Ed Royce

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon), who will soon travel to Beslan, Russia. (Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), the vice chairman of the Committee on International Relations.

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution. I would like to begin by thanking the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) for their support of this resolution. Mr. Speaker, in recent weeks, the Russian people have suffered greatly from terrorism. They have seen two airplanes blown out of the sky, killing all on board. They have seen bombs explode in subway tunnels, killing people who were just going home or just going to work. And then they saw the tragedy in a town called Beslan, in southern Russia. And in Russia the first day of school is known there as ``the day of knowledge.'' For Middle School No. 1 in Beslan, it turned into a day of terror. As students and teachers and parents gathered for that first day, 30 terrorists stormed the school, and they took 1,180 occupants as hostage. They herded the group of children and teachers and parents into the school gymnasium, and they rigged it with explosives. And those who did not obey orders on the spot were executed on that site. And there they sat the hostages in the sweltering gymnasium for 52 hours with no food, with no water. Hostages stripped off their clothes from relief of the heat and did what they could to save themselves and try to stay hydrated. These attacks were planned in meticulous detail with a cache of weapons and other equipment hidden underneath the school's library wooden floor for weeks before the attack. The terrorists were well trained. They were very well equipped. They possessed gas masks and hand-held radios and specialized weaponry. They even possessed two sentry dogs as expertly trained as the attackers themselves. This attack reflects the tactics used by Islamist terrorist groups around the world, including extensive preparation, simultaneous attacks requiring coordination, and the use of suicide bombers in the attack itself. It was no amateur operation. The end of the seizure resulted in more than 330 dead, half of them children. Hundreds were wounded, and still more were unaccounted for after the bomb blasts. Children were shot in the back as they tried to escape. The bombed-out school leaves an unimaginable scene, desks littered with bullet holes, bloody handprints on tiles, body parts of suicide bombers litter the floor and the ceiling of the classroom, and on the chalkboard one can see in the film that the teacher had prepared an arithmetic lesson four plus two equals six. In Beslan last week, caskets, many of them child-sized, were carried one by one for burial. A patch of land about the size of a football field had to be prepared for more graves because the town's cemetery was not big enough to hold all the bodies. Mr. Speaker, September 1 is Russia's 9/11. The world has expressed its sympathy for the people of Beslan. At the Russian Embassy here in Washington, D.C., hundreds have lined up to sign condolence books, including Secretary Powell and President Bush. Secretary Powell wrote: ``As a parent, my heart and my prayers go out to those who lost children. The United States stands firmly and with solidarity with Russia in fighting all forms of terrorism. This tragedy will serve to energize our efforts.'' As Americans are now sending their children back to school across the country, this calamity has moved many Americans. Many have commented on the Russian government's response to this war and to its policies in Chechnya and its anti-democratic actions in Chechnya. This deserves debate in appropriate forums. However, one thing is clear: nothing can justify this deliberate targeting of innocent children. The use of children as targets by these trained terrorists is reprehensible. These are children, again, that were specifically targeted. This resolution rightly condemns this establishment. Mr. Speaker, the unfortunate reality is that today's terrorism knows no borders. This killing has spread and apparently will continue to spread. The children and people of Beslan, Russia, have now joined the people of New York and Bali and Moscow and Karachi and Jerusalem and Madrid and many other places around the globe as victims of international terrorism. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 760) condemning the series of terrorist attacks against the Russian Federation that occurred in late August and early September 2004.

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to Mr. Steven R. Heape, a proud member of the Cherokee Nation. He was born in Long Beach, California on March 25, 1951. His family eventually moved to Fullerton, where Steven graduated from Fullerton Union High School. Steven also attended Fullerton Junior College as a Business Administration Major, while working as a Major Account Representative for Armor Food Company. His interest in motion picture production eventually led him to produce the film titled, ``Location to Recovery,'' one of the first education docudramas to be released from 16mm film to VHS videotape. In 1994, Mr. Heape and business partner Chip Ritchie formed Rich- Heape Films, Inc., certified by the Cherokee Nation to focus on the history and preservation of the American Indian culture. Today, Rich- Heape Films is an internationally recognized firm with several award- winning films to its credit. The American Indian Chamber of Commerce awarded it the 2003 American Indian Business of the Year. In August, Mr. Heape was one of five Native American filmmakers invited to participate in the strategic film and video content planning for the new Smithsonian's National Museum of the American Indian in Washington, D.C. In March 2004, Mr. Heape began the most challenging project of his career, producing a two-hour PBS documentary on the Indian Removal Act of 1830, better known as the Cherokee Trail of Tears scheduled for release in 2005. On September 12, Mr. Heape is being recognized by the Little Eagle Free Foundation for his contribution and philanthropy in preserving the languages, history and cultures of Native Americans. It is only fitting that Mr. Heape is to be commended for his extraordinary efforts to document and preserve Native American culture and the part played in American History.

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the sponsor of this resolution, Mr. Payne, as well as Chairman Hyde of the Committee on International Relations, and all of the members who have worked to bring H. Con. Res. 467 to the floor. I think it's very important that Congress act on this resolution before the August recess. Tonight the House of Representatives will go on record declaring the atrocities being committed in the Darfur region of Sudan to be ``genocide.'' H. Con. Res. 467 is a statement for the world, and a stark warning to the Sudanese government. We've heard about the atrocities government-backed militias are perpetrating in Darfur. This resolution cites an estimated 30,000 innocent civilians brutally murdered, more than 130,000 people fleeing to neighboring Chad, and more than one million people internally displaced. The Africa Subcommittee that I chair has held several hearings on Sudan. We've heard about the human suffering. We have also heard about how this killing is targeted and systematic. Villages are razed, crops are burned, and wells are poisoned. I fully support this resolution's determination that genocide is occurring in Sudan, as it played out in Rwanda ten years ago. Those doing the killing need to understand that the world is changing. We have international courts to hold human rights criminals accountable. Information is being collected. The days of impunity are ending. That is a message that this resolution sends. H. Con. Res. 467 deplores the failure of the United Nations Human Rights Commission to take appropriate action on Darfur. Earlier this year, the Commission failed to support a United States led effort to strongly condemn gross human rights violations in Darfur. Others just don't care. The administration has taken the lead in seeking an end to the slaughter in Darfur, and addressing the humanitarian crisis there. Why do we seem to care about Darfur more than African governments? We desperately need African engagement, and outrage, on Darfur. It is Africans who are being slaughtered. Indeed, the administration deserves much credit for achieving a north-south peace accord in Sudan. It has played a very good hand with the cards it was dealt. Congress has been supportive of these negotiations, including with the Sudan Peace Act. But now we have a genocide in the west of Sudan--in Darfur. Peace isn't divisible in Sudan. It's a cliche, but in Darfur, Khartoum is showing its true colors. Today, that government is hearing loud and clear that there will be no U.S. aid or improved relations, no support for the peace process, as long as the killing continues in Darfur. Maybe that matters to Khartoum; to be honest, maybe it doesn't, which is a possibility we need to prepare for. That is why H. Con. Res. 467 urges the administration to seriously consider multilateral or even unilateral intervention to stop the genocide should the United Nations Security Council fail to act. I don't think it needs this urging. The suffering in Darfur is moving the American people. There's an awakening to the horror being afflicted there. Tonight, the House of Representatives is amplifying these concerns for the world.

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4011, the North Korea Human Rights Act, of which I am an original cosponsor. The human rights conditions in North Korea are abysmal. As we know, the North Korean regime apportions and withholds resources based on perceived citizen loyalty to the regime. From 1994 to 1998 at least two million North Koreans perished from starvation and related diseases, while nearly 50 percent of all North Korean children are malnourished to the point that it threatens their physical and mental health. This dire situation has forced many North Koreans to risk life and limb to flee into China. As many as 300,000 North Korean refugees are hiding in the Chinese countryside. Chinese authorities continue an agreessive crackdown--actively hunting down North Korean refugees and forcibly repatriating them to North Korea. Once returned to North Korea, they fact torture, imprisonment, and even execution. The International Relations Subcommittee on Asia has held hearings on North Korea's human rights abuses, where we have heard testimony from North Korean defectors. Ms. Lee, a former North Korean party official, described life in a North Korean gulag. She said, ``A prisoner has no right to talk, laugh, sing or look in a mirror. Prisoners must kneel down on the ground and keep their heads down deeply whenever called by a guard. They can say nothing except to answer questions when asked. Prisoners have to work as slaves for up to 18 hours a day. Repeated failure to meet the work quotas means a week's time in a punishment cell. A prisoner must give up their human worth.'' She also told us, with the help of simple--yet shocking--illustrations, about chemical weapons tests and other atrocities that she witnessed which were performed on prisoners. Unfortunately, this grim reality has been glossed over. This bill is an important statement as to how the United States Congress views the situation in North Korea. It is also the moral policy given the horrendous human rights condition north of the border. In order to ensure his survival, Kim Jong Il tries to keep an iron grip on all information in North Korea. Control of information is absolutely crucial--because the system is based on lies. The propaganda is so great, that defectors actually report that they believed that their impoverished country was wealthier than South Korea. U.S. backed Radio Free Asia is countering this propaganda, bringing objective news to the North Korean people. Surveys indicate that North Korean defectors are listening to RFA's broadcasts. That is why this bill calls for the 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--to maximize North Koreans access to foreign broadcasts like Radio Free Asia. Whatever one's views on how to handle the North Korea challenge, I believe that there is a strong consensus to bring about change in North Korea. Mr. Speaker, as you know, the concept here is to do as we did with Eastern Europe--flooding repressed people with broadcasts from Radio Free Europe. When we talk with Lech Walesa and Vaclav Havel, they tell us that the biggest factor in changing attitudes behind the Iron Curtain was the ability to listen to Radio Free Europe's broadcasts. 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. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. We are urging support for S. 2264, the Northern Uganda Crisis Response Act, and we are doing that because for the past 18 years Northern Uganda has been embroiled in a particularly vicious conflict, one which pits Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni's efforts at governance against a group called the Lord's Resistance Army. And the Lord's Resistance Army, designated as a terrorist organization by the Secretary of State, moves in small, well-coordinated groups from bases in southern Sudan, launching brutal attacks against civilian populations. They launch these attacks at night. Members of the Lord's Resistance Army have no clear political agenda; and, frankly, they make no attempts to hold territory. But what they do do and have done for these last 18 years is to murder and rape and loot with impunity. The devastation inflicted upon the civilian population during this war cannot be overstated. Frankly, it is unknown how many people have been killed, but we do know that more than 1.2 million people, 80 percent of the local population, have been displaced by the Lord's Resistance Army. Over 1.8 million people depend on food aid in an area that once served as the breadbasket of Uganda, and acute malnutrition of children under the age of 5 has risen 30 percent since December, 2002. Humanitarian operations have been severely hampered by the increasingly tenuous security situation there in Northern Uganda. Aid convoys regularly come under attack; and, according to the United Nations, they can now only deliver materials under heavy military escort. Up to 90 percent of the schools in affected districts have been closed. The HIV/AIDS prevalence rate in the Gulu District, a district particularly hard-hit by the crisis, is 30 percent, while the national average is just 5 percent. Many of us are aware of the progress made under President Museveni in fighting HIV/AIDS nationwide in Uganda where it has been reduced. But not in this district where the Lord's Resistance Army operates at night. Perhaps the most heart-wrenching aspect of this conflict has been the impact it has had on the children. Up to 20,000 children have been abducted since the start of this conflict. Many have been killed while others have been beaten and tortured and maimed and forced to be soldiers or sexual slaves. Between 20,000 to 30,000 other children are forced every evening to seek refuge on the streets of Gulu and Pader and Kitgum. They walk up to 15 kilometers from their villages to spend the night sleeping under grossly overcrowded tents on concrete floors, before giving up at dawn to make the return to their village. These children have never known peace. They have never known stability. They have never had the luxury of being a child and experiencing the joys of childhood. According to Jan Egeland, the United Nations Under Secretary General for Humanitarian Affairs, the conflict in northern Uganda ``is characterized by a level of cruelty seldom seen and few conflicts rival it for sheer brutality.'' Given the horrific nature of the crimes perpetrated by the Lord's Resistance Army, I have no doubt that that statement is true. Despite this, the magnitude of the crisis is not well grasped outside of the region, and international response, frankly, has been underwhelming. The Northern Ugandan Crisis Response Act, this bill, draws much- needed attention to the forgotten war in northern Uganda. It reaffirms the strong relationship which exists between the United States and Uganda while recognizing that the government of Uganda's military efforts to resolve the conflict have not effectively ensured the security of civilian populations. The bill calls on the government of Uganda to improve the level of professionalism within the Ugandan People's Defense Force and to permit international human rights monitors to establish a presence in northern and eastern Uganda. The bill acknowledges that, according to Human Rights Watch, the government of Sudan has been the only known supporter of the Lord's Resistance Army since the early 1990s. To this end, it calls on the administration to investigate the sources of support for the Lord's Resistance Army and to make it clear to the government of Sudan that normalization of relations will not be possible if credible evidence against these sources again emerges. S. 2264 asserts that the United States should work vigorously to support peace initiatives in northern Uganda. It urges the United States Government, the international community, and the government of Uganda to make resources available to meet immediate relief and development needs and to provide civilian protection and to develop reintegration plans for displaced persons to integrate them back into society, and for combatants and for abductees and to provide support in general for civil society. Finally, the bill requires the Secretary of State to submit a report to the Congress which describes not only the sources of support for the Lord's Resistance Army but also the activities undertaken by the Lord's Resistance Army which obstruct humanitarian assistance, the practices employed by the UPDF to ensure civilian protection, and to punish soldiers who are themselves guilty of abuse, and the actions taken by the Ugandan government, the United States and the international community to ensure civilian protection. This bill is the result of a collaborative effort and enjoys strong bipartisan, bicameral support; and we thank the gentleman from Wisconsin in the Senate, Mr. Feingold, for introducing this timely and important measure; and here on the House floor, we urge full support. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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 include extraneous material on S. 2264.

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the Senate bill (S. 2264) to require a report on the conflict in Uganda, and for other purposes.

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I will conclude. The conflict in northern Uganda does not receive much attention in the press; and, frankly, it does not receive the attention it deserves. Today, the U.S. Congress is speaking out, going on record in saying that we have an interest in helping to stop the savagery that is devastating so many lives. I want to just take a moment and thank my colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), for his support on this resolution, but wider than that, for his leadership on so many of the most vexing and troublesome of gross human rights violations around the world which he has consistently brought to the world's attention. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House Resolution 688; and I want to just commend my colleague, the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Nunes), for his offering up this amendment. As chairman of the Subcommittee on Africa of the Committee on International Relations, I can attest to the importance of Portugal engagement not only in Africa on the War on Terror but also, as a member of the Committee on International Relations, we have seen their engagement in Europe and in Southeast Asia. They have been at the vanguard of confronting terrorism and confronting the threats that we in the entire world community have faced post-September 11. They have continued to allow the United States access and use of the Lajes Air Base, and we are deeply appreciative of that but also certainly very appreciative of the friendship that Portugal has shown the United States. We want to commend the people of Portugal and, at the same time, we also want to recognize in this resolution the many contributions made to our Nation by the Portuguese-American population here in the United States. As we focus on Iraq, we again also appreciate the Portuguese forces that serve there, the military forces, the medical personnel, the police that have been such an asset to us. So, with that said, in conclusion, I would like to again thank the government of Portugal and the Portuguese people for their friendship, their support as an ally and also for their leadership in Europe and worldwide. I urge the adoption of this resolution.

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Viet Nam Human Rights Act, of which I am pleased to have joined the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) in introducing. I have had the opportunity in Vietnam to sit down with some of the religious dissidents, some of the religious leaders under house arrest for speaking out about religious freedom, and I wanted to share with this body that Freedom House has consistently done an analysis every year on Vietnam and ranked that country ``not free,'' because people there cannot practice religious liberty; and efforts by this House to promote human rights in Vietnam have been blocked. Meanwhile, I will just give this assessment by Freedom House, the most recent. ``The regime jails or harasses most dissidents, controls all media, sharply restricts religious freedom, and prevents Vietnamese from setting up independent political or independent labor or independent religious groups.'' My colleagues today have pointed out some horrific abuses against those who are simply attempting to practice their religion as they choose, but I want to point out that this regime is also one of the world's worst violators of press and Internet freedom. Prominent nongovernmental organizations have condemned the government of Vietnam's attempt to silence cyberdissidents and stifle freedom of the Internet. I think the severity of some of these jail terms handed down, last year, we had Dr. Nguyen Dan Que, one of Vietnam's best-known dissidents, who was arrested for sending an email entitled ``Communique on Freedom of Information in Vietnam.'' It was simply an analysis of the government's refusal to implement and lift controls on the media. I will just take one line out of this analysis that he put forward. He said, ``The State hopes to cling to power by brainwashing the Vietnamese people through stringent censorship and through its absolutist control over what information the public can receive.'' Now, we have a way here, with this bill, with this legislation, to beef up Radio Free Asia and bring information, bring objective news and truth to the Vietnamese people in a more effective way. I think the spread of democratic values in Asia is critical to U.S. security interests, and I think Radio Free Asia is a large step forward in the right direction. We know these broadcasts are effective. How do we know? Because the Vietnamese government spends so much of their energy trying to block these broadcasts. So I agree we have a growing relationship with Vietnam. I do not take issue with that. I supported the Bilateral Trade Agreement. But this does not mean the United States should stand moot while grievous human rights abuses occur. So I urge my colleagues to send this legislation to the other body with a strong vote.

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House Resolution 704, which is legislation that I introduced. And this legislation congratulates my alma mater, the Cal State Fullerton Titans baseball team, on winning the 2004 College World Series. I am pleased that my colleagues from Orange County have joined me in acknowledging this triumphant season for the Titans. For those of us who grew up in Orange County, this is a momentous occasion. This is the fourth time in the school's history that the Titans have won the College World Series championship. The Titans' victory was far from predicted. They were the underdog from the start. They started this season with a 15-16 won-loss record at midseason. Despite their early struggles, the Titans continued to display character and resiliency by working hard. This scrappy Cal State-Fullerton baseball team went on to beat the odds and did so in the most humble fashion possible, through good old-fashioned teamwork. Cal State-Fullerton went on to win the Big West Conference over perennial conference powerhouse Long Beach State. This contentious conference is hard fought year after year, with the Titans always displaying consistency and determination, although favorable results are not always the outcome. However, this season, as in some seasons past, the Titans emerged victorious alongside their passionate coach George Horton, who sees every opportunity as one in which positive results may rise. The Titans continued their inspiring display of teamwork and will to win throughout the College World Series. They defeated the University of Miami Hurricanes and then the University of South Carolina Gamecocks in the semifinals. This run of the Titans culminated with their sweep of the best-of-three championship series by defeating the top-ranked University of Texas Longhorns 6-4 and 3-2 in come-from-behind victories. The Cal State-Fullerton Titans finished with an overall record of 47 wins and 22 losses and a postseason record of 11 wins and 2 losses. This victory for Cal State-Fullerton head coach George Horton was bittersweet as he defeated his longtime mentor and friend Augie Garrido who led the Titans in the past for 21 seasons during which he won three national championships before leaving to coach the University of Texas Longhorns back in 1996. The atmosphere at both the stadium in Omaha, Nebraska, and back home in Orange County was electrifying. Fans across Orange County displayed their Titan pride in waves by wearing Cal State-Fullerton colors identified by the distinguishable orange and blue. The Titans were welcomed home by an enthusiastic crowd of supporters upon their arrival in Orange County where a parade took place in honor of these exceptional college athletes. Throughout the season, the Titans were led by a gutsy group of players such as All-Americans Kurt Suzuki, who hit a single with two outs in the bottom of the seventh inning driving home the game-winning run in the final game of the series, and Jason Windsor, who pitched his second complete game of the College World Series, earning him Most Outstanding Player honors as they captured the NCAA Division I baseball championship. Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the Cal State-Fullerton Titans' players, coaches, staff and fans who were instrumental in bringing the College World Series championship back to Fullerton for a fourth time.

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Madam Speaker, I would like to join my colleagues in honoring Doug Bereuter and commending the 13 terms he has served in the House of Representatives. I have had the privilege of working with Congressman Bereuter on the Financial Services Committee and the International Relations Committee for a number of years now. As we have heard today, he is a highly esteemed and respected member of these committees. Congressman Bereuter has been one of the House's resident experts on foreign policy matters--especially in Asia. I had the privilege of serving on the Asia Subcommittee when Congressman Bereuter served as its Chairman and worked with him to strengthen U.S. ties with our allies in Asia. Congressman Bereuter and I also had a chance to travel to Asia together during this time. As this House knows, Congressman Bereuter's interest in foreign affairs has not been confined to Asian nations. He plays an active role in European parliamentary exchanges and serves as Chairman of the European Subcommittee with distinction. As President of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, Congressman Bereuter has highlighted the importance of establishing strong transatlantic relationships and the role of sustained and meaningful dialogue between the United States and Europe in achieving those goals. He worked diligently to include nations like Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, Congressman Bereuter and I have been encouraging greater involvement by NATO partners in promoting security in Afghanistan. Congressman Bereuter has also proved himself to be an expert on intelligence matters. As Chairman of the Intelligence Policy and National Security Subcommittee and Vice Chairman of the Terrorism and Homeland Security Subcommittee, he has led careful oversight of the transformation of U.S. intelligence agencies after September 11th. He has worked hard to improve the organization and operation of the intelligence community, enhance their language education and training, and improve the coordination of the Federal Government in identifying and responding to weak or failing countries that endanger international security or stability. I have long respected Doug's thoughtful and attentive manner and his focus on substance rather than rhetoric. When he spoke, people listened. This House will undoubtedly miss his presence and work.

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. I was going to make the point that under AGOA, and there are 37 countries that have qualified for the African Growth and Opportunity Act, this act is supported in fact by all the governments of Africa. We have heard from their diplomatic corps. We have heard that increased trade from Africa as a result of this act, drastically increased trade, has been a win for Africa and has been a win for the United States. But I did want to clarify one point. There have been no countries that have been dropped from this list because of water issues or questions about privatization of water, and there certainly have been no countries dropped because of intellectual property rights issues. The one case of a country that was dropped from eligibility for AGOA is the case of Eritrea. In this particular instance, it goes to the issue of human rights, and human rights, because this is a unilateral trade preference granted these governments, there is an expectation that they will conform to worldwide, accepted practices. Now, this is not just an issue with the United States; this is an issue worldwide. I would just take, for example, the case of Aster Yohannes, who was studying here in the United States. She went back to see her children in Eritrea and was arrested at the airport. Before making that trip, she checked with the ambassador from Eritrea, she was given assurances she could safely go back to her country. She checked with me and I talked with the ambassador, and in writing I was given this assurance. This is not just, as I say, an issue with the United States, these human rights abuses. They are worldwide, because the entire press corps has been arrested in Eritrea, the political opposition has been arrested. So under these particular circumstances, it is not just the U.S., but the world community, that has launched a campaign to try to have some reform in Eritrea, and this is why it is not on the list. I thought it would be good to take a moment to explain that, and also explain that it does not go to the issue of national security inside Eritrea, it goes to human rights. The last point I just wanted to make is that many of these apparel jobs in Africa will otherwise go to China if we do not follow forward and extend AGOA, the provision for third country fabric in AGOA. I think all of the Members here understand how important this particular program of AGOA has been to the continent, and would like to move forward. So I urge passage of this legislation.

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, as an original sponsor of this legislation, I have welcomed working with the gentleman from California (Chairman Thomas) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), ranking member; the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott); the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Jefferson); the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane); the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne), and other Members from both sides of the aisle who have been advancing the AGOA program for years now. Since becoming chairman of the Africa Subcommittee 7 years ago, one of our top priorities has been working to see that Africa does not fall off the edge of the world's economic map; and, frankly, Africa is teetering on that edge. Fortunately, though, AGOA has been a lifeline for Africa to the global economy. Today, 3 years into the AGOA program, we know that it has worked. Many of us that have worked on this legislation, of course, wish that more African countries and more African industries were taking advantage of AGOA, and we wish they particularly would take advantage of AGOA in agriculture. That is why this legislation includes trade capacity-building provisions, but in a few short years AGOA has managed to draw hundreds of millions of dollars of foreign investment to the continent, creating hundreds of thousands of desperately needed jobs. This makes AGOA the most effective of our development programs for Africa that I am aware of. Several Members, in fact, have had the opportunity to visit these apparel plants as we have traveled to Africa to see this encouraging development firsthand. Africans are meeting world-class standards for manufactured goods. This makes AGOA a big morale boost for many African countries. AGOA has also encouraged difficult economic reforms as African countries have strived to maintain their eligibility for AGOA. AGOA has also bolstered our political relations with many African governments. Few African officials that I have met with have not expressed their support and appreciation for AGOA. They almost always begin the meeting by explaining how it has brought economic reform to their country and increased trade with the United States. This is important diplomatic capital that our country has gained through AGOA. The African continent, frankly, is at a crossroads. The vision many of us have is of an Africa that joins the world economy, the vision that we have had of working for an increasingly stable and democratic Africa that is combating HIV/AIDS and exporting and importing more goods and services, including from America. That is the vision that we share, I think, on this floor. The other very different path Africa could get stuck on leads to even greater poverty and greater hunger and conflict and, frankly, greater disease and environmental degradation. It is unclear which way Africa is headed. Challenges on the continent are immense. But what is quite clear is that our growing security and economic interests on the continent would suffer greatly should Africa find itself on the downward path. If the U.S. Congress fails to pass this AGOA legislation before the third country fabric provisions expire in September, as we have heard today, if we fail to extend it for 3 years, we will be undoing much of the good that AGOA has done. Greater competition from China and other countries is coming soon, as apparel trading rules are set to change. Unless we act, this competition will surely wipe out much of Africa's young apparel industry and many African jobs that AGOA has created, and, frankly, it will wipe out much African hope. Already apparel orders for Africa are being canceled because of the uncertainty over Congress' action. We must act. Our credibility as a Nation that takes an interest in the world's poorest countries is on the line. Let us act and do our part to direct Africa away from a path of despair. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 4103. I thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) and the other Members that have worked with the gentleman from California (Chairman Thomas) to support this legislation.

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, first, both personally and on behalf of my constituents in Orange County, let me offer my condolences to Mrs. Reagan and the Reagan family. I, like so many of my colleagues, probably would not be standing here today if it were not for Ronald Reagan. He was an inspiration for a whole generation of young Americans, and his message of limited government and unlimited freedom, as well as his boundless optimism about America's future, motivated me and so many others to get involved in the affairs of our Nation. I first met Ronald Reagan as a student in California. That experience led me to become involved in the Youth For Reagan movement. Over the years, I was privileged to meet him many more times. It was one of the most memorable meetings in 1986. I was visiting the White House as a State senator on the day that President Reagan ordered the bombing of Libya because of their open support for international terrorism. The President told me what a difficult decision it was, but how the future of our Nation and the safety of our citizens depended on firm action. President Reagan was never afraid to take a stand, never afraid to do what was right, even if it was not popular at the moment. In 1964 Ronald Reagan spoke these words to a generation of Americans: ``You and I have a rendezvous with destiny. Will we preserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on earth, or will we sentence them to take the last step into a thousand years of darkness?'' President Reagan understood the evil of communism. He knew the Cold War would end. He knew that there would be winners and there would be losers. Thanks to his resolve, freedom won. Thanks to his resolve, millions of people were set free. President Reagan also understood that free markets go hand in hand with individual liberties. In 1981 he said: ``We who live in free market societies believe that growth, prosperity and ultimately human fulfillment are created from the bottom up, not the government down. Only when the human spirit is allowed to invent and create, only when individuals are given a personal stake in deciding economic policies and benefiting from their success, only then can societies remain economically alive, dynamic, progressive and free.'' At his second inauguration, speaking inside the rotunda of this Capitol building, President Reagan said: ``Our Nation is poised for greatness. We must do what we know is right, and do it with all our might. Let history say of us, these were golden years, when the American revolution was reborn, when freedom gained new life and America reached for her best.'' Throughout his career, Ronald Reagan was always helping America reach for her best. He inspired us with his spirit, with his optimism; and he led us with his commitment to principle and unwavering resolve. America and the rest of the world are better, safer, and freer places today because of Ronald Reagan. We will miss him dearly.

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. I would like to begin by seconding the remarks by the ranking member of the Committee on International Relations, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos). I believe, as he does, that the killing in western Sudan demands the world's attention. This resolution of which we are co- sponsors condemns Sudan's government for attacks against civilians in the Darfur region. As explained, the numbers here are very grim. Because the government's Scorched Earth policies have killed tens of thousands of people, have displaced as of today over one million human beings, many of them forced into neighboring Chad, hundreds of villages have been burned to the ground, those irrigation systems have been destroyed, and government-backed militias have committed widespread rapes; but beyond that, beyond that the victims of these rapes are often branded on the forehead, which is a rather unique proof of the intent of ethnic cleansing that is going on in these communities. Denied access to this region by the government, I think we can only imagine the full extent of this relentless campaign which has the look of genocide against the people of Darfur. I believe the administration deserves credit for its sustained commitment to bringing peace to Sudan. Congress has backed its effort, including the Sudan Peace Act. The Subcommittee on Africa, which I chair, has closely followed negotiations between Khartoum and the SPLM. But after several years, it is less and less likely that those negotiations will succeed. The administration's Sudan Peace Act, the report on that peace act of last month noted that, the bottom line, these talks had become stagnant. We need to keep in mind too that any agreement reached would face major challenges being implemented. Africa has seen many failed peace agreements. So Khartoum's true colors, I am afraid, are being shown in Darfur. At this point, for my part I would have little faith in any peace agreements it signs. If we remain engaged in this peace process, though, Darfur must not be discounted. Darfur must be addressed. Last month, the Subcommittee on Africa held a hearing looking back on the Rwandan genocide. During the run-up to the killing of a million people, the United States and others were dulled to its warning signs because of the commitment to a doomed peace process. And I am afraid that that may be part of what we are witnessing here. In Rwanda, like in Sudan today, the government denied its support for militias carrying out ethnic cleansing. It was very familiar to these, very close akin to this same circumstance we face here. Khartoum should know that peace agreement or not, there will be no normal relations with the United States as long as it is committing atrocities in Darfur. The administration brought Darfur to the world's attention at the United Nations Commission on Human Rights' annual session in Geneva. That its proposal to censure the Sudanese Government was widely rejected is yet more evidence that the commission is a very troubled institution. It also makes it harder to believe that other countries have much of a commitment to peace in Sudan. Moving ahead, our assumption on Sudan that the international community will provide material support and be an honest broker if a peace agreement is signed should be rethought. I support this resolution; I urge its passage. And I would also like to commend the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) for his dedication to this issue.

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, there really is a medical liability crisis in this country. Americans realize there is an urgent problem, but I think many are unsure of how to solve that problem. In my view, they need to look no farther than California for an answer as to what to do about this medical liability crisis, because in the early 1970s in California we faced a medical liability crisis very similar to the one that is spreading across the Nation now; and at that time, Governor Jerry Brown teamed up with members in the State Senate and members in the State Assembly and passed the Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act, which is referred to as MICRA. As health care costs hammer our citizens and limit the jobs available, it is imperative that the Nation follow California's example and bring structure and stability to the medical liability system. I say that because Californians enjoy a very secure competitive liability system. MICRA limited noneconomic damages to those injured, while ensuring full compensation for lost wages and for medical costs. Doctors have the benefit of some of the lowest medical liability premiums in the Nation. Since MICRA was enacted, medical liability premiums across this Nation have increased by 750 percent. In California, the increase is less than half that number, less than half the Nation's average. That means that we are doing something right, and let me give my colleagues some other facts. Disputes in California are settled 26 percent faster, and health care costs are 6 percent lower. That saves the patients in our State $6 billion per year, and I think it speaks volumes as to our system's capabilities. Yesterday, the House passed H.R. 4280, and by doing so we took the California model, and we applied it to the entire Nation. This is about commonsense reform, reform we know will work because we have tried it. Health care costs have skyrocketed over the last decade. Advanced medical technology, advanced therapy, increased use of prescription drugs, all of these paired with inadequate cost containment have led to runaway prices; but, Mr. Speaker, I do not think we want to stand for this. I do not think my colleagues want to stand for this. It is not acceptable to stand by and watch our constituents unfairly carry the burden of a lacking system. Systems like MICRA allow for patients to recover from their health care costs. State hospital associations estimate that every hour of care requires an hour of paperwork. One hour of doctor-to-patient care surely does not require the cost of that hour plus an additional hour of an administrator filling out forms. It is inefficient, it is clumsy; and thankfully we will no longer stand for it because by a 30-plus margin we have moved in a strong, bipartisan way to take our country towards medical liability improvement. Employers, large and small, have struggled to keep their businesses up to the phenomenal speeds set by racing costs. Finally, we have introduced a way for businesses to provide health coverage because they care about their employees, without compromising the integrity of their businesses and products that they produce. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues for passing this much-needed legislation to preserve access to quality health care costs, not just for Californians, but now for all Americans. We passed this legislation yesterday, the bill is currently pending in the Senate. It is my hope that the Senate will act expeditiously so that we can get this legislation to the President's desk quickly.

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I have been trying for some years now to push this concept, a bill that I introduced a number of years ago. With the knowledge that we have got, I do not know, maybe 37 million Americans who do have access to these flexible spending accounts, and I think many of us here probably know someone who does, maybe a spouse, if he or she is employed in the private sector, but the problem is that over half of these individuals do not utilize their access to FSAs because of this use-it-or-lose-it provision that we are trying to eliminate through this measure here today. And as we know, currently, the employer and the employee can set aside money before taxes into this flexible spending account and then that money can be used just like cash to pay for out-of-pocket medical expenses and insurance copayments and doctors' visits and even child care. The downside is that if they do not spend their money at the end of the year, they lose it, and it goes back to their employer. I originally introduced this bill as a consequence of a conversation I had 4 years ago with my wife, who came home with yet another pair of glasses, and Marie said she purchased them not because she needed them necessarily. She liked them, but she said she did not want to lose the money in her FSA and her employer said that if she does not spend it, this money will revert back to the company. So the rules governing FSAs force workers who have put in money to match the money put in by their employer to scurry around at the end of the year and wastefully spend their health care dollars, just so they do not have to forfeit it. I do not know how many of you have seen the TV ads that run each December talking up medical procedures, reminding people to spend their unused FSA dollars. Now, that is a wasteful procedure. What is worse here is over half of the employees who are eligible do not sign up in the first place because they do not want to lose their money. So this use-it-or-lose-it is the worst type of economic incentive. It discourages savings and, instead, encourages frivolous, needless spending. So this initiative that I have introduced and has been picked up by the committee will allow workers to roll over up to $500 of their own money back into their FSA at the end of the year, or, as mentioned, put it into a recently created Health Savings Account. I think it is a commonsense solution that will give peace of mind and let employees save for future expenses. I encourage the Senate to take immediate action on this important legislation. We have pushed this for some years. We need to get it through the process, because FSAs are a commonsense, free market approach that allows people to take more control over their health care dollars. The use-it-or-lose-it provision must go.

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I rise today to bring some more facts to the debate over industrial loan companies. ILCs are well regulated, both at the State and Federal levels. They have played an important part in our country's financial system for over 100 years. I have a letter from the chairman, Donald Powell, of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, and I will provide it for the Record, but I also thought I would just read some of the observations that Chairman Powell makes about ILCs. Chairman Powell says that industrial loan companies and industrial banks have existed since the early 1900s, and overall it is the FDIC's view that ILC charters pose no greater safety and soundness risk than other charter types. As with any other insured institution, ILCs are subject to examinations and other supervisory activities. The FDIC's authority to pursue formal or informal enforcement actions against an ILC is the same as the FDIC authority with respect to any other State nonmember bank, with limited exceptions. In short, the FDIC does not believe that there are any compelling safety and soundness reasons to impose constraints on this charter type that are not imposed on other charter types. Chairman Powell of the FDIC goes on to say that the FDIC and the State chartering authorities directly supervise insured ILCs, which must comply with the FDIC's rules and regulations, including those requirements for capital standards, safe and sound operations, and consumer compliance and community reinvestment. Further, as he says, the FDIC has the authority to examine any affiliate of an ILC, including its parent company, as may be necessary, to determine the relationship between the ILC and the affiliate, and to determine the effect of such relationship on the ILC. I thought I would bring those facts to light. I know that some competitors of ILCs worry because they do not want more competition in the banking marketplace, but we all know that competition is good for consumers, it is good for businesses, and it is good for our economy as a whole. And since I have heard other companies make the argument that ILCs are not safe and sound, I wanted to respond by saying that ILCs are heavily regulated financial institutions, ILCs are regulated by the FDIC and by State banking regulators in every State in which they operate, and I think we should judge ILCs on the facts. To that end, Mr. Chairman, I submit the letter of Chairman Donald Powell for the Record herewith: Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Washington, DC, April 30, 2003. Hon. Edward R. Royce, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Congressman Royce: Thank you for your recent letter concerning industrial loan companies. We are closely monitoring the recent attention that industrial loan companies are receiving and appreciate your questions. Industrial loan companies and industrial banks (collectively, ILCs) have existed since the early 1900s. States with existing insured ILCs include California, Colorado, Indiana, Minnesota, Nevada, and Utah. There are 51 insured ILCs, with the vast majority operated from Utah (24) and California (17). The charters are unique in that, as long as they meet certain criteria (typically, not accepting demand deposits), they are not considered ``banks'' under the Bank Holding Company Act. As a result, an ILC's parent company is not subject to supervision by the Federal Reserve. Just as is true of unitary thrift holding companies and parent companies of limited-purpose credit card banks, the parent companies of ILCs include a diverse group of financial and commercial firms. Overall, it is the FDIC's view that ILC charters pose no greater safety and soundness risk than other charter types. As with any other insured institution, ILCs are subject to examinations and other supervisory activities. The FDIC's authority to pursue formal or informal enforcement actions against an ILC is the same as the FDIC's authority with respect to any other state nonmember bank, with limited exceptions. Those exceptions pertain to cross-guaranty authority and golden parachute payments, and legislative changes to eliminate those exceptions are being pursued in H.R. 1375, the proposed Financial Services Regulatory Relief Act of 2003. In short, the FDIC does not believe there are compelling safety and soundness reasons to impose constraints on this charter type that are not imposed on other charter types. The risk posed by any insured depository institution depends on the appropriateness of the business plan and model, management's competency in administering the institution's affairs, and the quality and implementation of risk management programs. Similar to institutions with other charter types, an ILC's capital adequacy and overall safety and soundness is driven by the composition and stability of its lending, investing and funding activities and the competence of management. The FDIC and the state chartering authorities directly supervise insured ILCs, which must comply with the FDIC's Rules and Regulations, including, but not limited to, those requirements for capital standards, safe and sound operations, and consumer compliance and community reinvestment. ILCs also are subject to Sections 23A and 23B of the Federal Reserve Act, which restrict or limit transactions with a bank's affiliates and the Federal Reserve Board's Regulation O, which governs credit to insiders and their related interests. Further, the FDIC has the authority to examine any affiliate of an ILC, including its parent company, as may be necessary to determine the relationship between the ILC and the affiliate and to determine the effect of such relationship on the ILC. Answers to your specific questions are enclosed. If you would like additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me or Alice Goodman, Director of our Office of Legislative Affairs, at (202) 898-8730. Sincerely, Donald E. Powell, Chairman. Enclosure. Response of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation's Division of Supervision and Consumer Protection to Questions Concerning Industrial Loan Companies In what banking activities are these institutions engaged? Do they have the authority to provide services that may not be offered by full-service commercial banks? Generally, the authority of industrial loan companies and industrial banks (collectively, ILCs) to engage in activities is determined by the laws of the chartering state. The authority granted to an ILC may vary from one state to another and may be different from the authority granted to commercial banks. Except for offering demand deposits, an ILC generally may engage in all types of consumer and commercial lending activities and all other banking activities permissible for banks in general. Core ILC functions are traditional financial activities that can generally be engaged in by institutions of all charter types. The exception would be institutions organized and chartered as limited-purpose institutions, which generally focus on credit card or trust activities. Existing ILCs can generally be grouped according to one of four broadly defined business models: Institutions that are operated as community-focused institutions, including stand-alone institutions and those serving a community niche within a larger organization. These institutions often provide credit to consumers and small- to medium-sized businesses. In addition to retail deposits (many ILCs offer NOW accounts), funding sources may include commercial and wholesale deposits, as well as borrowings. Institutions that operate within a larger corporate organization may also obtain funding through the parent organization. Independent institutions that focus on specialty lending programs, including leasing, factoring, and real estate activities. Funding sources for this relatively small number of institutions may include retail and commercial deposits, wholesale deposits, and borrowings. Institutions that are embedded in organizations whose activities are predominantly financial in nature, or within the financial services units of larger corporate organizations. These institutions may serve a particular lending, funding, or processing function within the organization. Lending strategies can carry greatly, but, within a specific institutions, are often focused on a limited range of products, such as credit cards, real estate mortgages, or commercial loans. Corporate strategies play a larger role in determing funding strategies in these cases, with some institutions periodically selling some or all outstanding loans to the parent organization. Parent assessments of funding options across all business units frequently determine the specific tactics at the ILC level. A few institutions restrict themselves to facilitating corporate access to the payment system or supporting cash management functions, such as administering escrowed funds. Institutions that directly support the parent organizations' distinctly commercial activities. These institutions largely finance retail purchases of parent company products, ranging from general merchandise to automobiles, truck stop activities, fuel for rental car operations, and heating and air conditioning installations. Loan products might include credit cards, lines of credit, and term loans. Funding is generally limited to wholesale or money center operations, borrowings, or other options from within the parent organization. From a federal law perspective, one of the primary differences between an ILC charter and other depository institution charters is that certain ILCs have a grandfathered exemption from the requirements and restrictions of the Bank Holding Company Act (BHCA). Generally, an LIC can maintain its exemption so long as it meets at least one of the following conditions: (1) the institution does not accept demand deposits, (2) the institution's total assets are less than $100,000,000, or (3) control of the institution has not been acquired by any company after August 10, 1987. How does the FDIC go about regulating ILCs? What authority does the FDIC have to examine ILC parent companies? Does the FDIC feel it has the tools necessary to adequately and comprehensively regulate ILCs and their relationship to their owners? The FDIC regulates ILCs in the same manner as other state nonmember institutions. ILCs are subject to the FDIC's safety and soundness regulations (with two exceptions discussed below), as well as federal consumer protection regulations. Like all insured depository institutions, ILCs receive regular examinations, during which compliance with the regulations is reviewed and overall performance and condition are analyzed. For FDIC-insured, state-chartered institutions that are not members of the Federal Reserve System, the FDIC and/or the state authority will conduct the examination. The FDIC has agreements with most states to conduct examinations under alternating schedules, although in the case of a troubled institution, the FDIC and the estate authority generally conduct joint or concurrent examinations. Transactions with affiliates are reviewed during each examination. An ILC's transactions with its affiliates are restricted by Sections 23A and 23B of the Federal Reserve Act, which are made applicable to state nonmember banks in general by section 18(j) of the FDI Act, 12 U.S.C. Sec. 1828(j). Section 23A essentially limits the total amount of loans to affiliates and limits other transactions between a bank and its affiliates. These restrictions also apply to loans to third parties to pay debts to or purchase goods and services from an affiliate. Section 23B generally prohibits any transaction with an affiliate on terms or conditions less favorable to the bank than a transaction with an unrelated third party. While the FDIC does not have statutory authority to supervise the parent companies of ILCs, the FDIC does have the authority, in examining any insured depository institution, to examine any affiliate of the institution (under 12 U.S.C. Sec. 1820(b)(4)), including its parent company, as may be necessary to determine the relationship between the institution and the affiliate and to determine the effect of such relationship on the institution. In the case of a parent subject to the reporting requirements of another regulatory body covered under the Gramm-Leach- Bliley Act of 1999, such as the Securities and Exchange Commission or a state insurance commissioner, the FDIC has agreements in place to share information with the functional regulator. In determining whether to grant deposit insurance to an ILC, the FDIC must consider the same statutory factors of section 6 of the FDI Act, 12 U.S.C. Sec. 1816, that it considers for all other applications for deposit insurance. These factors are: The financial history and condition of the depository institution; The adequacy of its capital structure; Its future earnings prospects; The general character and fitness of its management; The risk presented by such depository institution to the deposit insurance fund; The convenience and needs of the community to be served by the depository institution; and Whether its corporate powers are consistent with the purposes of the Act. The FDIC has determined that there are two limitations in our authority regarding ILCs as compared to other institutions. These two limitations would be addressed by remedies included in the Financial Services Regulatory Relief Act of 2003, as proposed. These are: Amendment to clarify the FDIC's cross-guarantee authority: As part of the Federal Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act of 1989 (FIRREA), Congress established a system that generally permits the FDIC to assess liability across commonly controlled institutions for FDIC losses caused by the default of one of the institutions. Currently, cross-guarantee liability is limited to insured depository institutions that are commonly controlled as defined in the statute. The definition of ``commonly controlled'' limits liability to insured depository institutions that are controlled by the same depository institution holding company, i.e., either a bank holding company or a savings and loan holding company. Since the parent company of an ILC is neither a bank holding company nor a savings and loan holding company, ILCs that are owned by the same parent company would not be ``commonly controlled.'' As a result, cross-guarantee liability may not attach to ILCs that are owned by the same parent company. The Financial Services regulatory Relief Act of 2003 contains language that would enhance the FDIC's efforts to protect the deposit insurance funds by establishing parity with other charter types. This discretionary authority would extend only against an insured depository institution under common control with the defaulting institution. Amendment to clarify the FDIC's Golden Parachute authority: As part of H.R. 1375, there also is an amendment to section 18(k) of the FDI Act, 12 U.S.C. Sec. 1828(k), to clarify that the FDIC could prohibit or limit a nonbank holding company's golden parachute payment or indemnification payment. In 1990 Congress authorized the FDIC to prohibit or limit prepayment of salaries or any liabilities or legal expenses of an institution-affiliated party by an insured depository institution or a depository institution holding company. Such payments are prohibited if they are made in contemplation of the insolvency of such institution or holding company or if they prevent the proper application of assets to creditors or create a preference for creditors of the institution. Due to the existing statutory definition of a depository institution holding company, it is not clear that the FDIC is authorized to prohibit these types of payments made by nonbank holding companies (such as ILC parent companies). What differences, if any, exist between the manner in which the FDIC regulates industrial loan banks compared with commercial banks? As indicated above, the FDIC regulates ILCs in the same manner as all other state nonmember institutions. In your view, would ILCs pose a greater risk to the safety and soundness of the banking system than traditional banks if both received enhanced de novo interstate branching authority? We do not believe that ILCs would pose a greater risk to the safety and soundness of the banking system than traditional banks if both received enhanced de novo interstate branching authority. As described above, insured ILCs are subject to the same Federal supervisory regime that applies to other insured institutions. ILC transactions with their parent companies are subject to the same restrictions that apply to transactions between other insured institutions and their parent companies. Can you comment generally on the capital adequacy and safety and soundness record of the ILCs and compare these to the performance of commercial banks? ILCs currently have an examination rating distribution that is similar to the insured banking universe. Similar to institutions with other charter types, an ILC's capital adequacy and overall safety and soundness is driven by the composition and stability of its lending, investing and funding activities as well as competence of management. For troubled ILCs, several common issues have generally been evident, each reflecting faulty strategic or tactical decisions rather than issues of permissible activities, commercial affiliations, or the regulatory regime over the larger corporate organization: Poorly conceived lending strategies, characterized by concentrations in relatively higher-risk loan problems, economic sectors, or borrowers, have resulted in an excessive volume of poor quality credits. Less than satisfactory internal processes have hampered institutions' ability to identify and respond to changing circumstances, including deterioration in credit quality, which have thwarted timely corrective actions or collection efforts. Reliance on potentially volatile funds management strategies, including wholesale deposit solicitations, borrowings, and large-scale loan sales, have placed additional strain on the institutions' earnings performance and liquidity posture. If any institution is identified as troubled, the FDIC modifies its supervisory strategy. In addition, these institutions are generally subject to formal and informal enforcement actions. As a rule, the FDIC's supervisory strategies and specific actions are coordinated with those of the chartering state authority. Further, in those situations in which the parent organization controls multiple insured institutions, the FDIC also coordinates with the other state authorities or primary federal regulators to ensure that a comprehensive strategy is implemented. Given the concerns some observers have raised about the ILCs' ability to affiliate with a commercial entity, it is important to note that the current group of troubled ILCs have problems that are not unique to the ILC charter, nor do the troubled ILCs have a history of unusual influence from parent companies or affiliates. As described above, the issues facing the troubled institutions are not dissimilar to those encountered under all charter types, including those in a traditional bank holding company framework. Can you describe the regulatory framework that addresses safety and soundness concerns, or potential conflicts of interest, that may arise from the relationship of ILCs to their parent companies? In general, the regulatory framework used to address safety and soundness concerns and potential conflicts of interest regarding an ILC and its parent is the same as that applicable to any insured state bank. For example, with regard to safety and soundness, section 8 of the FDI Act, 12 U.S.C. Sec. 1818, generally provides the FDIC with the authority to (i) terminate or suspend the insurance of an ILC for unsafe or unsound practices or unsafe or unsound condition, and (ii) order the ILC to cease and desist from engaging in an unsafe or unsound practice, or from the violation of any law, rule, regulation, written condition imposed in connection with the granting of any application, or any written agreement with the FDIC. We do not believe that the potential for conflicts of interest is any greater for ILCs than for other FDIC-insured institutions operating in a holding company structure. For example, an ILC and its parent company are subject to the tying restrictions of section 106 of the Bank Holding Company Act Amendments of 1970 to the same extent as if the ILC were a ``bank'' and the parent company were a ``bank holding company.'' Generally, the tying restrictions provide that a bank may not extend credit, sell or lease property, or furnish any service, or fix or vary the consideration for any of the foregoing based upon any of five specific conditions. Those conditions include, for example, that the customer obtain some additional credit, property or service from the holding company or an affiliate. In order to ensure sufficient autonomy and insulation of the bank from the parent, the state authority or the FDIC typically imposes some or all of the following controls: Executive ILC management is onsite at the ILC, as opposed to the sometimes distant location of the parent and affiliates; The ILC Board of Directors consists of local representatives who are capable of providing strong oversight over the operations of the bank and establishing prudent policies and procedures; Lending files, credit documentation and ILC policies are maintained at the institution and not the parent; Lending policies and authorities are established and enforced by the ILC; The bank's policies, processes and activities are consistent with regulatory laws, regulations, policy statements and other regulatory guidance; Definitive bank-level business plans are established and followed by the bank; All transactions with the parent or affiliate pass the strictest arms-length scrutiny; and Sufficient resources are available at the ILC to carry out ILC activities. With the above-noted prudential factors in place and experienced bankers at the helm of ILCs, we have not noted problems or issues unique to the ILC charter.

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Hyde) for yielding me this time. This resolution rightly highlights the vast crimes against humanity committed by Saddam Hussein's regime. And as we have heard today, as many as 270 mass graves have been found so far, containing the bodies of 400,000 Iraqis. Four hundred thousand. I remember photos my father, a U.S. serviceman, took when U.S. forces overran the death camp in Dachau, Germany in the closing days of World War II. People executed in pits, by the thousands. I never thought I would see photos like those photos again. In the days and weeks following Saddam's overthrow, we learned more about another dictator's evil, and here is one account from the L.A. Times: ``The executions took place two or three times on most days. Each time between 100 and 150 blindfolded people, their hands and sometimes feet bound, were led into pits about 10 feet deep. Gunmen then fired into the pit, often for several minutes . . . A bulldozer then pushed dirt over the bodies, sometimes burying or crushing people who had survived the volley and were trying to climb out.'' Four hundred thousand people. In two trips to Iraq, I have had the chance to talk to tortured Iraqis. Some ask, Why act in Iraq and not the other countries suffering through human rights nightmares? I would respond that just because we do not act in all cases of gross human rights abuses does not mean we should not act in any cases. Moreover, in Iraq's case, our ability to act effectively is greater because our vital national security interests are on the line. Our interest in seeing a reformed Middle East will keep us committed to building a free Iraq. So let us forget that argument. It obscures the nightmare that was Saddam's Iraq and it belittles our closing of his torture chambers.

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach) for yielding me the time, and I am only going to take maybe a minute here to say that I am a cosponsor of this resolution, but I think most of the resolutions that we deal with here in this Chamber that come to this floor rightly focus on what is wrong throughout the world, whether it is the authoritarian regime of Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe or Kim Jong Il in North Korea. In this context, I think it is proper for the House to recognize positive developments, and in this case, that positive development is the vibrant democracy that is India. India adopted that Constitution on January 26 of 1950 that formalized her identity as a parliamentary democracy, and the framers of India's constitution were greatly influenced by our Founding Fathers. I had an opportunity to talk to one of those framers, and he made the point that many of the same freedoms that are enshrined in our Constitution are enshrined in theirs for a reason. So today, yes, India's the world's largest democracy and that is an impressive distinction. It is an incredible commitment when we think of 600 million people going and filing their ballots in a democratic election, but the other point I think that we are focused on tonight is the fact that it is India's growth as a world power that is creating a chance for peace and for stability in south Asia. Last month, members of the Committee on International Relations had a chance to meet with India's foreign minister to discuss the growing bilateral relationship in the areas of space and of science, and I think this resolution signals Congress' interest in furthering this important relationship. I would also be remiss if, in closing, I did not mention the growing contribution of the Indian American community here in the United States. I have always been impressed with, when working with that community, their energy, their enthusiasm and indeed their dedication to education. Their upward social mobility through education is unmatched, and I think that that particular community possesses some of our most effective future leaders in this country. So, with that said, I urge passage of this resolution, and I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time.

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, whereas, over the last thirty years, Stanley E. Sprague has represented Orange County in a variety of forms on major water issues. Whereas, Mr. Sprague joined the Municipal Water District of Orange County in 1972. Whereas, Mr. Sprague has served as General Manager of the Municipal Water District of Orange County since 1983. Whereas, the Municipal Water District of Orange County is a wholesale water agency charged with providing imported water to its thirty member agencies. Whereas, in his role as General Manager of Municipal Water District of Orange County, Mr. Sprague's primary responsibility has been to assure that the present and future water needs of its member agencies are met. Whereas, the Municipal Water District of Orange County is the second largest member agency of the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, serving imported water to 2.3 million residents in roughly 80 percent of Orange County, one-third of whom rely solely on imported water. Whereas, Mr. Sprague has been instrumental in forming partnerships to increase water use efficiency in Orange County. Whereas, Mr. Sprague has taken a primary role in focusing the CALFED efforts towards meeting Southern California's supply reliability and water quality needs. Whereas, Mr. Sprague has been involved in providing expert testimony on a myriad of water issues at both the State and Federal level. Therefore, I join with the entire Orange County Congressional delegation in acknowledging the vital role that Stanley E. Sprague has played in Orange County's water supply, and wish him well upon his retirement from the Municipal Water District of Orange County.