 varsity sports teams. Throughout his tenure, Bowman has led numerous sports teams, and has held various positions within the athletic department. Jim Bowman first came to the Air Force Academy in 1958 and was head junior varsity football coach for 4 years before becoming head freshman coach. He served as frosh coach until the 1975 season when he again assumed the J.V. program. In his five seasons as J.V. Head Coach, his teams compiled a 24-4-1 record and his 1963 and 1975 teams were undefeated. After the 1975 season, he retired as a coach to devote his full duties to the candidate counseling and admissions support program. His successes as a coach stem from his own on-field prowess, as Jim Bowman was a successful high school and collegiate athlete. Bowman, an all-conference player for Charlevoix High School, went undefeated all 4 years he played. He later attended the University of Michigan, and received his varsity letter as a center in his senior year. Over his tenure at the Air Force Academy, he was a member of the staff that participated in 17 bowl games, including the 1959 Cotton Bowl and the 1971 Sugar Bowl. He coached over 1,000 Academy football players and helped over 11,000 athletes receive appointments to the Academy. Jim estimates that he has seen over 38,000 Cadets graduate. Indeed, his lifelong dedication is as commendable as it is astonishing. While he will undoubtedly be missed on the Air Force Academy campus and among the scores that have worked with him to place cadets at the Academy, his legacy will live on.

Mr. ROYCE

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

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

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I want to start off by thanking Mrs. Blackburn, Messrs. King, Hunter, Franks, Bilbray, Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite, Mrs. Capito, and Mrs. Drake for all coming together and working towards this amendment. This amendment will give badly needed funding to the border security fence as provided by the law in the Secure Fence Act. Congress authorized it last year, provided funding to get it started in the 2007 DHS spending bill. The point I would like to make, although Congress mandated the construction of 847 miles of fencing, to date only 13.01 miles have been completed. And as you know, it is supposed to be a double-border fence, and only one-half of the 13.01 miles is completed in the sense it is only one side of the fence. So the amendment being offered today takes funding made available in the bill for border protection and directs it to the fencing. This amendment will give the administration, I think, what it needs to construct the remaining portions of the border fence. It is vital to national security. I had a number of hearings down on the border when I was chairman of the Terrorism and Nonproliferation Subcommittee. But Border Patrol told me about the effectiveness of the fence. There are over 400 attacks on Border Patrol agents a year. They need this fence. They find it is a great force multiplier. It extends their capacity. It allows them the discretion to redeploy agents to areas where they are not vulnerable or at risk. Frankly, I think we have a difference of opinion on how important it is to follow the law under the Secure Fence Act with the administration. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, yielding myself the time, I chaired the committee meetings down on the border. Mahmoud Qurani crossed that border in the trunk of a car, an agent for Hezbollah, whose brother, by the way, was in charge of the southern front in the attack on Israel recently. He came across in the trunk of a car. I have talked to Border Patrol agents who have made apprehensions on that border, and I can tell you the San Diego fence has not only cut the crime rate by half in San Diego, but also on the Mexican side, and nobody has designed a way to get around the San Diego fence. This double-border fence works. It is what the Border Patrol has asked me for and testified up here for. And 69 percent in the polling last night by Rasmussen, actually the polling was on the 12th, 69 percent of the public say they want, they favor an approach focusing on securing the border with this kind of approach. Only 20 percent of people want Congress to try to pass the immigration reform bill that failed in the Senate last week.

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my opposition to H.R. 1427. H.R. 1427 is supposed to be legislation to reform oversight of the Nation's 14 housing government-sponsored enterprises. That would be our two GSEs, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and 12 Federal Home Loan Banks. Over the past number of years, I have worked very hard to reform legislation of these GSEs. I believe better oversight is needed to protect our Nation's housing sector from disruption should one of the GSEs face financial difficulty. I am disappointed that I will not be able to support the bill authored by our committee's chairman. However, to be fair, I do acknowledge that the chairman has added a number of positive provisions to this year's bill. And I would also like to thank the chairman for his willingness to work on improving the section on receivership. Improvements aside, I am deeply troubled that legislation intended to improve the safety and soundness of the GSEs has become a vehicle to redistribute wealth. The Affordable Housing Fund in this bill unnecessarily confiscates money from the mortgage market. I adamantly oppose the creation of an Affordable Housing Fund today, as I have since its inception. In 2005, I was the first Member of Congress to offer an amendment in a Financial Services Committee to strike the reform from GSE legislation. Since then, I have continuously and consistently opposed the housing fund in any form, shape or size. As I said over 2 years ago, the creation of this fund is an experiment in socialism, and anyone supporting its adoption is attempting to countermand the basic principles of free markets and limited government. With that expression, I will yield back to the ranking member.

Mr. ROYCE. Before I begin my general statement, if I could, I would like to engage Chairman Frank and thank him for agreeing to engage in a colloquy on the receivership provision of the legislation. Chairman Frank, with your consent, with your consent I would like to introduce into the Record a statement that has been agreed to by your staff and by my staff, and I look forward to working on these issues going forward with you, and I would just yield to you for your affirmation.

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Madam Chairman, I serve as the ranking member on the Subcommittee on Terrorism, Nonproliferation, and Trade. What this underlying bill cuts is the funding for European missile defense that would be situated in Poland, which would catch an attack from Iran in the boost phase. Now, the reason this is important, why are we worried about Iran in this, the IAEA inspectors, if you recall, this last weekend were shocked to find that Iran had made very fast progress on enrichment of uranium needed to make a nuclear bomb. They said this made it clear that technological advances in Iran are coming on very, very fast. The proposed missile defense deployments in Poland and the Czech Republic that this amendment supports would thus help the United States and Europe. It's supported by Poland, the Czech Republic, the U.K., and frankly to cut it right now makes no sense. Sixteen of the last 17 tests have been successful. This Congress, again, should not weaken our missile defense, especially at a time when we found North Korea transferring this missile technology to Iran. We can see this coming. Pass this amendment.

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Madam Chairman, if I could just sum up on my time, again, the 9/11 Commission recognized the importance of Interpol's database. Janice Kephart, who was a counsel to the 9/11 Commission, testified recently that U.S. support and engagement with Interpol is key to fully implementing the 9/11 Commission recommendations on terrorist travel. I would just also share with the body that yesterday we dodged a bullet. It is significant that there have been no terrorist attacks against our country since 9/11, but yesterday's disrupted plot shows there is much work left to be done. Adoption of this database will help combat the threat of terrorists and criminals crossing our borders. I urge its adoption.

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

Mr. ROYCE. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. What I wanted to share with this body is that Ramzi Yousef used a stolen passport to carry out the murderous attack that was conducted on the World Trade Center back in 1993. He used that stolen passport to enter the United States and claim asylum and then carry out that attack. Three years after the 9/11 Commission recommended that our border officers have access to Interpol's lost and stolen passport data as an automatic check at our ports of entry, we still do not have a situation where we are utilizing that data, and this amendment would change that. Now, there are many, many examples in Europe where these stolen passports have created a crisis. Fraudulent passports were used in the 2004 Madrid bombing. In the 2005 London subway attacks, again, stolen passports were used, and as argued recently in congressional testimony by the Secretary General of Interpol, and I will quote from that testimony before the Senate, ``Terrorist use of fraudulent travel documents was one of the most dangerous gaps in global security back around the time of September 2001. Unfortunately, it still is today.'' I can share with you as the ranking member of the Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Terrorism Non-Proliferation and Trade, this remains a concern. It has been a concern for Interpol since 2002. They started their stolen and lost travel document database at that time. There were several thousand passports that were stolen in blank form. This was a particular problem. They posed a severe threat, given that these can be easily made into bogus passports that are very, very easy to use and difficult for law enforcement to detect. A stolen blank passport from a visa waiver country raises the stakes, of course, because the holder is subject to considerably less scrutiny because it is a visa waiver country. So, if you look at the number of hits last year, 2,543, generated by Interpol's database, 62 percent were from visa waiver countries. So the United States, we have some access to stolen passport information through our own systems and through bilateral agreements, but there is a gaping hole here. We need access to this system. There are 2\1/2\ million stolen passports that are not on our radar screen. This amendment then would ensure that DHS implement the Interpol stolen passport database at primary inspection points at U.S. ports of entry. The system developed by Interpol would enable U.S. border security officials to check the passport database at the port of entry. The same swipe of the passport would check the Interpol database with a simultaneous check of the appropriate U.S. database. That is going to enhance our security. I will just share with the members of this body that the Swiss now use this; 20,000 Swiss officers conduct between 300,000 and 400,000 database searches every month, and every month they detect over 100 people attempting to enter their country with stolen passports. The French have the same experience. It is very important that the U.S. access this database, and that is what this amendment will do. Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.