Ed Royce

Mr. ROYCE

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

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

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of this amendment dealing with systemic risk to H.R. 1461, the legislation to reform oversight of the Nation's three housing GSEs. I think most people would assume that Congress would and should create a regulator with the authority to protect the broader financial system with respect to systemic risk, especially in light of the warnings of systemic risk from the Federal Reserve and the Treasury, the $1.5 trillion of mortgage assets concentrated in just two companies, the special ties the GSEs have with the Federal Government, and the over-$2 trillion in GSE debt. Unfortunately, the fact of the matter is that H.R. 1461 fails to give the regulator the authority to protect the financial system against a potential shock that would seriously undermine the U.S. housing market and the global financial system. I have just spoken with Alan Greenspan's office this afternoon, and they totally reject the argument that the regulator has this ability to take into account the systemic risk and take the necessary actions in the bill; and also the Bush administration disagrees with that assertion. They think it is not in there. Furthermore, if the authority is already in the bill, what is wrong with my additional 14 words stating it explicitly. Let me also make the point that my amendment would allow the regulator to review the investment holdings of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and this authority is necessary because the huge concentration of on-balance sheet assets of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac create too much interest rate risk, in other words, too much exposure to swings in interest rates in the hands of only a few risk managers. The traditional mortgage guarantee business model at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac provides liquidity in the mortgage market and helps homeownership without increasing risk to the taxpayer. However, the enterprises' on-balance sheet mortgage assets only benefit Fannie and Freddie shareholders at the expense of the taxpayer. Taking into account the unequaled levels of debt outstanding and the unprecedented use of derivatives to manage interest rate risk at the enterprises, the Federal Reserve and the Treasury Department believe that the on-balance sheet mortgage assets of the two enterprises create systemic risk to the global financial markets. Mr. Chairman, Congress failed to rein in the savings and loan industry in the early 1980s. That failure led to hundreds of billions of dollars in taxpayer losses. Today, however, Congress has been forewarned by the Fed, the Treasury, the OECD, and the IMF. I would like to end debate on this amendment with the words of our distinguished chairman of the Federal Reserve, Alan Greenspan, who has publicly urged the House of Representatives to defeat H.R. 1461 unless the threat of systemic risk is addressed. He said: ``To fend off possible future systemic difficulties, which we at the Federal Reserve Board assess as likely if GSE expansion continues unabated, preventative actions are required sooner rather than later.'' I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

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

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling).

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I am a cosponsor of H.R. 3132, the Children's Safety Act. I would have voted ``yes'' on this legislation. However, I am in New York City on official business for the House of Representatives. I was appointed by Speaker Hastert as a delegate from the Committee on International Relations to serve as a representative to the United Nations General Assembly. H.R. 3132 will help to address loopholes in current sex offender notification requirements, so that parents and the public can be armed with knowledge of any sex offenders living and working in their community. This legislation addresses a number of child crime issues, including registration of sex offenders, violent crimes against children, sexual crimes against children, sexual exploitation of children, and protection of foster and adopted children. The Children's Safety Act was drafted in response to the recent horrific attacks and murders of Jessica Lunsford, Sarah Lunde, Jetseta Gage, and others who have recently been killed by sex offenders. I strongly support this bill and look forward to it becoming law.

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), chairman of the Africa, Global Human Rights and International Operations Subcommittee.

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 2601. The chairman, Ranking Member, and Committee members have worked well to give our State Department the tools necessary to carry out our Nations' foreign policy in a very challenging world. As Chairman of the Subcommittee on International Terrorism and Nonproliferation, I'd like to bring attention to two important provisions in this bill. Importantly, this bill offers support to the Trans-Sahara Counter Terrorism Initiative, a comprehensive counter-terrorism program in north Africa. Its predecessor, the Pan-Sahel Initiative, has worked to boost the anti-terrorist capabilities of Mauritania, Mali, Niger and Chad--producing promising results with modest resources. The effort to expand the PSI into the TSCTI, so that countries across the Sahara are able to bolster their ability to deny terrorist sanctuaries, is a much- needed development. Transnational terrorists, linked to al-Qaeda, have been found operating in this vast, and largely ungoverned portion of the world. The United States must respond to Africa's growing strategic importance. This program, when fully implemented, will be an important step in that direction. Additionally, the bill updates the existing legislation requiring that the State Department annually report to Congress on Patterns of Global Terrorism. For the past 2 years, this key report has been mired in controversy. The 2003 edition errored in underreporting attacks. The 2004 report was issued minus its traditional annex statistically reporting on the number of terrorist attacks worldwide. This legislation, which builds upon a hearing held by the Subcommittee on International Terrorism and Nonproliferation, seeks to address those controversies and improve Patterns by requiring a single authoritative report and updating the criteria to be used in cataloging terrorist attacks. For instance, in 2004--under the old criteria--a Russian airliner downed by Chechen terrorists was not recorded, as it was deemed to not involve citizens of more than one country. Yet, a second Russian airliner, which was taken out of the sky simultaneously by Chechen terrorists, was counted--as one passenger was a foreign national. With this legislation, such parsing should be eliminated--and terrorism will be counted as terrorism--so that we can get full grasp of the challenges facing us. The legislation also requires the Secretary of State to appear before Congress to present the annual Patterns of Global Terrorism report. The threat to the United States, our allies and interests from transnational terrorism will require every element of national power to combat it. Congress has a key role to play in this regard. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition, although I do not oppose the amendment.

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3\1/2\ minutes. I am pleased to join the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Watson), a colleague on the Committee on International Relations, in offering this important amendment. As the gentlewoman has explained, this amendment states that it shall be the policy of the United States to seek the expeditious transfer of Charles Taylor to the Special Court for Sierra Leone so that he can be tried for war crimes. Mr. Chairman, Charles Taylor has been indicted on 17 counts of war crimes and crimes against humanity by the Special Court for the role that he played in Sierra Leone's brutal war. This hybrid court, which has been supported by this body, has been given jurisdiction over those who bear the greatest responsibility for the atrocities and the human rights violations. And those atrocities were, indeed, widespread. Human rights violations there were grave. During the 1990s, then-President Taylor of Liberia supported what was called the Revolutionary United Front. That was designated by the State Department as a terrorist organization. He supported them in Sierra Leone, and they were notorious for hacking off the limbs and the arms and the legs even of young children. When I chaired the Africa Subcommittee, we hosted some of those victims on Capitol Hill, child victims; and we held numerous hearings examining the chaos in West Africa caused by this one man, Charles Taylor. In May, the House overwhelmingly passed Resolution 127, and the Senate concurred, calling on the Nigerian Government to transfer Taylor to the Special Court. I still have hope; yet today, Charles Taylor continues to safely reside in exile in Nigeria. In August of 2003, some believed that removing Taylor from Liberia and giving him exile would prevent Liberia and West Africa from destabilization. Instead of facing justice at the Special Court in Freetown, though, Taylor was given a seaside villa in Calabar, Nigeria; and in exchange, Taylor was supposed to refrain from political activity, but Taylor broke that deal. So 2 years after the exile deal, Taylor is still very much involved in undermining Liberian politics as the nation prepares for elections. He is working to undermine a peace process that has been supported by the United States and Congress with hundreds of millions of dollars, and he said he will return to Liberia. I believe, and I think my colleagues believe, that he is going to try to return because we remember his words. He said, when he got on that plane, ``God willing, I'll be back.'' Mr. Chairman, Charles Taylor remains a serious and continuing threat to West African peace and security, which is counter to U.S. interests. I am convinced that there will be no chance for peace in West Africa until Taylor is removed. We underestimate him at our peril, and it must be the policy of the United States to seek the transfer of Charles Taylor to the Special Court. This has to be a pillar in our policy towards West Africa. We need to press harder than we have been. Bringing Charles Taylor to justice will help further U.S.-Nigeria relations, help bring peace to Liberia, and strengthen the rule of law on the continent. It is time for Charles Taylor to face up to his crimes. This amendment deserves the strong support of this House of Representatives. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, as chairman of the Subcommittee on International Terrorism and Nonproliferation, I rise in strong support of this resolution that condemns the heinous acts of terrorism that occurred in London last Thursday July 7. At 8:50 a.m. in a coordinated attack, three bombs ripped through the London Underground in central London and an hour later a fourth explosion tore apart the No. 30 bus. At present, 52 are dead and hundreds and hundreds are wounded. Authorities are still attempting to recover bodies trapped under subway cars deep under Kings Cross station. As a police official gruesomely described this morning, ``they have to literally piece people together and that takes time.'' The latest news reports suggest that four young British citizens carried out this latest act of Islamist terror, blowing themselves up along with their innocent victims in what would be the first suicide attacks in Western Europe. I fear we are seeing the emergence of a new generation of terrorists, kids who were in their teens on 9/11. One of the four implicated in the London bombings was a teen. The homegrown cell involved in the Van Gogh murder in the Netherlands included members as young as 18. North African extremists from France have been found in Iraq, some as young as 14. And as the 9/11 Commission described, ``Our enemy is two-fold, al Qaeda, a stateless network of terrorists that struck us on 9/11 and a radical ideological movement in the Islamic world inspired in part by al Qaeda which has spawned terrorist groups and violence across the globe.'' As the 9/11 Commission tells us, ``The first enemy is weakened but continues to pose a grave threat. The second enemy is gathering and will menace Americans and American interests long after Osama bin Laden and his cohorts have been killed or captured. Thus, our strategy must match our means to two ends: dismantling the al Qaeda network and prevailing in the longer term over the ideology that gives rise to Islamist terrorism.'' Now, unfortunately, lax asylum laws and lax immigration laws have done the British and the rest of Europe no favors and have contributed to the radicalization of society there. Long before bombs ripped through London, Britain had become a breeding ground for hate fed by a militant version of Islam. For a decade, the city has been a crossroads for would-be terrorists who used it as a home base to communicate their message, to raise funds and to recruit members. For years before his arrest, Abu Hamza al-Masri openly preached violence at the Finsbury Park mosque in north London. Among those who have passed through that Finsbury Park mosque are Zacarias Moussaoui and Richard Reid. Unfortunately, radical clerics gaining a foothold in traditionally tolerant societies is not unique to Britain. The reality is that hate and intolerance is being preached throughout the world, and I thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) and the ranking member, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), for bringing this resolution to the floor. As the British have stood with us, we stand by them. We will prevail. The terrorists will not.

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) has done well to craft a bill in a very difficult budgetary environment. It prioritizes funding for important programs. I believe his and the ranking member's efforts are appreciated. I do, however, rise to express concerns about the Global Environment Facility, or GEF, whose funding is eliminated in this bill. As co-chair of the House International Conservation Caucus, I am keenly interested in conservation programs because I believe that how nations of the world manage their natural resources is a vital U.S. interest, impacting our efforts to help create a more secure and prosperous world. The GEF is the largest international funding source for programs and support good natural resource management around the world. In the roughly 15 years since its creation, the GEF has implemented 1,500 projects in 140 countries, with biodiversity and habitat conservation being the largest single area of focus. Importantly, U.S. funding has leveraged at least $14 for every $1 we have contributed. I believe this model where our resources are matched many times over by other public and private donors is a good approach. However, I strongly agree with the chairman's push for reform at the GEF. The United States should always be pushing for transparency and accountability at multilateral institutions, and the GEF is no exception. As the chairman knows, at the request of the U.S. Treasury and other donor nations, the GEF has been working to implement a variety of management improvements. Currently, the GEF is in the final stages of adopting a major element in this reform process, a system of prioritizing its funding decisions called the Resource Allocation Framework. The Council of the GEF is meeting in late August in a special session to finalize the structure of this framework. The GEF Council recognizes the need for reform and is meeting in less than 2 months to complete work on the reform element most important to the U.S. Government. And I would respectfully inquire whether the gentleman agrees that the GEF's programs and projects are beneficial to conservation worldwide and to the United States, and assuming that a framework is finalized at the upcoming special meeting of the GEF, would that constitute sufficient progress on reform to have the gentleman revisit GEF funding in the conference?

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his response.

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. This amendment seeks to direct $7 million in funding for the Small Arms/Light Weapons Destruction initiative that is housed within the Nonproliferation, Anti-Terrorism, Demining and Related programs account. That account is called the NADR account, and the entire NADR account is reduced by approximately 1.75 percent in order to account for the increase in this Small Arms/Light Weapons Destruction initiative. I am very pleased here to have worked with the gentleman from Arizona (Chairman Kolbe) and with the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey), ranking member, to craft an amendment that I believe is acceptable to both of them. Seven million dollars is the fiscal year 2005 enacted level for this activity. And, Mr. Chairman, of growing concern to the United States are these shoulder-fired, anti-aircraft missiles, referred to as MANPADs, which have proliferated throughout the world, especially since the collapse of the Soviet Union. These are U.S.-made Stingers, they are British- made Blowpipes, and most of them are Russian-made SA-7s. According to one report, 6,000 shoulder-fired missiles are outside of government control. There are known black markets for these shoulder-fired missiles throughout Africa, throughout the Middle East, and in Asia. And for between about $5,000 and $30,000, a MANPAD can be acquired; a low cost relative to the damage they could inflict in human loss as well as economic and psychological damage. A successful attack with one of these shoulder-fired missiles against an airliner could halt aviation, and recently we had a study done by RAND, and they released this report that found that the total economic loss resulting from an attack could be in the billions of dollars. The alarming news is that more than two dozen terrorist groups are believed to be in possession of these weapons. Several incidents have highlighted the danger that these weapons pose: the November, 2002, attempted missile attack on an Israeli commercial airliner in Mombassa, Kenya; the August, 2003 sting in which a man was arrested trying to sell Russian-made shoulder-fired missiles to FBI agents posing as terrorists. Also in 2003 we had the British government deploying approximately 450 troops at Heathrow Airport after intelligence indicated a possible al Qaeda plan to use these shoulder-fired missiles against their civilian flights. Al Qaeda training films recovered by allied forces in Afghanistan contained detailed instruction on how to use Russian-made shoulder-fired missiles. Most observers recommend a multi-layered approach to defend against possible terrorist attacks using these shoulder-fired missiles. An important piece of this strategy are U.S. efforts to take these deadly weapons out of play around the world. Last week the International Terrorism and Nonproliferation Subcommittee that I chair held a briefing with administration officials on the State Department's efforts to identify, secure, and then destroy these shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missile stocks. The Small Arms/Light Weapons Destruction initiative is one part of our effort against this threat. To reduce the number of shoulder-fired missiles that could fall into the hands of terrorists, we are providing bilateral assistance to foreign governments to identify and destroy their stocks in excess of their security needs as well as to improve security at their storage facilities. The State Department is now overseeing the destruction or pledges to destroy shoulder-fired missiles from Bosnia-Herzegovina, from Cambodia, Nigeria, Liberia, Serbia, and other countries. And most importantly, I think, since 2003, this program has destroyed over 10,500 of these shoulder-fired missiles. Unfortunately, there is a lot of work left to be done. This amendment helps to continue this work. At little cost these efforts are helping to mitigate a critical threat to our security. So I want to thank the chairman and I want to thank the ranking member for working with me on this amendment. They have a tough task on this bill, and I look forward to working with them on this legislation as it moves forward. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, let me explain some of the difficulty we face here in the way in which this sanctions regime broke down. Because of the need to maintain consensus within the Security Council and the broader membership in the United Nations, somehow the United Nations inevitably seems to become neutral or perhaps even sympathetic to the very regime being sanctioned, in this case it was Saddam Hussein's regime, and that neutrality inevitably led to loopholes in the program that Saddam Hussein was able to effectively exploit. When the Committee on International Relations began to look into the Oil-for-Food scandal, I stated that support for similar U.N. administrative programs will be zero unless the United Nations is forthcoming with information needed to investigate this scandal, and that the withholding of this information was a scandal in itself. We all agree that the credibility of the United Nations is on the line. As reports continue to come to light, and they come to light even this week, they seem to offer more questions than answers. Wherever this investigation leads, the seriousness of this issue cannot be discounted. Some have argued that U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan is making reforms, so why push him? The fact is that the Secretary General needs help. For one, he is a lame duck due to his necessity of leaving office in 2006. He may not realize it, he may not even appreciate it, frankly, but this bill will give Secretary General Annan the leverage he needs to make reform in his limited time left, should he choose to use it. Nothing focuses a bureaucracy like a threatened budget cut. Sometimes strong medicine is what is needed. This is needed. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I think every Member in this House agrees that the United Nations needs reform, and I believe that frankly reform at the U.N. is imperative. The substitute bill that our esteemed ranking member, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), has offered in our markup in many, many ways mirrors the bill we are considering today. It endorses many of the same reforms that the Hyde bill also endorses. But there is a fundamental difference between the two bills, and that goes to the issue of what mechanism do we employ to try to bring about the type of reforms both bills endorse. Now, the substitute that was offered in committee and will be offered on the floor authorizes the Secretary of State to push for reforms. The Hyde bill is tougher. It requires that reforms be made or U.S. dues are partially withheld. The majority of members on the Committee on International Relations consider that the leverage of dues is the necessary mechanism, and I believe the only mechanism, with a chance of actually bringing about these needed reforms. Some have suggested that the bill here has too strong a pill in it. This is tough treatment. But I would ask Members to remember that reforming the United Nations is a tough game. Without strong leverage, I am afraid that the Secretary of State's voice would be lost in the din of voices at the U.N. that have resisted reform for years and years. The Oil-for-Food scandal is the exclamation point when we speak about the need for U.N. reform. I think it is safe to say that we would not be here today promoting broad reform across the U.N. were it not for the magnitude of the malfeasance and graft in the Oil-for-Food program. It was this scandal that propelled many to take a hard look at the United Nations. The portion of this bill that addresses the U.N.'s systemic weaknesses in its current oversight efforts is particularly welcome. The bipartisan Gingrich-Mitchell report released this week found that ``despite the effort of a few member states, the United Nations remains lacking in oversight and accountability.'' The underlying bill mandates the creation of a well-funded independent oversight board with the authority to initiate investigations into mismanagement and wrongdoing. It establishes procedures to protect U.N. employees or contractors who report allegations of misconduct; and it establishes policies to end single- bid contracts. Mr. Chairman, the Committee on International Relations has been investigating the United Nations Oil-for-Food program since March of 2004. In this Congress, the committee has established the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, chaired by my colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher), on which I serve, which has looked deep into this scandal. The U.N. Oil-for-Food program was established in December of 1996 to provide relief to Iraqi people who were facing hardships as a result of U.N. sanctions which were imposed on Baghdad after the 1990 invasion of Kuwait. Under the program, Iraq was permitted to sell oil to purchase food and medicine and humanitarian supplies. We entrusted the U.N. to contain a dictator who had used WMD on his own people and invaded a neighboring country. By accepting oil for food, we put great trust in the U.N. and it failed. Lax oversight and corruption enabled Saddam's regime to raise billions in illicit revenue by requiring its trading partners to pay kickbacks in exchange for doing business in Iraq. The seriousness of the Oil-for-Food's corruption cannot be underweighed. This program centered on issues of war and peace. Saddam Hussein's regime manipulated this program which helped the Iraqi dictator stay in power. Our country went to war in Iraq which has come at great cost in American lives and treasure. Those who did not support this policy put even greater faith in Oil-for-Food. With Oil-for-Food, we are not talking about run-of-the-mill waste and fraud that is standard at the U.N. We are talking about corruption of a program that seriously impacted our vital national interests, interests vital enough to send our servicemen and -women to Iraq. The issues surrounding the Oil-for-Food program brings into question the ability of the United Nations to conduct a containment-oriented sanctions regime. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, most Americans probably do not realize it, but most other governments, friends and foes alike, put great stock in the United Nations, for better or for worse, and for this reason the U.N. impacts the United States very significantly. That is why in this era of great challenges, of great threats to our security, we must do all we can to shake the U.N. from the deep failings described by the Gingrich-Mitchell report and referenced in this legislation. That is why I am supporting this bill and asking my colleagues to do the same. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), our distinguished chairman.

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, as has been discussed today, the United Nations is in need of widespread reform. And one area where the United Nations has egregiously failed is its appalling human rights record and its appalling Commission on Human Rights. If this issue were not so serious, it would really be laughable. The promotion and protection of human rights has been a core task of the United Nations since its founding in 1945. Yet over the years, the Commission on Human Rights has gone from, in fact, being a protector of human rights to an accomplice of dictators throughout the world. Some of the worst violators of human rights work through their regional blocs to gain nomination and election to this commission in order to protect themselves and their allies from criticism. This April our ambassador to the U.N. in Geneva said of the process, ``The inmates are very close to being in charge of the asylum.'' Mr. Chairman, the U.N.'s human rights mechanisms frankly are broken. Unless the United Nations recasts its human rights body, it may be unable to renew any level of public confidence. The Hyde bill takes several well-overdue steps to ensure that a future U.N. human rights body does not become the farce that today's is. Under the Hyde legislation, the United Nations would adopt the foundational principle that countries that fail to uphold the universal declaration of human rights would be ineligible for membership in that body as well as those who have been sanctioned by the Security Council. This amendment would add another important reform in the area of human rights. The amendment simply states that country-specific resolutions shall not be eliminated within the human rights body. And this provision would be subject to the certification and withholding process of the underlying bill. The amendment's purpose is to thwart attempts to eliminate country- specific resolutions within the Commission on Human Rights or any other future human rights bodies. Believe it or not, in the recent past, several countries have informally advanced the idea of eliminating these resolutions which highlight the abuses of individual countries. The ``naming and shaming process,'' as it is called, is one of the most effective ways at the U.N. to pressure countries to curtail human rights abuses. Were it to be eliminated, we might as well shut down the human rights body all together, which is exactly what the violator countries would like to have us do. This issue was brought earlier this year before the Subcommittee on Africa, Global Human Rights and International Operations of which I serve as vice chair. Deputy Assistant Secretary of International Organizations Mark Lagon testified before the subcommittee that ``there has been a disturbing trend against which we have fought for developing countries to turn away from country-specific resolutions that single out and place under international scrutiny those countries with the worst of human rights records. Even more pernicious,'' he says, ``some countries argue for the elimination of all country-specific resolutions,'' and there is a growing consensus among states that practice these abuses, ``except those targeted at Israel under Item 8, the only agenda item devoted exclusively to one country.'' That is what they want to maintain while eliminating all other country-specific resolutions. The sad reality is that there are countries out there that are working to eliminate what should be the core function of any U.N. human rights body, naming the human rights violators. Unlike this year where there was no resolution on Zimbabwe and no resolution on Sudan, there would not even be the possibility of bringing up a resolution focused on a specific country. Just when you thought it could not get worse. Again, it would be laughable if it were not so serious. That is why this amendment is important. Some argue that the naming and shaming is too blunt an instrument. Instead, they prefer what they call ``quiet diplomacy.'' More often than not, silent diplomacy is the best friend of states who violate human rights. When I meet with those who have been beaten and tortured for attempting to stand for election in Zimbabwe or victims of the Janjaweed in Darfur, Sudan, many tell me how much words of support and condemnation from the world mean to them and those in their country who are fighting for freedom. This important leverage of naming and shaming must be kept if there is hope of reviving the United Nations' standing on human rights. I urge the passage of this amendment.

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment. The Acting Chairman. The Clerk will designate the amendment.

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

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I rise in support of this amendment offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey). The global nuclear nonproliferation regime that has served the world well for many years has developed shortcomings, and the Markey amendment addresses one such shortcoming that I think we must address. This is an issue that is especially important to me as chairman of the Subcommittee on International Terrorism and Nonproliferation. We held a hearing in April on the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, and one of the key issues that we looked at was how NPT states should address the noncompliance or attempted withdrawal of a state from the treaty. This amendment takes a step forward in solving this challenge by calling upon the President to work with other International Atomic Energy Agency member states to mandate that any State which is found to be in noncompliance with its NPT obligations, or attempts to withdraw from the NPT, will be compelled to return all the nuclear materials and technology it received as a consequence of being an NPT member. I believe such a provision would be helpful in convincing states to adhere to their NPT obligations. States such as North Korea and Iran have likely already used their status, past status in the case of North Korea, as NPT states to develop nuclear weapons programs, and I believe it is vital that the United States play a leading role in multilateral efforts to close the loophole in the NPT that allows states to receive nuclear energy assistance, but not pay any penalty if they subsequently withdraw from the treaty, as has North Korea. Compelling the surrender of materials and equipment gained under the NPT would be a positive step forward, so I am pleased to support the Markey amendment.

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the conference report includes the REAL ID Act, which I co-sponsored. And of course the goal of this bill is straightforward. It seeks to prevent another terrorist attack on U.S. soil by disrupting terrorist travel. These provisions were called for by the 9/11 Commission. And this legislation uses existing States driver's license systems to ensure we know who is in our country, that people are who they say they are, and that the name on a driver's license is the holder's real name, not an alias. All but one of the 9/11 hijackers used U.S. driver's licenses to board the planes that day because these documents allowed them to circumvent their expired visas. It allowed them to not raise suspicion or concern. Mohammed Atta received a 6-month visa to stay in the U.S. He received a Florida driver's license good for 6 years. The REAL ID Act will end this by establishing a rule for all States, that temporary driver's licenses for foreign visitors expire when their visa terms expire and establishes tough rules for confirming identity before driver's licenses are issued.

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. The 9/11 Commission was constituted in order to tell the American public what we could do to avoid or stave off another attack like the one that occurred on 9/11. I rise in support of this rule taking up the conference report because I think the components that we have included, recommended by the 9/11 Commission, are vital for the purpose of national security for the United States. Let us look at the consequences of the 19 hijackers who, by violating procedures with respect to identification, were able to shop from State to State, from California to Virginia to Florida, and obtain between them over 60 different types of IDs. I will remind the body that in terms of the aliases used just by those 19 individuals, they used 364 aliases between them. So as a consequence, it was virtually impossible for authorities to follow or detect as they changed their identities, as they used these documents in order to rent cars, as they used these documents in order to take flight training lessons, to learn how to fly here in the United States, as they used these fraudulent documents even to board airplanes and crash them into the Twin Towers and into the Pentagon. We have to ask ourselves is there something we, as an institution, could do to make certain that this did not occur again? The 9/11 Commission has laid out a strategy for a secure identification system, and basically what we are talking about is simply minimum standards so that all States know the rudimentary requirements to make certain that people are who they say they are. Because the 9/11 hijackers abused the process and went from State to State, we know for a fact that we need minimum standards. We know that it only makes sense that when Mohamed Atta was given a visa that was valid for only 6 months but could use it to obtain a driver's license that was valid for 6 years, that, in fact, we were not tailoring our laws to fit our national security concerns. There are other provisions as well, the reform of amnesty, the completion of the border fence, the expedited approval. But as we look at the border security issue with respect to completion of the border fence, I talked to a border agent who had stopped an individual originally from Kyrgyzstan who had trained in Afghanistan, who had trained there in Jihad, at the fence. What this particular border guard told me was that there is a 3-mile gap in that triple barrier fence, and it was within that area of that gap that this individual tried to come into the U.S. and was apprehended and returned. I think we need to give our border security personnel the assets that they have requested. We need to help them do their job, and the completion of this triple barrier fence will achieve that objective because it is in the interest of national security. I think it is proper we bring it up and include it in this bill.