Ed Royce

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution honoring the contributions of Vietnamese Americans to American society over the past 3 decades. After the events of April 1975, many brave Vietnamese migrated to the United States. Through perseverance and hard work, they rebuilt their lives to form a vibrant community across this country. I take great pride in representing a part of Orange County's thriving Vietnamese-American community, and I have witnessed the community's growth over the years. There are now more than 3,500 Vietnamese- American-owned businesses straddling the cities of Garden Grove, Santa Ana and Westminster. Little Saigon is no longer ``little.'' It is the cultural and commercial capital for close to 300,000 Vietnamese Americans, the largest concentration outside Vietnam. I have seen the community grow not only economically but politically as well. Van Tran, who used to work for me in the State senate, has now been elected to the State assembly, the highest Vietnamese American elected to public office. Rightly, these Vietnamese Americans are focused on promoting democratic ideals in Vietnam. The U.S. must be a strong advocate of human rights, particularly when basic freedoms are being wantonly disregarded as they are in Vietnam. We must continue to shine a light on repression in that country. I am sorry to say that in the 30 years, not much has changed in Vietnam. Not much has changed since the Communists launched their disastrous Socialist Republic of Vietnam because political, religious and economic freedoms have been systematically squashed. This is a government that continues to deny citizens of Vietnam the right to change their government. When I visited Vietnam, I saw firsthand the Communist Party's harassment of those Vietnamese citizens who decided to peacefully set forth dissenting political and religious views. When I met with the venerable Thich Quang Do and Le Quang Liem, I was immediately denounced by that Communist government. But I must share with you that there is a strategy that is working to bring information to Vietnam. Radio Free Asia is an effective tool listened to across the country. I have carried legislation to expand those broadcasts. But I would share with you in my conversations with Vietnamese that in the same way that Lech Walesa in Poland listened to those radio broadcasts and in the same way the members of solidarity had a chance to have their story told across Poland, in the same way that Vaclav Havel used to tune into Radio Free Europe, Radio Liberty broadcasts, today people across Southeast Asia, in Burma and in Vietnam have that same opportunity to listen to the news not only about what is happening in the world but what is happening inside their own country, and that is shaping the values and the attitudes and the knowledge of a new generation of young Vietnamese. The Vietnamese-American community has not lost sight of the struggle in their original homeland for freedom, for religious freedom, for freedom of speech, even for the right of young people to sit down in an Internet cafe and have a dialogue without censorship. They are a part of this effort to make certain that those ideals stay alive so that in the same way that eastern Europe came to evolve into a democratic, market-oriented, tolerant society, that there will be that opportunity in the future for Vietnam. In the meantime, this resolution commends the success of the Vietnamese-American community. I thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis) and the other cosponsors of this resolution and urge its passage.

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) for yielding me this time. I rise in support of House Concurrent Resolution 127. This resolution calls on the Government of Nigeria to transfer Charles Taylor, the former president of Nigeria, to the Special Court for Sierra Leone so that he can be tried for war crimes. And I would like to thank the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Hyde) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), ranking member, and the gentleman from New Jersey (Chairman Smith) for their support of this resolution and also for their support over the years for the establishment of a Special Court. Madam Speaker, Charles Taylor has been indicted on 17 counts, 17 counts of war crimes and crimes against humanity by the Special Court for the role that he played during Sierra Leone's brutal war. This hybrid court, which has been supported by this body, has been given jurisdiction over, in the terms of that agreement, ``those who bear the greatest responsibility'' for the atrocities and human rights violations in this now-past war. Charles Taylor is at the top of that list. During the late 1990s, then-President Taylor of Liberia supported the Revolutionary United Front, or RUF as it is commonly known, which was designated by the State Department as a terrorist organization. He supported it in neighboring Sierra Leone in West Africa, and the RUF was notorious for hacking the limbs off their political opponents, even young children. When I chaired the Africa Subcommittee, we hosted some of these victims on Capitol Hill. We held numerous hearings dating back to 1998, examining the chaos in West Africa caused, orchestrated by Charles Taylor. Employed by the RUF were child soldiers. Investigative reporter Doug Farah described what life was like for child soldiers in his book ``Blood from Stones.'' And in his book he said: ``One thing the children do remember vividly is the preparation for what they called `mayhem days,' sprees of killing and raping that lasted until the participants collapsed from exhaustion. They said they were given colored pills, most likely amphetamines, and razor blade slits near their temples, where cocaine was put directly into their bloodstreams. The ensuing days would be a blur. The children often remembered only the feeling of being invincible before the drugs wore off.'' This was Charles Taylor's view of West Africa. Yet today Charles Taylor safely resides in exile in Nigeria. In August 2003, some believe 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, Sierra Leone, Taylor was given a seaside villa in Calabar, Nigeria. In exchange, Taylor would refrain from engaging in political activity. Nearly 2 years after the exile deal, Taylor is still very much involved in Liberian politics as that Nation prepares for elections in the fall. According to the United Nations reports, his ``former military commanders and business associates, as well as members of his political party, maintain regular contact with him and are planning to undermine the peace process in Liberia.'' Now, this peace process, incidentally, has been supported by the United States and Congress with hundreds of millions of dollars. As the resolution points out, David Crane, Chief Prosecutor at the Court, has stated, ``Unless and until Charles Taylor is brought to justice, there will be no peace in Liberia.'' The U.N. Secretary General's Special Representative to Liberia is Jacques Klein. Jacques Klein has said, ``Charles Taylor is a psychopath and a killer. He is still very much involved in and is intrusive in Liberian politics.'' Madam Speaker, Charles Taylor remains a serious and continuing threat to West African peace and security, which is counter to U.S. interests as well. I am hopeful that Nigerian President Obasanjo does the right thing and hands Taylor over to the Special Court. Among others, the Nigerian Union of Journalists and the Nigerian Bar Association have criticized the exile deal. President Obasanjo is in Washington this week. By passing this resolution, there will be no question where the U.S. House of Representatives stands. Madam Speaker, I urge the government of Nigeria to transfer Charles Taylor to the Special Court for Sierra Leone so that he can be tried for war crimes and that justice can be served. It is time for Charles Taylor to face up to his crimes. This resolution deserves the strong support of the House.

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I want to address my remarks to an important provision of S. 256, that is a clarification of Section 303 of the Bankruptcy Code. Section 1234 restates and strengthens Congress' long- standing intent that an involuntary bankruptcy action should not be predicated on disputed claims. Otherwise, opportunistic litigants seeking to gain advantage in contract disputes may improperly employ the leverage of the bankruptcy court. Because bankruptcy courts should not be used to resolve disputed claims in involuntary cases, the clarification in Section 1234 reemphasizes that a person who disputes the amount of, or liability for, a claim should not be disadvantaged by the stigma and expense of an involuntary bankruptcy proceeding. Put simply, the bankruptcy courts in this nation should now uniformly hold that any claim that is subject to a dispute or litigation, or if it is contested, whether as to the amount of the claim, or as to liability for the claim, that claim cannot be used to commence an involuntary bankruptcy case. This is the bright line that Congress intended to create in 1984 because involuntary bankruptcy carries with it, not only a responsibility, but the burden on behalf of petitioning creditors to be accurate and certain that their provable claims are qualified by being without dispute as to either liability or amount before commencing an involuntary bankruptcy case. The consequence of bad faith or even sloppy work here is more disastrous than in garden-variety litigation or through the voluntary use of the bankruptcy laws. It is incomprehensible that an involuntary bankruptcy petition could be based on claims that are inaccurate as to either liability or amount; the injustice that would result from such a filing is so manifest. Despite this manifest injustice of national significance, judges continue to condone the filing of involuntary petitions brought by creditors using disputed claims. For this reason, section 1234 was made a necessary part of this legislation. There has never been a vote recorded in opposition to this provision because it clearly expresses the unanimous will of Congress; it is the furthest thing from the mind of any Congressman that an involuntary case could be brought on the basis of claims that are disputed. To the contrary, as expressed by this legislation, it has been the will of Congress since 1984 that any claim used to commence an involuntary case must be without dispute. The bankruptcy courts should not be enjoyed by involuntary petitioning creditors who cannot then prove up claims as to liability or amount. That party should stand in the most accountable legal position. This clarification is necessary because the intent of Congress has been blurred by judicial decisions that go so far as to split disputed claims into ``disputed'' and ``undisputed'' parts, or to describe disputes as ``potential disputes.'' These decisions are wrong and the damage they have caused to the victims of involuntary bankruptcy cases brought using such claims is incalculable. The remedy for such victims rests on an expansive reading of Section 303(i). Finally, it is the intent of Congress, as expressed through the unique retroactive application of Section 1234, to require the dismissal of any involuntary petition brought by using disputed claims, including any bankruptcy cases that are pending as a result of the misapplication of Section 303.

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, today, Congress has the opportunity to finish the task of preventing corporate malfeasance by agreeing to pass S. 256. Included in this bill is a sensible provision that sharply limits to $125,000 the homestead exemption that many CEOs and corporate officers have used to shield their assets from creditors after they plunder their shareholders' wealth. By empowering the government to go after the ill-gotten gains that crooked corporate officers tie up in offshore mansions, shareholders and pensioners who have been swindled can have their hard-earned savings returned to them. In addition, this bill prohibits people convicted of felonies like securities fraud from claiming an unlimited exemption when filing for bankruptcy, protecting taxpayers from having to bear the cost of corporate malfeasance. It also guards against fraud and abuse by requiring that high-income debtors who have the ability repay a significant portion of their debts do so, preventing them from sticking responsible borrowers with their tab. It accomplishes all of this while preserving the ability of people who truly need to discharge their debts to do so. For far too long, Americans who work hard and pay their bills have been held accountable for the debts incurred by those who irresponsibly file for bankruptcy. This long-overdue legislation will reform the critically-flawed bankruptcy process, and prevent affluent filers from gaming the system and passing on their bad debt to hard-working families while preserving the ability of people who truly need to discharge their debt through bankruptcy to do so. Bankruptcy should be preserved as a last resort for those who truly need the protections that the bankruptcy system has to offer--not a tool for those who could pay their debts but choose to discharge them instead. By agreeing to this legislation, Congress will make the existing bankruptcy system a needs-based one and correct the flaw in the current system that encourages people to file for bankruptcy and walk away from debts, regardless of whether they are able to repay any portion of what they owe; and it does this while protecting those who truly need protection. I commend my colleagues for their hard work on this legislation, and I strongly urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this report and help honest taxpayers by closing the loopholes in the current bankruptcy system.

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this bipartisan legislation, H.R. 1025. This is the Mortgage Servicing Clarification Act, which I have introduced with my colleague from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kanjorski). This carefully written legislation addresses a specific problem for consumers and businesses involved in the mortgage servicing industry by simply clarifying the existing law governing mortgage servicing. This noncontroversial bill enjoys strong bipartisan support. It has been approved for consideration under the suspension of the rules by both the chairman and the ranking member of the Committee on Financial Services. Mr. Speaker, I introduced this bill to fix a problem in the mortgage servicing industry which has hampered the abilities of this industry to serve its clients effectively and to conduct its business efficiently for far too long. Currently, when a mortgage servicing company acquires the rights to service a portfolio of home loans, it is exempt from the unnecessary strictures of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act under the creditor exemption that was also extended to the originator of the mortgage. The new mortgage servicer is extended this exemption because its relationship to the borrower is more like a relationship between a borrower and a lender than like the relationship between a borrower and a true debt collection agency. The law already recognizes this reality. However, in the typical loan servicing portfolio transfer, a small percentage of the loans acquired by a new servicer will inevitably be delinquent or technically in default at the time of transfer. The law currently treats these loans as being subject to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, and subsequently the new servicers of these loans are required to provide certain form notices, known as Miranda warnings, to the borrower. The law also currently requires that in every subsequent contact, both written and oral, whether initiated by the servicer or the borrower, the servicer is required to provide a shorter mini-Miranda notice disclosing that the communication is an attempt to collect a debt and that any information provided by the borrower will be used toward that end. The purpose of these cookie-cutter warnings is to prevent unscrupulous debt collectors from using false or misleading tactics, such as a phony winning sweepstakes claim or other such tactics, to trick consumers into divulging private financial information or personal details like their home address or their phone number. The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act has worked extremely well in preventing bad actors in the debt collections business from using lies and deceit to harm consumers, and this legislation would in no way prevent it from continuing to protect American consumers. However, as I have already mentioned, mortgage servicers are not like debt collectors. Their role to consumers is much more like that of a mortgage originator; and in the context of the mortgage servicing transfer, these Miranda notices are both detrimental to consumers and unnecessary and inefficient for mortgage servicers' operations. First, the notice misleads the borrower about the nature of the relationship between him or herself and the new servicer. Unlike true debt collectors, mortgage servicers have a long-term relationship with their client, and these harshly worded notices often have the effect of discouraging a borrower who was slightly late on a mortgage payment from contacting their new servicer for fear that the servicer is a true third-party debt collector. This ends up frustrating the servicer's efforts to work with delinquent borrowers on developing strategies to bring their loans current and keep their credit ratings intact. A mortgage servicer's biggest hurdle in helping delinquent borrowers to help themselves is getting them on the phone, and these threatening Miranda notices only contribute to that unnecessary fear without doing anything to help the borrower. Additionally, the information protected by the Miranda notices is information already in the servicer's possession. So nothing new is truly protected by requiring these additional legalistic and threatening notices be provided. Additionally, these warnings simply make consumers feel unnecessarily defensive and antagonistic toward their new servicer during the first step of their new association, which can have a chilling effect on the rest of their relationship. Mortgage servicers typically send these Miranda notices along with a new customer's welcome letter as required by the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, and this letter also includes important consumer information about the new servicer and the borrower's monthly payment arrangements. This preliminary contact is the first opportunity that a servicer has to create a positive relationship with a new client, and the harsh language used in the Miranda warning can create animosity toward the servicer where none need exist. Finally, Mr. Speaker, because the mini-Miranda is required in all subsequent contacts, they can continue for decades, even after customers bring their loans current and keep them that way for years. This bill will resolve that problem.

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I want to thank the gentleman from Alabama for his comments and in conclusion just say the way in which H.R. 1025 resolves the problem that we have discussed is that it creates a narrow exemption for Miranda notices for the services of federally related first lien mortgages whose primary function is servicing current loans, not collecting third-party debts. It exempts these servicers only from the Miranda notices, leaving in place all other substantive borrower protections required by the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. This legislation is consistent with the long-standing recommendations from the Federal Trade Commission to improve the mortgage servicing process, and I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this bipartisan legislation to improve the mortgage servicing process for both the consumer and companies who serve them.

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit.

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and to insert extraneous material in the Record on this bill.

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1025) to amend the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act to exempt mortgage servicers from certain requirements of the Act with respect to federally related mortgage loans secured by a first lien, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, as chairman of the Subcommittee on International Terrorism and Nonproliferation, I have to ask, Who should be in charge of counterterrorism policy? Should it be the California Coastal Commission or should it be the Department of Homeland Security? That is the crux of this argument. Now, environmental groups have successfully fought the completion of this fence over the years, claiming that it would have a serious impact on everything from the San Diego fairy shrimp to the San Diego button celery, all that in this 3.5 mile strip of desert along the border. Does anyone think we can secure the border and save the button celery by putting up a fence to stop people from trampling on it? Yes, we can. Can we protect ourselves from al Qaeda operatives who have joined forces with alien smuggling rings like MS 13 in order to enter the United States through our porous southern border by stopping them from squishing the fairy shrimp as they slip through the gap in the fence? Yes, we can. It is a win-win. In the interest of national security, we need to defeat this amendment.

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule to provide for consideration of this counterterrorism bill of which I am an original cosponsor. This is the REAL ID Act. It closes, among other things, the 3-mile hole in the fortified U.S.-Mexico border fence near San Diego. Border security must be a pillar of our national security policy. Recent press accounts have reported that al Qaeda operatives have joined forces with alien smuggling rings like MS-13 in order to enter the United States, particularly through our porous southern border. This bill establishes strong security standards for the issuance of driver's licenses that all States must comply with to eliminate weak links in identity security. The nineteen 9/11 hijackers had 63 validly issued driver's licenses and other forms of identification between them, and they were using these IDs to move around the country undetected, plotting and planning. In fact, eight of them were even registered to vote. They then used the bogus licenses that they had to board U.S. planes. H.R. 418 cracks down on asylum fraud by ensuring all terrorism- related grounds of inadmissibility are grounds for deportation. The Blind Sheik, Omar Abdel Rahman, who led a plot to bomb New York City landmarks, used an asylum application to avoid his deportation. It is a fact that terrorists have continued to use and abuse asylum laws to stay in our country. As the 9/11 Commission found, abusing our asylum law is ``the primary method,'' in their words, used by terrorist aliens, like the 1993 World Trade Center bombers Ramzi Yousef and Ahmad Ajaj, to remain in the United States. Both, in the words of the 9/11 Commission, ``concocted bogus political asylum stories when they arrived in the United States.'' So if we want to make it harder for terrorists like Yousef and Ajaj to abuse our asylum system, support this counterterrorism bill. The ninth circuit created an extremely disturbing precedent that has made it easier for suspected terrorists to receive asylum. The circuit has held that if a foreign government harasses an alien because he has been affiliated with a terrorist group, the alien is eligible for asylum because he could be persecuted on account of the political opinion of that terrorist group. Since members of terrorist organizations are eligible to receive asylum, under this doctrine an alien could receive asylum expressly because he was an admitted member of a terrorist organization. The bill returns the law to its original understanding and overturns this ninth circuit precedent by requiring that asylum applicants establish that race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion was or will be a central reason for their claimed persecution. These are commonsense changes to national security and to border security.

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution celebrating the free elections held in Iraq this past weekend. I think it is important that the world watched as millions of Iraqis defied the edict of Zarkawi and other terrorist leaders, defied their edict not to participate and went forward to cast what for most was the first meaningful vote in their lives. Thousands of Iraqis served as poll workers. There were thousands of observers, as this resolution notes. The turnout exceeded all expectations. Iraqis of all backgrounds celebrated this milestone in the history of their country, but I believe it was a milestone for the Middle East and a milestone for the world. Tyrants and dictators would have people believe that democracy is a charade. Tell that to the Iraqis celebrating in the streets throughout Iraq. They rejected Saddam Hussein in a way that they had not had an opportunity to before, and they actually rejected him with an exclamation point in this election. What we saw was yet more evidence that the yearning to shape the political life of one's community and one's nation is universal. Freedom truly is a human aspiration. Voting, as we have heard, is a step. The ballots have not yet been counted. A constitution needs to be drafted. Democracy, if it is going to work, must respect the interests of minorities. Otherwise, it is the tyranny of the majority. In general, everyone wants their own rights respected. The challenge is to get people to respect the next person's rights. Kurdish rights must be protected, Sunni rights must be respected, and the rights of the Iraqi down the street must be respected. As President Bush has told the American people, this will be a long struggle. Iraq is very difficult terrain. The stars of last weekend clearly were the Iraqi people. They put their lives on the line for a better future. Some were killed. But, make no mistake about it, there was a key supporting cast. Our Nation owes a debt of gratitude to the many members of our Armed Forces, our diplomats and other Americans in Iraq who are also risking their lives and in some cases sacrificing their lives to help Iraqis and also Americans. We have a strong national interest in seeing Iraq become a success. If this happens, when the history of this era in Iraq is written, these men and women will be widely revered.

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me this time. I rise in support of this resolution. I think we all watched in shock at the devastation caused by the December 26 earthquake and the subsequent tsunami. I led a delegation to Gujarat in 2001 to assess the damage after the earthquake that shook India, and that devastation, that tragedy, was indescribable. And after that quake, the world community pulled together, as did the people of India, including Indian Americans, to address the humanitarian disaster. But the quake there in magnitude was less than this quake. This quake was 9.0. And the effect has been such that the death toll today is over 150,000. As we have heard on the floor, millions have been left homeless. Indeed the images of death and destruction that we have seen on television are sobering. It is difficult to comprehend the extent of the damage because the devastation stretches across 5,000 miles and 12 countries. It stretches across geographical and cultural and religious lines. As is often the case in extreme disaster, we also see the best in the human spirit. There has been an outpouring of support across our country from both individuals and from businesses. Members from the Los Angeles County Fire Department's disaster response team have been dispatched to Sri Lanka. Niagara Water Company of Irvine, California, has donated 55,000 gallons of water. The actions taken by the United States Government speak louder than any statement can. Not surprisingly, first on the scene was the United States military. An aircraft carrier task force was immediately diverted from Hong Kong to the Gulf of Thailand, and a Marine Expeditionary Force from Guam was dispatched to the Bay of Bengal. No other organization in the world can tackle the logistical challenge of getting these types of assets on location to assist the people in need. As a matter of fact, the local governor in Aceh said that the U.S. Navy helicopters appeared to him like ``angels,'' in his words, as they arrived to deliver supplies to those people in need. Through this challenge we see opportunities for the United States to make a lasting impression in South and in Southeast Asia. Cooperation between the U.S. and India is expanding like never before. The U.S. regional command center for this unprecedented relief operation has been established in Thailand. And the U.S. and Indonesian military forces are working together for the first time in many years. The United States stands by the people of South and Southeast Asia during this catastrophe.

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this conference report because I strongly believe that all of the 9/11 Commission recommendations should be in it. The commission itself has said that all of its recommendations should be adopted in their entirety to ensure success in deterring terrorism. The law that we passed establishing the 9/11 Commission directed them to investigate all of the failures that led to 9/11, which included significant lapses and loopholes in our immigration and border control system. The commission made recommendations to fix our immigration and border system. We put them in the House bill. It was passed out of this House with 68 percent of this body voting in favor. They have now been stripped out in the conference report. Why are we not adopting all of the commission's recommendations to strengthen America's ability to intercept individuals who pose catastrophic threats? How quickly we forget that the 9/11 Commission found that as many as 15 of the 19 hijackers were, in their words, potentially vulnerable to interception by border authorities. So why does this bill not address the 9/11 Commission's recommendation for a secure identification system? The 19 9/11 hijackers had 63 validly issued U.S. driver's licenses between them. What were they using that many for? They were moving around the country undetected and plotting and planning. In fact, as many as eight of them were even registered to vote. They then used those bogus licenses to board U.S. planes. Why are we not addressing the commission's recommendations to crack down on asylum fraud? The 9/11 Commission cited the Blind Sheik, Omar Abdel Rahman, who led a plot to bomb New York City landmarks. He used an asylum application to avoid deportation. How about Ramzi Yousef who masterminded the first World Trade Center attack while free after applying for asylum? It is a fact that terrorists have and continue to abuse our asylum laws to stay in this country. Mr. Speaker, the removal of these immigration and border security provisions that were recommended by the 9/11 Commission was a grave mistake. They are central to any legislation designed to prevent future terrorist attacks. I urge my colleagues to do the right thing and vote this bill down so we can include all of the 9/11 Commission recommendations in it and not just the politically convenient ones.

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I do not know why we set up a 9/11 Commission if we were not going to take their provisions in their entirety. When the 9/11 Commission tells us that border security is national security; when the commission finds that our border system has two systemic weaknesses, a lack of a well-developed counterterrorism measure as a part of border security and, to quote them, ``an immigration system not able to deliver on its basic commitments when they look at the case of Mohammed Atta and others and then find and tell us that targeting their travel is at least as powerful a weapon against terrorists as targeting their money, and then lays out a plan for our U.S. border security to be reformed, and we pick up those reforms, put them in the House bill that we pass over to the Senate and now find that those very reforms are stripped out, I do not know how we back away from that argument. Border security is national security; how we acquiesce to those that say no, you cannot touch border security. You know, I do not know with certainty that moving around the organizational boxes of the intelligence community will make things better. It may. But one thing we can be sure of is that the driver's license provisions that have been stripped at the insistence of the other body would have made a difference. Driver's licenses were the 9/ 11 terrorists' license to kill and to kill massively. We know that. They had 63 of these driver's licenses between them, for the 19 of them. And these identification documents gave these hijackers unfettered access to nearly everything they needed to plan and carry out their attacks on Washington, D.C. and on New York City. And the identification cards also allowed them to remain in the country with the appearance of legitimacy long after their visas had expired and their presence in the United States became illegal. Sixty-eight percent of this body voted for these reforms and 87 percent of the American people support them. They should be in the bill.

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to Paul Leland Bateman, a constituent of mine from Cypress, California. Mr. Bateman passed away recently at the age of 94 from natural causes. He was born in Redlands, California. He attended Gardena High School and participated in football and track. He went to Compton College where he also participated in football and track eventually winning a track scholarship to the University of Southern California (USC). At USC, he played on the 1931 and 1932 National Champion Trojan football teams under Howard Jones. As a member of the ``Thundering Herd,'' he helped to break Notre Dame's 26 game winning streak and chalk up the Trojan's first victory in South Bend. He met his future wife, Ruth Loupe when he was the driver for her school bus at Compton High School. They married in 1932 and moved to Lynwood. Mr. Bateman taught at Lynwood Jr. High School beginning in 1939 and then transferred to Compton College where he taught physics and coached football, baseball, basketball and track for 33 years until his retirement. During World War II he taught pre-flight ground school at Independence, California for the Army Air Corp. He also earned his wings, although he was never officially in the military. He also worked as an engineering consultant in the development of specialized electrical motors for aircraft and aerospace applications. He owned and farmed dates at a large ranch near Hemet, California. Mr. Bateman was a life-long train hobbyist and traveled extensively on U.S. Railroads to see America. Mr. Bateman participated in Compton Jr. Chamber of Commerce, served on a water board and was president of the Tanglewood Homeowners Association in Cypress, California. He is survived by three daughters, Marcia Gilchrist, Patricia Pearce, and Linda Baham, as well as six grandchildren and four great- grandchildren. He is remembered for his achievements in athletics and engineering as well as his lifelong dedication to education.

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I just want to indicate the sheer magnitude of the horror of what is unfolding in Sudan as we speak. Because what is occurring there is a scorched-earth policy that has killed in excess of 70,000 people, that has displaced more than a million of people within Sudan, and forced hundreds of thousands of people over the border into Chad. When we think of the magnitude of the several hundreds villages burnt to the ground, the irrigation systems that have been systematically destroyed, that the government-backed militias, referred to as Janjaweed, are committing wide-spread rapes and atrocities, that the very people in the NGO communities, the very charitable organizations that are attempting to get in on the ground and to assist in this region are prevented access to those starving, I think when we reflect on what we know we can only imagine as to the extent of the horror in those villages in which we have no access, and to have had the United States, to have this Congress and the administration explain that this is genocide is only a first step. The question has been how do we get the international community to take action, a concerted action, in order to effectively apply pressure on the government in Khartoum to reverse its actions in supporting the Janjaweed. We have made it clear that we are going to support international criminal courts, we are going to support bringing to justice those that have been found to be involved in this process. But, in the meantime, there is the question of how we negotiate with a United Nations in which that body and the Security Council is not willing to take the steps that the United States has taken to call this genocide, nor to put the types of embargoes that the United States has placed on Sudan. They are not willing to go as far. In addition to speaking in favor of this resolution, I wanted to speak for just a moment about some of my concerns about the United Nations Security Council resolutions on Sudan. That draft resolution is dated November 18. This resolution is expected to be offered in Nairobi, Kenya. It addresses the issue of the ongoing negotiation, of an attempt to achieve peace in a separate conflict in southern Sudan. Again, this Congress went on record declaring the killing in Darfur as genocide. This was a historic determination not to be taken lightly. It was a fitting response to the atrocities committed by the Sudanese government and their proxy forces. For those of us on the floor today, we believe that genocide requires exceptional responses by the United States and the international community. We also believe that these responses should be taken with or without the concurrence by the government of Sudan. So when we look at the draft resolution that the United Nations is working on, we see that they urge bilateral and multilateral donors ``to continue their efforts to prepare for the rapid delivery of an assistance package for the reconstruction and economic development of Sudan, including official development assistance, possible debt relief and trade access to be implemented once a comprehensive peace agreement has been signed and its implementation begins.'' This document expresses hope that this implementation will occur by the end of next month. Let me just say, as chairman of the Subcommittee on Africa, we should not support such a so-called peace dividend which benefits the government of Sudan merely for signing a peace agreement. We should not be doing that while killing rages in Darfur. Numerous agreements, including memorandums of intent to sign future agreements, already have been signed, and countless deadlines have long since passed. Rewarding the government of Sudan for just the act of signing another agreement without setting concrete and verifiable benchmarks for implementation would be both foolhardy and unacceptable. I realize that the administration is operating within the constraints of the Security Council and that the United States has been the leading and most aggressive country in trying to resolve the crisis in Sudan, and I understand that any Security Council resolution is a consensus document. But, nevertheless, those of us involved in policy on the Sudan ask the U.N. to reconsider, to reconsider whether the price of consensus is in this instance too high, and we ask the United Nations Security Council to redouble its efforts to put pressure on the government in Khartoum to end the killing in Darfur and to bring whatever powers we can to that end. I am heartened by the offer by the African Union, by the Nigerian and the Rwandan troops, to go in on the ground to try to defend the people of Darfur. I would suggest that we ask the Security Council and the African Union to expand that mission and allow them to more aggressively pursue that defense and at the same time we continue our efforts with the heavy-lift capability and our efforts to get that force in place to defend these victims of genocide. Mr. Speaker, I thank again the author of this resolution.

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Hyde) for yielding me this time. And I want to commend the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Hyde) for putting together a comprehensive package of reforms to reinvigorate U.S. diplomacy in our war against Islamist terror. I think that this comprehensive legislation includes many provisions to improve our safety, including cracking down on illegal U.S. visas and passports, and it gets the ball rolling towards the use of biometric, tamper-resistant machine-readable passports. Clearly, border security is national security. I also wanted to speak in opposition to the amendment suggested by the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) for expedited removal. And I do that because an illegal alien who has been in the United States for less than 5 years under this proposal is subject to expedited removal unless he applies for asylum and shows a credible fear of persecution. Then he is exempted. So this bill addresses that issue. But what the amendment proposed by the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) would do is eliminate the expedited removal provision. The reason we have the provision is that, currently, many of the illegal aliens picked up on the border have to be released, and they have to be released because of lack of detention space. So they are asked to show up to a special hearing, and, of course, 87 percent, as we know, do not show up for that deportation hearing. This bill was crafted to solve the problem. The gentleman from New Jersey's (Chairman Smith's) amendment would prevent that. Secondly, the Ninth Circuit in California has given asylum to illegal aliens whose home governments believe they are terrorists on the theory that they are being persecuted because of the political beliefs of the terrorist organization. So the provision of the bill provides that if the alien applying for asylum is believed to be a terrorist, the alien has to show that a central reason is persecution for race, gender, political beliefs or religion.

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the Crime Victims' Rights Act was included in H.R. 5107, the Justice for All Act. I have long been an advocate of victim's rights. I am the author of the first State anti-stalking law in the country. At the Federal level, I introduced the Interstate Stalking Punishment and Prevention Act, which was signed into law, making it a felony to cross State lines to stalk someone. As a State senator, I worked to establish rights for crime victims in California's state constitution as author and campaign co-chair of Proposition 115, the Crime Victims/Speedy Trial Initiative. I have been working for the passage of a Federal victims' rights bill for quite sometime. I introduced a victim's rights bill in the House and cosponsored the Chabot bill, included in H.R. 5107. Because victims' rights vary from State to State, a Federal law would help ensure that all victims have at least a minimum level of rights in the criminal justice process. Our legal system must properly protect the rights of the accused and it should provide similar protection for the rights of victims. The bill establishes enhanced rights and protections for all victims of crime and spells out how these rights are to be enforced. In addition, the bill helps States implement and enforce victim's rights laws and retain their full power to protect victims in the ways most appropriate to local concerns and local needs. This bill is a positive step forward for crime victims' rights and I look forward to it becoming law.

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4011, the North Korea Human Rights Act, of which I am an original cosponsor. I would like to commend the gentleman from Iowa, Mr. Leach, and thank the leadership for expeditiously bringing this bill to the floor. Madam Speaker, the House passed this legislation unanimously in July. Last week, the other body passed this bill with minor changes. With its passage today, this important piece of legislation heads to the President's desk. This legislation has been years in the making. In May 2002, the Asia Subcommittee held the first of our hearings that have focused on the humanitarian plight in North Korea. At this hearing and others, our committee heard testimony from North Korean defectors. As Chairman of the US-Republic of Korea Interparliamentary Exchange, I have led Congressional delegations to Seoul where we have met with defectors lucky enough to escape the regime of Kim Jong Il. Here we heard first- hand accounts of the brutal conditions that face the average North Korean--where the regime apportions and withholds food based on perceived citizen loyalty to Kim Jong Il. These meetings and hearings have helped to lay the foundation for this legislation. Madam Speaker, much has been made about the best way to approach North Korea, which poses a nuclear threat. I believe that there is a strong consensus to bring about change in North Korea. This legislation makes it clear that human rights conditions in North Korea should remain a key element in future negotiations between the United States, North Korea, and other concerned parties in Northeast Asia. In order to ensure his survival, Kim Jong Il tries to keep an iron grip on all information in North Korea. U.S. backed Radio Free Asia is working to counter Kim Jong Il's propaganda, bringing objective news to the North Korean people. Surveys indicate that North Korean defectors are listening to RFA's broadcasts. A former North Korean military officer tells the story of one official shouting to another during a policy debate, ``You . . . must listen to [the] radio coming from the outside world! Then you will know that we have been living like frogs in a well! [with blinders on].'' That is why this bill calls for an increase of radio broadcasts into North Korea to twelve hours per day. And because of the problem of access to suitable radios in North Korea, the legislation requests a report detailing the steps the U.S. government is taking to increase the availability of information inside North Korea--including the provision of radios. This should maximize North Koreans access to foreign broadcasts like Radio Free Asia. The stakes couldn't be higher. We are talking about helping to free people and by doing so, improving our security. This legislation is a responsible initiative to promote human rights, refugee protection, and increased transparency in the delivery of humanitarian aid to the North Korean people. It deserves our support.

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I do rise in opposition, and I thought what I might do is simply quote some of the testimony before this Congress, starting with Steve McCraw of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Office of Intelligence, and he says of these cards: ``It is the terrorist threat presented by matricula consular that is most worrisome. The ability of foreign nationals to use the matricula consular to create a well-documented but fictitious identity in the United States provides an opportunity for terrorists to move freely within the United States without triggering name-based watch lists that are disseminated to local police officers.'' Now, that is problem number one. Problem two, as the FBI says, ``It also allows them to board planes without revealing their true identity.'' Mr. McCraw goes on to say that ``Federal officials have discovered individuals from many different countries in possession of matricula consular cards, and that is because the documents are easy to forge.'' He testified that ``An individual of Middle Eastern descent has also been arrested and was in possession of a matricula consular card.'' What we are doing here, if we pass this amendment, is legalizing a method that would make it easy for terrorists to gain access to our financial system, thereby enabling the next group of terrorists to freely move money around the United States and finance their operations. This flies in the face of the 9/11 Commission's recommendations to strengthen I.D.'s. I do not know how many of my colleagues sat through the hearings and heard the chairman and cochairman say that instead of permitting the use of new forms of I.D.'s from other countries that are not secure and not verifiable, we should be strengthening our own I.D. and visa systems. We heard the testimony like that from Lee Hamilton, former chairman of our Committee on International Relations, that we should adopt biometric identification systems for everyone who comes into the country. And, frankly, this flies in exactly the opposite direction. I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I would just like to further quote from the FBI document. ``A September 2002 bust of a document production operation in Washington State illustrated the size of this trade. A huge cache of fake Mexican birth certificates was discovered. It is our belief that the primary reason a market for these birth certificates exists is the demand for fraudulently obtained matricula consular cards. In some locations, when an individual seeking a card is unable to produce any document whatsoever, he will still be issued a card by the Mexican Consular official if the official feels that he filled out the questionnaire and satisfies the official that he is who he purports to be.'' That is another problem. In addition to being vulnerable to fraud, the matricula consular is also vulnerable to forgery. As this FBI agent says, ``There have been several generations of the card and even the newest version can be easily replicated despite its security features. It is our estimate that more than 90 percent of these cards now in circulation are the earlier versions of the cards, which are little more than simple laminated cards without any security features.'' As a result of these problems, as the FBI says, ``There are two major criminal threats posed by the cards and one potential terrorist threat. The first criminal threat stems from the fact that the cards can be a perfect breeder document for establishing a false identity. Such false identities are particularly useful to facilitate the crime of money laundering, as the criminal is able to establish one or more bank accounts under completely fictitious names. Accounts based upon such fraudulent premises greatly hamper money laundering investigations once the criminal activity is discovered.''

Mr. ROYCE

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

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, this tragedy brings the world's attention to a region of the globe that has been perhaps overlooked for too long, but it has also spurred debate about the next steps in an escalating conflict that transcends borders. It should also galvanize debate about the threat that the world faces. As the bipartisan 9/11 Commission states, ``The catastrophic threat at this moment in history is the threat posed by Islamic terrorism, especially the al Qaeda network and its affiliates and its ideology.'' I believe this is what we are seeing in southern Russia. These are not criminals united by happenstance, but by militant Islam, united by ideology, doctrine and practice, its adherence drawn from Africa to Southeast Asia, from the Middle East to the Caucasus. Al Qaeda's interest in the Caucasus is undisputed. Chechnya's lawless period of independence produced the conditions ripe for fomenting global jihad. Fighters, weapons, cash and ideology, much of it Saudi Wahabism, poured in from abroad. Like al Qaeda, Chechen fighters have used front charities to secure funds. Benevolence International Foundation, whose assets were blocked by the U.S. Government for supporting al Qaeda, has also been found to support jihadists in Chechnya. In fact, evidence seized from Benevolence International indicates that it spent over 40 percent of its budget on Chechnya. The bipartisan 9/11 Commission exposes other links, noting that several of the 9/11 hijackers, including Mohammed Atta, were headed to Chechnya to fight against the Russians. Only a chance meeting on that train in Germany with another terrorist caused the group to make the decision to travel to Afghanistan instead. Several Chechens, including Shamil Basayev, believed to be the master mind of this school attack, received training in Afghan terror camps. Perhaps most telling, Afghanistan's Taliban was the only regime in the world to recognize Chechnya's independence in January of 2000 and to pledge it help in its fight against Russia. Mr. Speaker, I could go on, but it is important to recognize these facts. It is important to recognize that this is the enemy that faces Russia, that faces the United States and that faces the world. As I said earlier, many have commented on the Russian government's response to this war, to its policies in Chechnya and its anti- democratic actions. This is a debate we should have, but we should have this debate with a clear understanding of what the Russian people and what we are up against. I urge the passage of this resolution.