Ed Royce

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I must again thank the gentlewoman for her efforts around the country to get the information out, the truth out about what has happened and this gross violation of the rights of women in Afghanistan. I do believe that there are more and more of our colleagues now who are committing themselves and saying we are not just going to try to attack al-Qaeda and then leave. My belief is that unless we see this through and see the Taliban government catapulted out of power there, we risk having this cancer, that the al-Qaeda network and the Taliban expand beyond Afghanistan. I think for the hope of civilization, for the hope of the next generations, it is very important that this broad-based coalition that the President and that our Secretary of State Colin Powell have put together in order to wage this effort stay the course until we see that the Taliban rule is extinguished, and that we make certain that the international community plays a role in afterwards bringing peace and restoring fundamental rights and showing by example why the United States stands for principles of human rights, rule of law, the importance of liberty. We have to follow through. I believe we did not do all that we should have done after the Soviet Union left Afghanistan. I believe that the United States at that time instead of adopting a strategy of benign neglect, which has basically been the strategy since the Soviet Union was defeated finally and pulled out of Afghanistan, allowed this outside group to develop this nucleus there and in this state of despair and anarchy that existed, they were allowed to grab control. I think there is a lesson in this. We should have at the time made certain that people had access to information, not only inside Afghanistan about what was going on around the world. We should have been more attentive to what was happening. Well, now we know. There is no longer any excuse for anyone not to rally to this cause of bringing justice for the people of Afghanistan. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman again.

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from California, and I very much appreciate all the effort she has put into calling attention to the plight of these victims. The gentlewoman is right to say that women were leaders in Afghanistan. I think many people today, when they look at the situation there, they do not understand how that culture was hijacked, how the Afghan culture was hijacked by the Taliban and the consequences to that society. When we think about the fact that, as the gentlewoman correctly pointed out, the majority of the people in the work force were women, we should ask why that was. It was because so many men had lost their lives in the battles when the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan. So women were typically the heads of household. Because women had played a role in Afghan society, women had the right to vote. Women were in the work force, as the gentlewoman said. They were such a large percentage of the professionals, I think 40 percent of the doctors. So many university students were women, over half the student body. Imagine for a society like that what a shock it was, since these were the majority of the people who were heads of household, bringing home a paycheck to feed children in an economy that was already in trouble, the day that edict came down that said women could no longer work in the work force. This was a death knell for many families. Starvation followed. People were subjected to unbelievable deprivation. One of the things we wanted to do with Radio Free Afghanistan, and we have been working for some time to try to get some other voice into that society other than Radio Taliban. Radio Taliban comes on at night and tells people only what the government wants them to hear, and comes up with these proclamations, one after another, about what is to be interpreted as illegal under Taliban law. And as that list grows, so many of these restrictions are on women, I just thought I would share some of the restrictions that the Taliban have placed on society. Women are not to laugh loudly; that is against the law. Women are not to ride in taxis or play sports or enter a sports center or ride bicycles or motorcycles or gather for festive occasions or play cards. Riding public buses with men is against the law. Appearing on the balconies of their home is against the law. When they are in the home, they are to paint the windows so that no one can see in. But far more serious than these dictates are the costs paid in human lives for those women brave and bold enough to defy these laws and to go into homes and try to home school a new generation of young Afghan girls so that they will have the ability to read and write, so that they will have the capacity in life, someday, hopefully, if this iron control that the Taliban has over society lets up, so that they will have hope. Those brave women are often put to death. I mentioned earlier the response by the Taliban official that soccer is a game enjoyed for years in Afghanistan. There was a question put by a representative of the European Union about soccer returning to Afghanistan. The response by the leader of the Taliban was, if the European Union will build us another stadium, then we can have soccer; but we need this stadium for our public executions. I think all of us have seen photographs of the women brought into the stadium, the Taliban men filling the bleachers, brought down and publicly executed for not following the rules of the Taliban. Since women are not allowed to work to support themselves in Afghanistan, thousands of Afghan war widows have reluctantly become beggars in that society. Because male doctors may not examine women, women are banned from working, Afghan women have no access to health care. One example, one day while filling a woman's tooth, Taliban police stormed the office of a male dentist and began whipping the women present because they were not accompanied by male relatives. The dentist was jailed and his office was closed for 2 days. To cope with the overwhelming stress living under Taliban control like this, large numbers of women are turning to drugs. From 1995 to the year 2000, there was a 75 percent increase in drug addicts with no health care to support their addiction, to get them off of drugs. It is not surprising that the suicide rate for women in Afghanistan has escalated. Many women choose to take their own lives rather than live the life that the Talibans dictate that they live. One female Afghan refugee told a reporter, ``Because of the Taliban, Afghanistan has become a jail for women. We do not have any human rights. We do not have the right to go outside and look after our children. We do not even have the right to go to the doctor. We always need permission.'' Those are the words of an Afghan woman. The Taliban denial of women to have a job has created a flood of unemployment. These unemployed women face serious financial problems; and as a natural consequence, what happens to the children? The children suffer from hunger, from malnutrition and a chronic state of poverty. Most of them have lost their last recourse to income. They have sold most of their possessions to buy food. Those who could afford leaving the country, have already sold their assets to do so. Those who could not are making up the bulk of the beggars in Afghanistan today. Here we are with Afghanistan's brutal winter approaching. A large number of these beggars are ex-teachers. A large number are ex-civil servants. This is the horror of what has been happening in Afghanistan. A false assumption by some is that Afghans in general back these practices. While the Taliban maybe by some was originally seen as a force for stability, and we have war-weary Afghans after years of fighting, they heard on Radio Taliban that a force for stability is coming. But that force for stability that those people thought might be stability soon wore out its welcome. Faced with a few years of this abuse, it is no surprise that Afghans now want to overthrow the Taliban. In a recent poll conducted by Physicians for Human Rights, that poll found 90 percent of Afghan men and women rejected the Taliban's restrictions that exclude women from participating in education, employment, and other aspects of civilian life. 94 percent of women in the Taliban-controlled area said that the Taliban has made their lives much worse, and attributed their declining physical and mental health to Taliban policies. Muslims at large do not support the Taliban's fanatical practices. Moderate Muslim governments oppose the Taliban's treatment of women and its false interpretation of Islam. The Taliban is a repressive political regime whose aim is to monopolize power in Afghanistan; and to do that, it practices pure terror. President Bush recognized this in his speech to the Joint Session of Congress which we heard here on the floor when he said, ``The United States respects the people of Afghanistan, but we condemn the Taliban regime.'' The Taliban has demonstrated a blatant disregard for the well-being of Afghans, and by harboring terrorists, it has demonstrated a blatant disregard for human life, both within and outside the Afghanistan borders. The U.S. is right, therefore, to seek to overthrow the Taliban government. This will rid the world of an evil regime and will improve the livelihood of the Afghan people and will put a stop to the violations of women's rights which in Afghanistan today is a more dire situation for women than anywhere else on this planet. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Millender-McDonald) for organizing an ongoing effort to call attention to the plight of these women. My hope is that the world community becomes more involved and understands better why it is we have to make certain that this Taliban regime is replaced, and that the women of Afghanistan are again given a voice and basic human rights. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding to me.

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for this opportunity to explain what we have in mind with respect to Radio Free Afghanistan. Basically the people of Afghanistan, and through this region, have not had the opportunity to hear information that contradicts the ongoing propaganda from the government in a way which was intended to explain the lies and to explain to the people what was actually happening inside the country. So the concept behind Radio Free Afghanistan is to do what was done with Radio Free Europe in Poland or Czechoslovakia. When we talk with leaders of Poland or the Czech Republic, they say that the hearts and minds of those people in those countries were turned by the opportunity to listen daily to a radio broadcast which explained what was actually happening inside their society. These broadcasts which were done by ex- pat Czechs and Poles, and so forth, was able to explain and put in context what they would be hearing from the Soviet broadcasts. Over time we know, from those leaders that we have talked to, that this was the most effective single thing that changed the attitudes of the average person in Eastern Europe, so much so that we all recall what happened with the Berlin Wall. We recall what happened in Poland with the solidarity movement, and part of this was because they had access to information. What we are trying to do with Radio Free Afghanistan is to explain to the people of Afghanistan what exactly the Taliban is telling them and why it is false. Why is that important? Because the broadcasts in Afghanistan say this: They say bin Laden is innocent of any attack on the World Trade Center bombing. The assertion is on their information system that there were 4,000 Jewish workers who were absent that day from work because the Israeli government had told them that they were going to bomb the World Trade Center. Of course that is not true because we know how many people lost their lives and how many Jewish employees lost their lives. It is a lie, but it is a lie that is repeated over and over and over again, not just on that radio station, but on newspapers in this part of the world. So the opportunity to explain the facts are essential. The opportunity to remind people that the Taliban has hijacked that Afghan culture is essential, reminding people that women used to have the right to vote and used to have the right to work and to learn to read and write.

Mr. ROYCE. Let me respond. What is astounding here is the fact that, as the gentlewoman says, you had a culture in which women played such a pivotal role, especially in education, in the professions, in governance; and suddenly, because of the civil war, first the war to repel the Soviet invasion and then the country in turmoil, in despair, you had the Taliban appear on the scene that, through a ruthless effort, grabbed control, not only of the government, but grabbed control of the ability to communicate through radio to the people. What was unique about Afghanistan is that most people got their information from radio, 85 percent of the Afghan people. Once the Taliban forces had seized the radio stations, the broadcasting stations, they were able to begin a disinformation campaign, a propaganda campaign, to direct the people with misinformation in order to try to have them follow the Taliban. In 1997, I had suggested to the former Under Secretary for South Asia that we support in the United States a Radio Free Afghanistan at that time. Why? Because the Taliban were sweeping across the country and, with propaganda, the fact that they controlled the information system in much the way that Goebbels in Germany controlled the information system, they were propagandizing on a daily basis. I said at the time, if we could get a Radio Free Afghanistan up in that society, we would be able to give people true information about what was actually happening, and probably it would head off this Taliban movement, because they thrive through the lies that they spread. What we found was that once they got control of most of the country, of course they have never been able to take all of it, but once they got control of the lion's share of Afghanistan, they then, in addition to propagandizing, began to eliminate dissenters, began the process of rounding up and eliminating anyone who tried to disagree with them. So how do you get information into a society like that? What you do, in my view, is recognize the fact television is already illegal, the Taliban passed a prohibition, it is a criminal act to own a television, so no one owns televisions any longer in the country. The thing you can do to reach these people, in my view, is a constant message on the air to tell them what has actually happened to them, why it has happened, who has done it to them, and why the United States is finally responding to Osama bin Laden. It took an attack on the United States to get us to finally act. My hope is that we can commit ourselves, as the gentlewoman has correctly pointed out and as the gentlewoman from New York pointed out, not just to ending this cruel operation of al Qaeda and bin Laden, but also making certain that some measure of justice is done here to eliminate that Taliban control and to take the country to a position that it once had with a constitution, with rights. There is such a dangerous precedent for human rights and for the rights of women especially, in terms of what the Taliban has been able to do, it demands the international community stepping in and making certain that a constitution and the rule of law come back to that country.

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, we will be bringing that bill before the Committee on International Relations. We will be passing it out on Thursday. But after that the gentlewoman and I will be working to bring it to the House floor as soon as possible because I believe that time is of the essence. We want the people of Afghanistan to understand why the United States is involved in this military action against the Taliban and against bin Laden. We want them to understand so that they will be our allies in this effort. And my belief is that their response, once they hear the truth, will be the same as the response by the people of Poland, the people of the former Czechoslovakia, the people of Hungary when they had that opportunity to listen to those Radio Free Europe broadcasts and when the people went to the street and said enough. It is time for tyranny to end. It is time for us to have our freedom. Well, it is time for the people of Afghanistan to have their freedom and it is the time for the women of Afghanistan to have their human rights back.

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, the subject I was going to speak on tonight is the treatment of women in Afghanistan. In 1996, I had the opportunity with Senator Brown on the Senate side to co-chair a hearing on what was underway in Afghanistan and that same year I organized a hearing on the House side here as well to call attention to the civil rights abuses that were occurring in that country and to call attention to the fact that Afghanistan was rapidly becoming a national security threat to the United States, and this is something that I have been speaking on over the years, the fact that in Afghanistan the terror and the chaos and the despair has become worse and worse year after year. However, in the wake of September 11 and that terrorist attack on that day, many Americans are just beginning to learn about the horrific treatment of women in Afghanistan. The practice there of the Taliban of restricting the rights of women has even been explained by some as being in line with traditional practices and I have to say to the contrary. It is clear that the Taliban is at odds with Islam and Afghan society, especially in its treatment of women. Prior to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, women there had the right to vote, along with other liberties enjoyed by most people around the world. But when the Taliban swept into power in 1997 that organization immediately institutionalized widespread and systemic gender apartheid. A government mandate made it unlawful for women and girls to go to work or to go to school. This edict was a devastating blow to the women and to the country. And at that time women were a vital part of the Afghan workforce. They made up 70 percent of the school teachers, 40 percent of the doctors, 50 percent of government workers. They were 50 percent of university students. And with that edict none of them could continue to work or go to school. Women under the Taliban regime have been subjected to remarkably harsh restrictions that impede their ability to move freely, to prevent them from socializing, to prevent them from seeking medical treatment. There is in place a complete ban on women working or receiving education outside the home. And to tell you how bad this is, the reality is that for one of the organizations that helped teach women how to read and write in the home, to be a member of that organization is to face capital punishment in Afghanistan. If a woman leaves her home, she is required to don a head to toe garment known as a burqa, which has only a small mesh screen for vision. A designated close male relative also must always accompany her wherever she goes. If so much as an ankle is not covered she can be whipped in public. There is a ban on the use of cosmetics. How is it enforced? Women with painted nails have had their fingernails pulled out by the Taliban authorities. Women must paint their windows so that no one can see inside their home. Among other restrictions, women are banned from laughing loudly, from riding in taxis, from playing sports or entering a sport center or club, from riding bicycles or motorcycles, gathering for festive occasions, playing cards, riding public buses with men and appearing on the balconies of their homes. Even owning a kite, flying a kite or keeping a caged bird can become a criminal offense. If a woman is accused of disobeying prohibitions, a severe punishment is often administered. Women have been whipped, they have been beaten, they have been verbally abused in the streets, but I am afraid there have been many worse Taliban abuses than that. Women who have been accused of adultery have been stoned to death. Women accused of prostitution have been hanged in public. And I think many of us have viewed the film of the women who have defied Taliban edicts who were taken into the soccer stadium in Kabul, and before audiences of men seated there publicly executed in the stadium. A few weeks ago on CNN the anchor was interviewing a Taliban official and the anchor reporter asked why there is no more soccer at the sports stadium which the European Union helped build before the Taliban's rise. The official was so brazen to answer, ``If they build us another place to hold our executions, then we will play here.'' Mr. Speaker, I did want to bring this condition to the attention of the Chair and to the Members.

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Chairman, I guess the bottom line is that last year the U.S. Treasury spent a total of $465 million buying sugar and then spent another $1.4 million a month, a month, to store the 1 million tons of surplus sugar produced. In other words, the Government basically encourages growers to overproduce excess sugar, and then purchases this back at the expense partly of the American taxpayer. The General Accounting Office estimates that consumers and users pay an extra $1.9 billion annually in what can be called a hidden tax because of the sugar program. So every time an American buys a candy bar or a carton of ice cream or anything that is not sugar-free, basically they are affected by this policy. Now, if we go back to the 1996 Freedom to Farm Act, as I understood the act, what it was supposed to do was to be just that, the freedom to farm. It was meant to gradually decline payments so farmers could wean themselves from the Government's micro-management and send them on a path toward free markets. But the Federal Government continues basically through this arrangement to subsidize sugar producers by maintaining higher prices than the prices would be. The sugar program keeps U.S. sugar prices more than twice as high as the world market, and the Government's involvement, arguably, has helped force the three-quarters of U.S. sugar refineries that have gone out of business to close down. So we have had three-quarters of the refineries close down the last few years. Basically, those refineries have been moved offshore, so thousands of jobs have been lost in that sector. The Miller-Miller amendment, this amendment, rejects government quotas on marketing; it reduces price supports and brings greater market orientation to U.S. sugar policy. That is why I support the amendment. I think it moves us away from corporate welfare. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, the horrendous attack we have suffered and our national response will prove to be a pivotal event in world history. Our Nation is now embarked on a fight for freedom. Some nations will stand up and be with us, and we may even be surprised by who our friends are. We will have many allies, but others will be against us. Secretary Powell and others are working the phones now making key determinations. I think we all understand that we can only act decisively. There can be no pinprick strikes. Terrorism will only get worse unless we act to eradicate it now. Several years ago, during a hearing on Afghanistan, Members of Congress, including myself, warned that the war-torn country of Afghanistan was rapidly evolving into a serious threat to national security. Many rang the bell. It went unanswered. We will now have to act, as we should have acted before, to root out the terrorist camps and destroy their infrastructure, including destroying any governments supporting them. President Bush spoke eloquently to the American people today from the National Cathedral. I believe that Americans are willing to follow his leadership and make the sacrifices needed to win and survive as the country we know and love.

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Viet Nam Human Rights Act. Last year I led a delegation to Vietnam to survey the political, social and economic situation there in the country. During my trip, I paid a visit to the Venerable Thich Quang Do, who was imprisoned there under house arrest. He is the leader of the banned Unified Buddhist Church of Vietnam. Because of his years of peaceful protest in support of religious and political freedom, he has suffered constant harassment, constant imprisonment; and even though he was under house arrest and under surveillance, Thich Quang Do nevertheless welcomed my visit. Because of my private visits with this brave dissident and Le Quang Liem, another courageous fighter for freedom, I came to the conclusion that we needed frankly to speak out. What was surprising was how quickly I was denounced by the government, by the Communist government of Vietnam. That told me something. That told me that the Vietnamese Government is sensitive to international criticism. And I think this obliges the United States to speak out constantly against Vietnam's human rights violations. We may not always realize it, but protests by the American Government and the American people do help the cause of freedom in Vietnam and elsewhere. Silence I think for us, Madam Speaker, is not an option. However, I am afraid that we as a Nation have been tepid when it comes to challenging human rights abuses in Vietnam. Our last ambassador to Vietnam even went so far as to say, ``I don't hear anyone reporting problems here. Vietnam by any standard has been rated a success.'' That is what he said. By no standard is Vietnam a success. Just ask those who were forced to flee their country. Just ask those who want freedom of speech. Just ask, as I did, Thich Quang Do or Le Quang Liem. Today is our chance to correct the mistakes of the previous administration and to act against human rights abuses in Vietnam. The bill before us today is a good one. The legislation links human rights as a condition to nonhumanitarian aid to Vietnam, it authorizes assistance to democratic forces in Vietnam, and it provides additional funding of Radio Free Asia to overcome jamming efforts by the Communist government of Vietnam. I am particularly supportive of the Radio Free Asia provisions in this act, because it should now be more able to bring objective news, the truth, to the Vietnamese people. The spread of democratic values in Asia is critical to U.S. security interests. Radio Free Asia is a step in the right direction. The Vietnamese service airs important programs on issues like democracy and press freedoms, and it tells the Vietnamese people what the world is saying, what this Congress is saying, about their repressive government. It gives critical moral support to Thich Quang Do and Le Quang Liem. We know that these broadcasts are effective. Why do we know that? Because the Vietnamese Government spends so much time trying to block them. With this bill, that will be a harder task. I urge its passage.

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to applaud the efforts of Freddie Mac, California Bank and Trust (CB&T), Impact Community Capital, Neighborhood Housing Services of Orange County (NHSOC) and the California Housing Loan Insurance Fund (CaHLIF), for launching a unique new statewide public-private homeownership initiative called California NeighborWorks. California Neighborworks was designed to help address California's affordable housing crisis. Every American dreams of owning a home, but because of skyrocketing home prices in California, that dream has unfortunately become unattainable for many hard working Californian families. In Orange County alone, home prices have appreciated by a staggering 45 percent since 1995. All the partners involved should be commended for creating an innovative and progressive program that is responsive to the mortgage needs of Californians. This initiative will help prospective homebuyers achieve their goals by reducing initial out-of-pocket costs by as much as 80 percent. That means that individuals and families that lack the cash to make a large downpayment can take advantage of California NeighborWorks to bridge the financial gap. This program also helps families with past credit issues by providing them with counseling from Neighborhood Housing Services, giving them a better education about their credit, their finances and the home buying process. And all of this is achieved without burdening taxpayers. Instead, NeighborWorks relies on a collaborative effort between the private sector and non-profit partners to meet the needs of potential homeowners in Orange County and in California. Providing new ways to get hard working individuals and families into their own homes is truly a worthy objective. It makes them feel good about themselves and about the community they live in. I look forward to seeing more initiatives like this one in California and to working with the NeighborWorks partners in the future.

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment; and I want to thank my friend, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley), and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott), who serves with me as the cochairman of the Congressional Caucus on India and Indian- Americans. I want to thank them for their leadership on this amendment. The three of us have introduced this amendment basically to add $10 million to the international disaster assistance fund for USAID's Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance. And the reason we have done this is really in the wake of that earthquake that struck Gujarat. Our hearts go out to the people of Gujarat. We had a chance to visit Gujarat and see the devastation caused by a quake of a magnitude of 6.9. There was one town we were in, the town of Bhuj, where literally every building seemed to have collapsed. In Ahmadabad, apartment complexes had collapsed like accordions on the people inside. I think we know of more than 17,000 people that lost their lives in Gujarat. There are at least 600,000 homeless. I had, as I said, the opportunity to visit the people there after that quake; and it is hard to put into words the feeling one gets seeing block after block of homes collapsed, seeing the fact that the relief work did not get in early enough to save the people, many of the people whose lives could have been saved. And the tragic fact is that natural disasters come often to South Asia, to that subcontinent. And after the disaster, to add insult to injury, comes the monsoon season. Summer brings those monsoon rains and the cyclones whipping through the coastal regions. And so in western India and Pakistan, where this quake occurred, drought is a constant. And now in the wake of this earthquake, we have the destruction of the dams and so thousands now will die from flooding, and thousands will die from flooding in Bangladesh as well. And, unfortunately, no country in the region has the capability, Mr. Chairman, to institute disaster preparedness and response programs in a manner sufficient to deal with these catastrophes. If they did, if they did, tens of thousands of human lives would be saved. Now, we are in a position to help ensure that the nations of South Asia will be prepared to deal with its next natural disaster, and let there be no doubt there will be another one, by passing this amendment. This amendment would enable south Asian nations to establish a FEMA- type organization that would greatly increase their capacity to deal with any of the disasters of this type. When I traveled to India shortly after the earthquake, I heard from Indian Government officials and relief organizations about the importance of a long-term disaster management plan. There was great interest in India in developing a disaster response agency and learning from FEMA's expertise. Currently, USAID's Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance has a single representative in South Asia, only one, charged with covering the entire region of South Asia. This increase in the budget in OFDA's funding would allow for the expansion and enhancement of our efforts to help these nations develop this much-needed program. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. It honors America's humanitarian interests; it also reflects America's growing political relations with this area of the world.

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot).

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

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I think the Congress has been a little sheepish when it comes to reducing wasteful programs, especially during times when we have had a Federal surplus. I would just make the point that Congress did end the wool and mohair subsidy. It was phased out in 1994. I think that was a good thing. Subsequent to that taxpayers did save about $200 million a year. That was good. However, like a wolf in sheep's clothing, this subsidy came back in the fiscal 1999 omnibus appropriations bill and again in the fiscal 2000 agriculture appropriations bill. Now wool and mohair producers have become eligible to receive these payments again. I do oppose the subsidy for apple producers. I think that is another rotten apple in this agriculture measure that is before us. But let me make the observation that while in the old program farmers were paid a subsidy for the wool and mohair they sold, in this new program, if I understand it right, the way it works now is the farmers do not need to attempt to sell their goods necessarily. The Agricultural Department will pay farmers by the pound just to produce mohair. Under the new program not only can farmers make money without selling their crop, they can make money without trying to market it, if I read it correctly. In 1999, taxpayers provided wool and mohair farmers, I believe, 10.3 million in subsidy. As explained, the original concept of this had to do with our national security. It had to do with the fact that military uniforms were wool. But the reality is that in 1959 they changed to synthetic fabrics and cotton. That is the situation today. I just think it is time to end this waste of taxpayers' dollars. I think it is time to shear the wool and mohair subsidy and stop the fleecing of tax dollars.

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, in a true market economy, advertising is a function of the private sector. It should not be in the public sphere. The public in my view should not be forced to subsidize corporations. This is a philosophical point but it goes to the question of this Market Access Program. Let me make the point that the Market Access Program is a leftover product of two previously failed USDA programs. One was the market promotion program and then the targeted export assistance program, both of which we debated on this floor, both of which we tried to reform. Basically, the Market Access Program funnels tax dollars to corporate trade associations and to cooperatives to advertise private products overseas. While proponents of the program claim that the Market Access Program boost its exports and creates jobs, there is no evidence to support that. As a matter of fact, the General Accounting Office studies indicate that this program has no discernible effect on U.S. agricultural exports. I believe the private sector knows how to advertise. It does not need government interference. I think that taxpayer dollars merely replace money that would be spent by private companies on their own advertising, and provisions in the 1996 farm bill have attempted to reform MAP but thus far have failed. Although the percentage of large companies that get this MAP money has decreased, a number of large corporations still receive millions indirectly through trade associations. In the last 10 years, America's taxpayers basically paid out $1.5 billion for this particular subsidy. I think the American people would agree that their money would be better spent if this was relegated back to the private sector. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remainder of my time. Mr. Chairman, I would just point out that, according to the General Accounting Office studies, there is no evidence that MAP increases exports or increases jobs. Any increase cited and attributed to the Market Access Program would have occurred whether MAP existed or not. The private sector, I would also point out, knows better to whom to advertise and how to advertise and can do it more efficiently. I think that government hand-outs merely replace money that would be spent by private companies on their own advertising. The last point I would like to make is MAP, in some cases, uses tax money derived from the competitors of these MAP recipients. So I would urge adoption.

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner).

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, when Congress created the current fee structure for securities transactions, the intent there was to ensure that the regulated community would pay for the cost of their regulation, and basically due to a rising stock market and due to unprecedented trading volume the government is now collecting fees that greatly exceed the operating budget of the SEC; in fact, by some six times greater than that operating budget. What happens to this revenue? Well, it is deposited into the U.S. Treasury and it is used for other Federal programs. What would be the benefit of eliminating the tax overcharge? Well, by reducing the transaction fees paid by investors each time they sell a stock, by reducing the registration fees, then this would eliminate basically a tax on equity transactions. This is a tax felt by everyone who invests in mutual funds. This is a tax felt by everyone in retirement accounts and, as we know, Mr. Speaker, it is a majority of Americans.

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 to include extraneous material on H.R. 2052.

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

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I do want to stress that this legislation is not directed against Islam. This legislation is directed against religious persecution, and this includes the issue of forced conversion. Again, I think we need to be clear. Congress is saying nothing here against the religion of Islam, which is an increasingly important part of our national fabric. I think we need to be clear that what we are saying here with this bill and with this amendment that we are adding to the bill is that we are bringing attention to Sudan, we are addressing shortcomings in the delivery of humanitarian relief, and we are providing tools to the administration and the American public to attempt to end the massive suffering of the Sudanese people.

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the remainder of the bill be printed in the Record and open to amendment at any point.

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