Ed Royce

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2264) to authorize appropriations for fiscal years 2004 and 2005 to carry out the Congo Basin Forest Partnership (CBFP) program, and for other purposes.

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution commending the National Endowment for Democracy. I am a sponsor of this measure, and I appreciate the strong support expressed on a bipartisan basis for this measure. I appreciate the numerous cosponsors, and I would like to thank the chairman of the House Committee on International Relations, the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), for introducing the original resolution. Madam Speaker, this resolution recognizes the National Endowment for Democracy for its work, which has served to strengthen democracies and give hope to many who are shaping a system of governance in their countries that is based on the free participation of the people. Furthermore, the measure expresses the Congress's commendation of 20 years of working to build grassroots institutions and establishing electoral systems, building political parties and opening opportunities for broad-based governance. During the years of the Cold War, various groups and various individuals were seeking a creative way to support democracy. And as a result of this, it led to President Reagan giving a speech in 1983. In that speech, he proposed an initiative, in his words, ``to foster the infrastructure of democracy, the system of a free press, unions, political parties, universities, which allows a people to choose their own way, to develop their own culture, to reconcile their own differences through peaceful means.'' Those were Reagan's words at the time. He noted that the American Political Foundation would soon begin a study ``to determine how the U.S. can best contribute as a Nation to the global campaign for democracy now gathering force.'' Well, soon thereafter, the National Endowment for Democracy was created as a nongovernmental organization that is supported by annual appropriations and subject to congressional oversight. The ideas that spurred the creation of the NED, as we call it, is that U.S. assistance on behalf of democracy efforts around the world would be good for the U.S. and would be good for those struggling for freedom and for self- government. And that is still true today. Their success is captured in their mission statements, and the NED's mission statement says that the Endowment is ``guided by the belief that freedom is a universal human aspiration that can be realized through the development of democratic institutions, procedures and values.'' Democracies cannot be achieved through a single election and need not be based upon the model of the U.S. or any other particular country. Rather, it evolves according to the needs and traditions of diverse political cultures. By supporting this process, the endowment helps strengthen the bond between indigenous, democratic movements abroad and the people of the U.S., a bond based on a common commitment to representative government and a common commitment to freedom as a way of life. Madam 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 on H. Con. Res. 274.

Mr. ROYCE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I think we all want to congratulate the National Endowment for Democracy for the last 20 years of service, and I think we all wish NED continued success. I think the ranking member of the Committee on International Relations well summed up the values and successes of the NED. I urge my colleagues to support House Concurrent Resolution 274. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ROYCE

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

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Tyler Matthew Pinchot, a 23-year veteran of the Buena Park Police Department. He was a motorcycle officer and on June 13, 2003, Mr. Pinchot was struck by a car from behind, during a traffic pursuit. His condition had deteriorated rapidly recently, and on Sunday, September 21, he passed away. Mr. Pinchot was raised in Garden Grove and Orange, and graduated from Golden West College's police program in 1979. Mr. Pinchot won the Officer of the Year Award two years in a row, in 1991 and 1992. He also was a Special Weapons and Tactics team member, Explorer Post adviser, station-house Santa Claus, unofficial department photographer and a tactical officer at Fullerton College's police reserve academy. It is through the hard work of law enforcement officers like Mr. Pinchot that our communities stay safe and secure. I am honored to join with my colleagues today in paying tribute to one of California's finest.

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I am offering this amendment today on behalf of myself and on behalf of the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Tiberi). We are doing this to correct some of the serious problems with the furnisher liability provision that was offered by the committee's ranking member during the full committee markup. That particular provision penalizes businesses who voluntarily provide the information that makes our credit system work. The provision also turns the existing system for correcting errors on its head with little evidence that it will do anything to increase the accuracy of that system. As the director of the FTC's Bureau of Consumer Protection recently said, and I will quote these remarks, ``We don't want to discourage voluntary reporting. Imposing too many obligations on the furnishers could have that effect.'' As our chairman will recall, I believe, I along with several other members of the committee raised these concerns about what we perceived as these serious flaws. We were told by the other side of the aisle that each of these problems we raised would be addressed before consideration on the House floor. Unfortunately, we have not yet found common ground. I am hopeful that we yet will; but the amendment that I have filed here seeks to resolve the following key problems, and I want to state these problems again so that we can focus on them. First, the furnisher liability provision would allow the current system to be circumvented, thereby flooding small- and medium-sized credit grantors with unnecessary investigations; second, that provision in the bill opens the door for credit repair clinics to subvert the existing system by overwhelming furnishers who are ill prepared to address these tactics. By overwhelming, we mean sending in tens of thousands at one time. Last, that provision effectively doubles the number of reinvestigations businesses would have to handle by encouraging consumers to file in two different places at the same time, because they would file both with the furnisher and they would file with the credit bureau. In short, the provision would drive many furnishers out of the voluntary system. That would reduce the integrity and accuracy of our system. The current dispute resolution system resolves the overwhelming majority of disputes. It is only the very small number of unusual problems that need specialized attention. Our amendment that we are offering here preserves the existing system that works for so many consumers today, but provides a new right for those infrequent instances where the current system may not be sufficient. In short, our amendment requires individuals to use the current investigation and reinvestigation process through the bureaus. If the dispute is not resolved, it would then allow individuals to take their credit bureau dispute directly to the furnisher, and it compels the furnisher to address it within 30 days under a threat of liability. I think this approach addresses each of the concerns raised in the markup while providing a new dispute resolution process for those individuals who are not served through the current system. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. ROYCE. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.

Mr. ROYCE. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I look forward to trying to work out a satisfactory compromise on this.

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

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I very much appreciate the support from the gentleman from Virginia. I appreciate the offer from the ranking member to work toward a resolution of this. In the spirit of cooperation, I am going to withdraw this amendment. However, Mr. Chairman, I am going to ask for your commitment that you will continue to work with me to ensure that these problems are resolved before a final conference report comes back to the House.

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor).

Mr. ROYCE. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus).

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield further, I am pleased to accept the gentleman's assurance that he will work to have this account funded, and I am sure that he will do so. I will do everything I can to help make that happen.

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, I had intended to offer an amendment dealing with Afghanistan. Last year the overwhelming majority of the House voted to establish a single fund to carry out a wide variety of vitally needed programs in Afghanistan when it passed the Afghanistan Freedom Support Act of 2002. That act was eventually passed on a Senate vehicle, but was very close to what we passed here with a margin of 390 to 22. The intention was to appoint a strong administrator who would carry out programs unencumbered by the need to draw funds from and conform to every particle of the complex legal and regulatory framework of the many parts of the foreign assistance acts that need to be brought to bear on the problem of rebuilding Afghanistan. Over time, the situation has continued to be grave. Our achievements in Afghanistan are in danger of being overturned and our sacrifices in Afghanistan are in danger of having been made in vain. The bill before us, hopefully, requires that $600 million from titles II and III be spent in Afghanistan, and those funds have been identified in broad terms by the administration. The committee has done an excellent job in this bill in general and in providing funds for Afghanistan in particular, and I salute the chairman and the committee for this achievement. The problem is that funding under the mechanism contemplated in the bill does not take advantage of the new mechanisms provided by Congress last year. This funding cannot be as flexible and is subject to the guidance of a single administrator as it could be if it were provided in a single account. The current coordinator, Ambassador Taylor, has experience in using this sort of account when he was Coordinator for Assistance for Eastern Europe and the Former Soviet Union. We did not know that Ambassador Taylor was going to be appointed to this position when last year's bill was drafted, but we certainly need to give him the flexibility and the overall responsibility he had for this new and very difficult job he has assumed. The President did not sign the Afghanistan Freedom Support Act until December of 2002, and it is understandable that the administration did not establish the account in its 2003 budget and that the committee followed the administration's guidance in framing this bill. But it is many months later and things are not going well in Afghanistan. Let us spend the $600 million the right way, if we can. At this time I submit for the Record the text of the amendment I was considering offering. Amendment to H.R. 2800, as Reported Offered by M. ______________________________ Page 122, after line 2, insert the following: Assistance for Afghanistan Sec. ____. For necessary expenses to carry out the provisions of title I of the Afghanistan Freedom Support Act of 2002 (other than section 103(c) of such Act), and the amounts otherwise provided for in this Act for ``child survival and health programs fund'', ``development assistance'', ``economic support fund'', ``migration and refugee assistance'', ``nonproliferation, anti-terrorism, demining and related programs'', ``peacekeeping operations'', and assistance for Afghanistan under section 523 are reduced by, $425,000,000, $21,000,000, $150,000,000, $150,000,000, $72,000,000, $12,000,000, $20,000,000, and $425,000,000, respectively. Explanation of the Royce-Hyde Amendment The amendment `` reaches back'' and transfers into the Afghanistan Freedom Support Fund account precisely $425 million from a variety of accounts previously identified by the Administration for Afghanistan: $150 million from Development Assistance; $150 million from Economic support Fund; $20 million from Peacekeeping Operations; $21 million from the Child Survival Fund; $72 million from Migration and Refugee Assistance; and $12 million from Nonproliferation, Anti-terrorism, Demining and Related Programs. It maintains the $600 million total spending by reducing the earmark in Section 523 by $425 million. It leaves remaining earmark of $175 million to be drawn from other Title II and III accounts. It does not reduce spending on Afghanistan by one dollar. Mr. Chairman, I believe that the House took wise, considered action when it established the Afghanistan account. We filed a report and took the bill to the floor under an open rule. We then had discussions with the Senate, which passed its version, which the House accepted by voice vote. If there need to be changes to this measure, our committee has shown that it is capable of moving amendatory language through this Chamber.

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

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment, and I am going to repeat a point which the gentleman from Arizona (Chairman Kolbe) has already made and that is yes, the President has repeatedly said $15 billion over 5 years, but he has also made the point repeatedly that the first year of that program as we ramp up will be $2 billion, and that is what is in this bill. Let me make another point. As we throw around the argument in this Chamber that we will have only three countries qualified for the Millennium Challenge Account, I am reminded that initially in the argument over the African Growth and Opportunity Act there was the argument that not that many countries would qualify. If we look at the results, there are either 38 or 39 countries today that qualify under the African Growth and Opportunity Act out of those 48 sub-Saharan African governments. So what we have seen is a reform, a series of reforms. We have seen more and more countries qualify as we move forward. So I do not think we should assume coming out of the gate that because an NGO argues we think it is only going to be three that that is necessarily the case. I do not believe that. I appreciate the gentlewoman's intent with this amendment. I chair the Subcommittee on Africa, and I think she and others are right. I think HIV/AIDS is ravaging many parts of the African continent, and I have seen its devastating impact there, and I think this pandemic is starting to ravage other regions of the world as well. So HIV/AIDS is a great challenge for Africa and is a great challenge for the world. As the gentleman from Arizona (Chairman Kolbe) has noted, the House has provided over $2 billion this year for fighting HIV/AIDS and related diseases and we will ramp up in that commitment over the next few years, and this is more than we have ever provided before, as it should be. But we need to be clear on another point. HIV/AIDS prevention and treatment programs are not done in a vacuum. Other efforts to combat HIV/AIDS cannot be effective if African and other developing countries do not have roads or electricity or if family members do not have jobs, if poverty remains widespread. So we need to use our limited resources to combat HIV/AIDS and to promote economic development, and our approach to Africa and the developing world must be comprehensive. Africa's many problems are, in fact, interrelated. The Millennium Challenge Account is the most innovative approach to development aid in years. Its approach of identifying and aiding those countries committed to economic development promises to ensure that our resources actually make a difference in promoting development in Africa and elsewhere and it promises to help create the conditions that allow for a more effective attack on HIV/AIDS. Last week the House passed legislation authorizing $1.3 billion for the Millennium Challenge Account for the upcoming fiscal year. That bill won strong bipartisan support. The bill that we are considering today appropriates $800 million. If we are serious about the Millennium Challenge Account, if we are serious about the most innovative approach to development aid in years, we should go no lower with its appropriation level. Those of my colleagues skeptical of development aid, and the track record for many development aid programs is not good, should view the Millennium Challenge Account as a critical undertaking. It promises to revolutionize the business of development aid. By defeating this amendment, we are supporting a promising departure from the past, and I ask my colleagues to defeat this amendment.

Mr. ROYCE

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 this resolution under consideration.

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

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. To start, I would like to commend the author of this resolution, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Capuano), and I would like to commend the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne), the ranking member of the Africa Subcommittee. The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne) is also one of the original co-sponsors of this resolution, and they are a few of the many Members who have worked diligently to keep attention on the human rights situation in Sudan. The conflict in Sudan, pitting the National Islamic Front Government against armed forces in the south struggling for political autonomy and with religious freedom has brought incomprehensible suffering to the people of Sudan. The numbers are truly staggering. There have been over 2 million Sudanese who have died over the past 2 decades alone due to war-related causes. Twice that number have been displaced. In March of 2001, Secretary of State Colin Powell told the Committee on International Relations ``. . . there is perhaps no greater tragedy on the face of the Earth today than the tragedy that is unfolding in the Sudan.'' Those were the words of our Secretary of State. It is the Sudanese government that bears most all of the responsibility for this human rights disaster. Khartoum has long been responsible for marauding militias with notorious human rights abuses against southerners, including taking slaves and forcing conversions to Islam. These and other human rights abuses including blocking emergency food deliveries have rightly earned the Sudanese government widespread condemnation for these acts. In appointing former Senator John Danforth as his special envoy to Sudan in 2001, President Bush said, ``For nearly 2 decades, the government of Sudan has waged a brutal and shameful war against its own people. And this is not right and this must stop.'' Such condemnation was also made by the U.N. Commission on Human Rights until this year. The Commission had classified Sudan as an ``Item 9'' country, denoting its grave human rights problems. This brought needed international attention to these abuses primarily through the appointment and work of a Special Rapporteur to Sudan who was doing valuable human rights reporting on the ground in Sudan. Yet in April, the members of the commission representing individual countries in a 26 to 24 vote made the incomprehensible decision to end this status for Sudan. This was done despite the Special Rapporteur's judgment that the dire human rights situation in Sudan had not significantly improved and all the violations that respected human rights organizations have reported. This decision mars the commission, and it needs to be reversed. House Resolution 194 states that ``human rights abuses and slavery in Sudan remain a matter of the most profound concern'' and that ``the United States must work to reclassify Sudan as an `Item 9' country, requiring a Special Rapporteur at the next session of the U.N. Commission on Human Rights.'' And this is the honest thing to do. It is also the just thing to do. It is the right thing to do in defense of victimized Sudanese who are suffering, and it is the right thing to do in memory of those who have perished. Designating Sudan a human rights special case is also a constructive step in support of the peace process in Sudan. We gain nothing by being blind to human rights abuses in Sudan. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 372, I was in a meeting at the White House with the President. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 371 I was in a meeting at the White House with the President. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''