Ed Royce

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey), the majority leader.

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor), a member of the Committee on International Relations.

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman), chairman of the Subcommittee on Middle East and South Asia.

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo), who authored this legislation and who, along with the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne), wrote the Sudan Peace Act. (Mr. TANCREDO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul), a member of the Committee on International Relations. (Mr. PAUL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), the vice chairman of the Committee on International Relations.

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, firstly I would like to thank the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo), a member of the Subcommittee on Africa that I chair, for introducing the Sudan Peace Act. The ranking member of the Subcommittee on Africa, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne), has been a strong supporter of this legislation, as has the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos). I want to thank them for their assistance. I would also like to thank the chairman of the Committee on International Relations, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), for his efforts on behalf of this bipartisan bill. As we have heard during the debate on the rule, Sudan is suffering through what is probably today the longest civil war in the world. The fighting between the radical government in the north and forces in the south has led to suffering on such a massive scale that it is estimated today that close to 2 million Sudanese have died of war-related causes since 1983. There are 4 million Sudanese internally displaced in that country, 2 million living in squatter areas in Khartoum. Over 3 million Sudanese will require emergency food aid this year if they are to survive. Famine is a constant in Sudan. At a March hearing of the Committee on International Relations, Secretary of State Colin Powell said that Sudan is one of the greatest tragedies on the face of the Earth. There is no greater tragedy, he said. Well, I think Secretary Powell is right. He recently traveled to Africa, where Secretary Powell consulted with African leaders about the crisis in Sudan. Early signs indicate a strong administration commitment to addressing this crisis, and this legislation is designed to bolster the administration's effort. The Sudan Peace Act condemns violations of human rights on all sides of the conflict. However, it recognizes that it is the Sudanese government and groups under its control that bears by far the greatest responsibility for human rights violations. The Sudanese regime regularly blocks humanitarian relief efforts and bombs humanitarian and civilian centers. Southern Sudanese are victimized by slave raids, which this legislation recognizes as government-backed, as well as by religious persecution, which is commonly believed to be the worst religious persecution in the world. Last year, the State Department again designated Sudan as a country of particular concern due to its systematic and egregious violations of religious freedom. Sudanese forced into slavery are subject to all forms of physical abuse, including beatings and sexual abuse, and forced religious conversions. Congress has gone on record before expressing concern over the strife and human suffering that is occurring there in this country. In 1999, the House of Representatives passed a resolution condemning the Sudanese government for ``its genocidal war'' in southern Sudan. The Sudan Peace Act condemns the government of Sudan in the strongest possible terms, finding again that its acts constitute what we term genocide. Here are some of the particulars in the bill. The bill requires companies with operations in Sudan to disclose the nature of their Sudanese operations before they are permitted to trade their securities in U.S. capital markets. This disclosure includes the nature of those operations and their relationship to violations of religious freedom and other human rights in Sudan. This should prove to be a useful tool in alerting American investors to the troubling nature of their potential investment, particularly in the energy sector. Over the last several years, non-U.S. companies have raised money in the U.S. to develop Sudanese oil fields, located primarily in the south. Oil reserves have allowed Khartoum to double its military expenditures, giving it the means to prosecute its war more aggressively. The second thing the bill does is it urges the administration to make available to the National Democratic Alliance $10 million in previously appropriated funds. This funding should be used to help build the civil society that has been devastated in the south and which is essential to the region's long-term future. The third aspect of the legislation is that it requires the administration to develop a contingency plan to operate its humanitarian relief efforts outside Operation Lifeline Sudan, and that is the United Nations sponsored humanitarian aid operation that has been shamelessly manipulated by the government of Sudan to advance its war aims, leading to widespread death by starvation and other causes. So what has in fact happened with Operation Lifeline Sudan, the government in Sudan has directed do not bring this relief into the south; we will direct you as to where you are allowed to take the food aid. So, again, this will develop a contingency plan to operate outside and around that Operation Lifeline Sudan. The Subcommittee on Africa has held several hearings on Sudan over the last few years. This crisis has increasingly caught the attention of the American people. The Sudan Peace Act is an effort to bring further attention to the suffering in Sudan and help along a resolution to this long-running conflict. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by thanking the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) for their effective effort to get this bill to the House floor. Let me just say that it was only a few generations ago that pensions were almost exclusive to a privileged few in this country. For too many, the golden years were marked by financial insecurity. Today, the majority of American workers and their families have the opportunity to spend their retirement years in relative comfort. Our private pension system has played a crucial role to accomplish this turnaround. Clearly, Social Security alone is not enough. The private pension system is an indispensable part of the retirement security of American workers. I believe this bill encourages American workers to start saving for tomorrow today. I think the pension reforms we are considering will help individuals prepare for a better future. I also believe that the potential for fraud and abuse with regard to the substitute proposal is significant. I think it would certainly be very difficult to administer. I support the underlying pension reform bill. And I think with that bill, we are raising the limit on IRA contributions, we have increased pension portability to allow workers to roll over their pension savings between plans when they change jobs, we have basically streamlined rules and regulations to make it easier for small businesses to offer pensions; and the underlying bill increases protection for workers by increasing notification and disclosure in the area of cash balance conversion compared to existing law. I think if all these changes are enacted, they will provide millions of American workers with much better tools to prepare for retirement. Let us help Americans with their retirement security. I am pleased to be a cosponsor of this legislation. I urge my colleagues to pass H.R. 10 and oppose the substitute.

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by thanking the Armenia caucus for bringing us together to honor the memory of the greatest tragedy of Armenian history. This tragedy holds a valuable historical lesson for all of us. I myself in California growing up got to know several Armenian families. One man, one elderly man in one of the families that I knew, he was the sole survivor of the Armenian genocide. So the lessons are not just for those that were directly involved; it is for all of us. It is for all of us to know it is important that we as Americans acknowledge this genocide. That is what we are talking about today. Some 56 years ago, my father entered Dachau concentration camp in Germany with the Seventh Army. He took photographs there that day of those surviving that genocide, those starving people that the American troops fed and liberated. He remembers the quote from Adolph Hitler when Hitler was cautioned by the German chiefs of staff about his genocidal plans. Of course, as we have heard tonight, Hitler's retort was, ``Who remembers the Armenians?'' Well, 86 years ago today, the Ottoman Empire set out on a well- orchestrated campaign to exterminate a race of people. On that day, they began the campaign by focusing on the Armenian religious and political and intellectual leaders that they arrested in Constantinople, and they murdered them. In the years that followed, Armenians living under Ottoman rule were systematically deprived of their property, their individual rights, and ultimately, of their lives. As we have heard, between 1915 and 1923, the number of deaths was horrific. Some 1.5 million Armenians were murdered and 500,000 were deported from their homeland; and at the end of these 8 years, the Armenian population of Anatolia and western Armenia was virtually eliminated. Henry Morgenthau, the U.S. ambassador to the Ottoman Empire at the time, characterized this as a death warrant to a whole race. Morgenthau recognized that this campaign was ethnic cleansing. It is unfortunate that the Turkish Government to this day does not recognize this. Willful ignorance of the lessons of history all but ensures that those mistakes can be made again. In the last Congress, I joined 143 of my colleagues to cosponsor a congressional resolution recognizing the Armenian genocide. The resolution expressly differentiated between the Ottoman Empire and the modern day Republic of Turkey. We understand these are not the same governments. Unfortunately, despite hard-fought efforts, the resolution was never able to come to the House floor last Congress because of concerns, in my mind concerns without merit, with Turkey's reaction. I believed then, as I do now, that it remains important for the Congress to go on the record. Beyond affirming the U.S. record on the Armenian genocide, the resolution encouraged awareness and understanding of what genocide is, and this crime against humanity has been compounded to this day by those who refuse to recognize it. The victims and their families, many of whom live in the United States, are owed this recognition. That is why we must have this resolution pass this floor. In my home State of California, the State Board of Education has incorporated the story of Armenian genocide in the social studies curriculum. California is doing the right thing. As of last September, California law now permits victims of the Armenian genocide and their heirs to use California courts to pursue unpaid insurance claims. The tentative settlement reached between heirs of Armenian genocide victims and New York Life Insurance over claims that New York Life failed to honor are an estimated 2,500 valid insurance claims. That is a good start. The Armenian genocide is not simply a problem of the past; it has implications for the future. Our actions now will lay the groundwork for addressing genocide whenever it threatens to erupt again. Many of the survivors of the genocide and their descendents now live, as I say, in the United States, many in California. This 85-year-old tragedy is more than an event in history. By recognizing and learning about the crime against humanity, we can begin to honor the courage of its victims and commemorate the strides made by its survivors.

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 974 and I would like to take just a moment to address a provision affecting the twenty- two industrial banks in my State of California. Chairman Oxley was good enough to include in the Committee reported version of H.R. 974 a provision I requested offering a measure of equity and fairness to these twenty-two industrial banks as we implement a national policy permitting interest on business checking accounts. I want to thank him and his staff for their assistance in this matter. This provision, in Section 3 of H.R. 974, has now been amended to reflect comments offered by the Federal Reserve. The provision amends the Federal Deposit Insurance Act by adding a new paragraph (3) to Section 2 of that Act (PL-93-100). H.R. 974 would therefore permit a California industrial bank to offer to any account holder, including a business entity, interest bearing negotiable orders of withdrawal--commonly called NOW accounts--so long as applicable California law continues to prohibit industrial banks from offering demand deposit accounts--which it does, and so long as the California industrial bank is not an affiliate of any company or companies whose aggregate assets are more than ten percent of the total assets of that particular industrial bank. As a practical matter, I believe this provision would enable all of California's twenty-two industrial banks to offer NOW accounts to business entities, if they so choose. California industrial bank law has been--and remains in its most recent reform--explicit in its prohibition against industrial banks accepting demand deposit (checking) accounts. Also, for the most part, California's industrial banks are small depository institutions and few have operating subsidiaries or own other companies. It is also apparently the case that no California industrial bank currently has operating subsidiaries or owns a company or companies whose aggregate assets exceed 10% of that bank's total assets. While this later limitation may be somewhat restrictive with respect to the growth of any existing operating subsidy, or the addition of operating subsidies in the future, California's industrial banks have indicated they are prepared to work within this particular limitation. Finally, it is important to note that those few California industrial banks currently choosing to offer NOW accounts to individuals and charitable organizations are subject to regulations, including standard reserve requirements, promulgated by the Federal Reserve System. In permitting these industrial banks to also offer NOW accounts to business entities, H.R. 974 changes none of these requirements. I thank the distinguished Manager for permitting me to make this clarification and for his support of fairness and equity for California's industrial banks.

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall) for focusing our attention on this very important issue. They have been tireless in their efforts to raise awareness of conflict diamonds. Over the last year, increasing attention has been given to the issue of conflict diamonds in Africa. The gross misuse of these resources in countries like Sierra Leone and Angola raise the stakes in Africa's all too many wars, making these conflicts more deadly by funding otherwise unaffordable weapons that are purchased overseas. Yesterday, the Subcommittee on Africa, which I chair, held a hearing on the situation in West Africa, with particular emphasis on the destabilizing role of President Charles Taylor of Liberia and what has happened with conflict diamonds there. The West African country of Liberia, I have to report, is in terrible shape. Over the past 4 years, President Charles Taylor has waged a continuous assault on the democratic dreams of the Liberian people. He rules by decree. He suppresses the press, including USAID-supported STAR radio, which he forced off the air. He sanctions, if not directs, the murder of political opponents. As the subcommittee has profiled over the last several years, Charles Taylor is a menace to West Africa. One of our witnesses yesterday stated that, ``Charles Taylor's role has been to mastermind carnage in Sierra Leone for the sole purpose of controlling its diamond mines from which he derives income to enrich himself and to buy arms and ammunition to continue his control over Liberia and ultimately over the entire West African sub-region.'' Now, Charles Taylor's accessories to this in Sierra Leone are a group that we call the Revolutionary United Front. Sometimes they are referred to as the RUF. A Panel of Experts report issued last December found unequivocal and overwhelming evidence that Liberia has been actively supporting the Revolutionary United Front at all levels in providing training, in providing weapons and related material, logistical support, a staging ground for tanks that they make and then a safe haven to retreat and to recoup, and has been aiding them in public relations activities. President Charles Taylor, the report goes on, is actively involved in fueling the violence in Sierra Leone. Underscoring his tight ties with the Revolutionary United Front, this report found that Taylor even uses personnel from the Front for his own personal security detail. This is the same Revolutionary United Front whose signature is forced amputations of men and women and children. I highly commend this report. It well documents the frightening syndicate of international crime and diamond smuggling that Taylor now stands at the center of to anyone concerned about West Africa's fate. Acting on this report, the UN Security Council last week acted to impose diamond export and other sanctions on Charles Taylor. Sanctioning Charles Taylor was the right thing to do, but it was a mistake to give him 2 months to comply with UN demands that he stop aiding the Revolutionary United Front before the sanctions bite. This man has a record. For him, peace agreements are tactical delays designed to lull opponents before he strikes again. This was the case with the Lome Accord to Sierra Leone. Taylor has worked a cease-fire between the Revolutionary United Front and the UN peacekeeping operation in Sierra Leone. Why did he do that? So he could free up the Revolutionary United Front to attack Guinea, which is now under way. So now Taylor is making a bid to stave off the diamond sanctions and the travel sanctions, but it is a feint. Instead of waiting 2 months, the Security Council should have imposed these sanctions now. West African states, frankly, in this region that are being impacted by the terror that is emanating from his training camps are weak, and these states are getting weaker. If we do not act with vigor now, the region neighboring Liberia will become an irreversible humanitarian and environmental nightmare. In a few years, our ability to do anything constructive may well be gone. We need to bring a sense of urgency to our West Africa policy. We are not serious about Africa if we are not serious about this crisis of what is going on here. So let me just say that Charles Taylor's time is up. For the sake of tens of millions of West Africans, it is time to act forcefully against President Charles Taylor.

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, the time has come for bankruptcy reform. This will be the third time that Congress has passed a bankruptcy reform bill in our effort to get this through. Our bankruptcy laws do play an important and necessary role in protecting Americans who really need them, and that is the key. That should be the key: need. And this bill makes the existing bankruptcy system a needs-based system addressing the flaw in the current system that encourages people to file for bankruptcy and walk away from their debts regardless of whether they are able to repay any portion of what they owe. It does this while protecting those who truly need protection. They are exempted under the bill. The cost to all of us in terms of what is going on in these filings is great. This is a cost borne not only by the business community and the property owners but by the consumers who pay their bills responsibly. By some estimates, it takes 33 responsible consumers to pay for just one bankruptcy of convenience.

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, retirement security is one of the most important challenges that we in Congress are going to face in the years to come. The amount of benefits provided to seniors in the not-too- distant future is going to exceed the amount of payroll taxes taken in. One of the reasons for that is because Americans are having smaller and smaller families, Americans are living longer and longer, and, under that scenario, protecting Social Security becomes absolutely essential. That is why I cosponsored H.R. 2, the Social Security and Medicare Lock-Box Act of 2001. Mr. Speaker, what this bill does is establish a firewall to protect 100 percent of the Social Security and Medicare trust funds. Under this bill, the trust funds will not be spent on other government programs. I think all of us know that for some 30 years or so money was borrowed out of the Social Security trust fund. Basically over the last few years, if you will recall, President Clinton said, ``Let's protect 60 percent of the funds in the trust fund.'' The Republicans in the House said, ``No, let's protect 100 percent.'' For the last few years, that is what we have done. We have set aside 100 percent of those excess FICA taxes that have gone into Social Security. But setting it aside for the here and now is not enough. We need legislation for the long-term, like this bill, to ensure that we put up that firewall so that it is not borrowed again in the future. Now, in my view, Americans deserve to know that every penny taken out of their paychecks for Social Security and for Medicare will be used to pay for benefits. This legislation will help ensure that. Furthermore, under this bill the Social Security and Medicare surpluses will be used to pay down the public debt until Social Security and Medicare reform is enacted. This will help lower the burden of debt placed on our children. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to pass this legislation.

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, first, I want to commend the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), the new chairman of the Committee on International Relations, especially for expediting this important resolution to make certain that it hit the floor today. I worked on this resolution with the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott), my fellow cochairman of the Congressional Caucus on India; and it goes to the issue of the massive earthquake that with terrifying intensity hit the State of Gujarat in India on January 26. This is the most massive quake that India has faced in 50 years. It left in its wake tens of thousands of dead and injured. It devastated the infrastructure of the region. The death toll has now been estimated anywhere between 20,000 and, incredibly, 100,000 human beings. These are staggering numbers, though the fatality statistics alone do not begin to convey the level of suffering that the people of India have endured and will endure for years to come as a result of this quake. Indeed, the images of death and destruction we have seen on television are sobering. While the quake also impacted Pakistan and Nepal and Bangladesh, it is Gujarat that has been reduced to rubble. Thousands who have been left homeless must now deal with the loss of family members and the loss of their neighbors. But in this tragedy, we were afforded a look at the strength of the human spirit. Alongside the devastation that occurred were the courage and determination shown by the people of India. Glimmers of that spirit came in the news that a mother and her baby were found among the survivors a full 4 days after the quake struck. Offers of assistance have come from many countries. Not surprisingly, members of the Indo-American community have been quick to deliver their time and aid. Many Indo-Americans have family in Gujarat, though it is the Indo-American community as a whole that has stepped forward with a greatly impressive aid drive. Over the weekend, USAID coordinated an airlift of emergency supplies to meet the immediate needs of the families in the region. President Bush has said that other airlifts are on the way. This resolution backs that effort in the strongest of terms which extends the American tradition of providing humanitarian aid. The rebuilding of the state of Gujarat is a daunting challenge. Economic damage may top $5 billion. While India enjoys a growing economy, U.S.-India commerce is growing, India is still, though, very much a developing country that can ill afford this damage, especially to Gujarat, which was an economic powerhouse of India. But India has a strong partner in the United States. We can lend a hand. Indians and Americans share a strong friendship, one that is so promising because of our common security and economic interest as well as the bond of common values between the world's oldest and largest democracies. This quake, by the way, struck on India's Republic Day, a time for India to celebrate the democratic values upon which it was founded 51 years ago. Again, I want to commend the effort of the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott) and applaud the support many Members of both parties showed by quickly cosponsoring this resolution. Showing solidarity now is in India's interest and it is in America's interest, and I urge passage.

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, each day our Nation's religious institutions quietly go about performing critical social programs that serve as lifelines to individuals and families in need. Besides providing places of worship, religious institutions also serve their communities by operating outreach programs such as food banks soup kitchens, battered family shelters, schools and AIDS hospices. To families in need, these programs often provide a last resource of care and compassion. Yet, in spite of the clear social good that these programs provide to communities across America, we are faced with the growing reality that religious institutions are finding it increasingly difficult to secure the necessary capital resources at favorable rates that enable them to carry on this critical community work. Mr. Speaker, today I am re-introducing legislation that I believe will help ensure that religious institutions have available all the financial resources necessary to carry out their missions of community service. The Faith-Based Lending Protection Act, which enjoys bipartisan support, seeks to amend the Federal Credit Union Act by clarifying that any member business loan made by a credit union to a religious nonprofit organization will not count toward total business lending caps imposed on credit unions by Federal law. Each year credit unions loan millions of dollars to nonprofit religious organizations, many located in minority and/or lower income communities. Historically, these loans are considered safe and help sustain critical social outreach programs. Without legislative action, Mr. Speaker, these religious institutions will find it increasingly difficult, if not impossible, to secure the necessary funds under favorable terms to allow them to continue their work. I urge my colleagues to join me in this legislative effort.

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, this Congress has accomplished much, and I think we should be proud of what the Congress has done. We said we wanted to preserve and protect Social Security and Medicare, and we have. We stopped the raid on Social Security that had been going on for decades, and we made the system stronger by passing legislation locking away 100 percent of the Social Security surplus for Social Security; not for any other spending programs. Republicans said we would eliminate the deficit and pay down the debt, and we have. In fact, over just the past 3 years we have paid down $360 billion in debt. Over the next 5 years, our tax cuts will provide the average household almost $2,000 in tax relief, and this includes the $500 per child tax credit we enacted; and we are just getting started. Let us continue working on behalf of all Americans to protect and preserve Social Security; to provide tax relief; to pay off the Federal debt and to strengthen education.

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Madam Speaker, I just want to mention that the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) is one of our foremost experts in the House on advanced weapons technology, and also he has led some 21 trips now to Russia. He speaks Russian, and he has been perplexed, as I have, by this report in The New York Times that without reporting to Members of the House and the Senate, the Vice President had concluded his secret agreement with then-Russian Prime Minister Viktor Chernomyrdin, a secret agreement not to enforce U.S. laws requiring sanctions on any country that supplies advanced conventional weapons to Iran. As we look at the list of those particular weapons, we see that it includes the advanced submarines, the ultra-quiet, ultra-silent kilo- class submarines that are so difficult to detect, that it includes torpedoes and antiship mines and hundreds of tanks and armored personnel carriers. I think these submarines are but one example of exactly the type identified by Congress when it passed the law as posing a risk to U.S. forces operating in the Middle East. Madam Speaker, the report of the Speaker's Advisory Group, and I would just mention to the Members, this can be found on policy.house.gov, if Members would like to get a copy of Russia's Road to Corruption. That report notes the unjustified confidence in unreliable officials like Chernomyrdin; it notes the refusal by the administration to acknowledge mistakes and revised policies accordingly; and it notes the excessive secrecy designed to screen controversial policies from both Congress and the public. This secret agreement, I think, exemplifies every one of these flaws and, tragically, as the Times reported, the decision to flout U.S. law gained us nothing from the Russians. In spite of evidence that both Russian government agencies and private entities were directly involved in proliferation to such states as Iran and Iraq, the Clinton administration continued to rely on personal assurances from a very small cadre of contacts in the Russian Government. Our administration officials, including Vice President Gore and Deputy Secretary of State Talbot, accepted these assurances, despite clear evidence of continued proliferation, rather than believe or admit that proliferation could continue, despite the stated opposition of their partners. Now, I wanted just to bring to light a second secret Gore- Chernomyrdin deal that was described in the Washington Times on October 17 in a classified ``Dear Al'' letter to Al Gore in late 1995. Chernomyrdin described Russian aid to Iran's nuclear program, and the letter states: ``This information is not to be conveyed to third parties, including to the United States Congress.'' Not to be conveyed to the United States Congress. As with the first Chernomyrdin deal, this agreement too has been kept secret from us. This letter from Chernomyrdin to Gore indicates that Gore acquiesced to the shipment of not only conventional shipments to Iran in violation of the act, but also of nuclear technology to Iran. According to Vice President Gore, when we listen to his rationale, he says, well, the purpose of this secret deal was to constrain Russian nuclear aid to Iran in the construction of two nuclear reactors. If that is so, Vice President Gore plainly did not succeed, because in August of this year, the CIA reported that Russia continues to provide Iran with nuclear technology that could be applied to Iran's weapons programs. That is what our Central Intelligence Agency is telling us. The chairman of the House Committee on International Relations, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman), asked the administration on October 18 if it had pointed out to Gore's Russian partner that it is not the American way for the President to keep secrets from Congress when it comes to such serious national security concerns as the proliferation of nuclear technology. The chairman has yet to receive an answer. The law requires, and I am going to quote it here, that ``The text of any international agreement to which the United States is a party be transmitted to Congress as soon as practical, but in no event later than 60 days after it is reached.'' The law does not contemplate, as the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox), the House Policy chairman, pointed out, does not contemplate that Congress will discover such agreements 5 years after the fact by reading about them through leaks to a newspaper. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee requested the first secret Gore-Chernomyrdin agreement on Friday, October 13, the day that The New York Times revealed it; and now, weeks later, the administration has yet to produce this agreement, or the second Gore- Chernomyrdin letter dealing with nuclear transfers to Iran. Madam Speaker, I yield back to the chairman.

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that during the debate on the original 1995 law itself, the very example given in the debate was the super secret kilo class type of submarine that could be transferred from Russia to Iran because of our concerns of what that would do to our strategic interests in the Middle East. How would it be possible for the administration now to claim that in fact it did not intend or their interpretation is that it is not covered by the statute when in fact the debate on the original law mentioned that kilo class submarine?

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to enter into the Record and share with my colleagues a report that was recently released by the gentleman from California (Chairman Cox). It is entitled ``Russia's Road to Corruption.'' This is the Speaker's advisory group on Russia. In addition, I would like to share with Members that the New York Times reported this month that, without reporting to Members of the House or the Senate, Vice President Gore concluded a secret agreement in 1995 with then-Russian Prime Minister Viktor Chernomyrdin not to enforce U.S. laws requiring sanctions on any country that supplies advanced conventional weapons to Iran. Specifically, Vice President Gore, purportedly on behalf of the United States, secretly authorized Russia to continued the sale of advanced weaponry to Iran. Now, this occurred while there was a U.S. law on the books, and let me quote from a comment made by the gentleman from California (Chairman Cox) at the time. He said, ``The 1992 act required the President to sanction any country that transfers goods or technology that contribute knowingly and materially to the efforts by Iran or Iraq to acquire destabilizing numbers and types of advanced conventional weapons.'' At the very moment Vice President Gore was making this secret deal with Chernomyrdin, bipartisan majorities in Congress were deeply critical of the Clinton Administration's failure to sanction Russian arms sales to Iran. It is now clear why the administration took no action. Vice President Gore actually signed off on the Russian sales to Iran. The secret Gore- Chernomyrdin agreement reportedly allowed Russia to sell weapons to Iran for 4 more years, including an advanced submarine. This is the ultra-quiet Kilo Class Russian submarine. Also, to sell torpedoes and antiship mines, and hundreds of tanks and armed personnel carriers. This submarine, as but one example, is exactly the type identified by Congress when it passed the law as posing a risk to U.S. forces operating in the Middle East. The secret deal cut by Vice President Gore directly contradicts the 1992 law he coauthored. As then Senator Gore said on April 8 of 1992, ``We do feel that the sanctions package has got to lay out the choice for dealers in these technologies in very stark terms. It is abundantly clear that we need to raise the stakes high and we need to act without compunction if we catch violators.'' That is what was said then. The report of the Speaker's advisory group noted a series of interlocking flaws in the Clinton-Gore policy towards Russia. Unjustified confidence in unreliable officials like Chernomyrdin was the first that they pointed out; refusal to acknowledge mistakes and revise policies accordingly, and excessive secrecy designed to screen controversial policies, to screen them from both the Congress and from the U.S. public. This secret agreement exemplifies every one of these flaws, stated the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox). Tragically, as the Times report notes, the decision to flout U.S. law gained us nothing from the Russians. The September 2000 advisory group reported concluded, in spite of evidence that both Russian government agencies and private entities were directly involved in proliferation to such States as Iran and Iraq, the Clinton administration continued to rely on personal assurances from its small cadre of contacts in the Russian government. Administration officials, including Vice President Gore and Deputy Secretary of State Talbot, accepted these assurances, despite clear evidence of continued proliferation rather than believe or admit that proliferation could continue despite the stated opposition of their partners. To continue, I wanted to share with my colleagues a second issue, a second secret Gore-Chernomyrdin deal, that was described not by The New York Times this time, but this one by the Washington Times on October 17 of this year. In a classified ``Dear Al'' letter to the Vice President in late 1995, Chernomyrdin described Russian aid to Iran's nuclear program. The letter states that it is quote, ``ot to be conveyed to third parties, including the U.S. Congress.'' Not to be conveyed to the U.S. Congress. It appears to memorialize a previous personal agreement between the two men that the U.S. would acquiesce in the nuclear technology transfer to Iran. As with the first Gore-Chernomyrdin deal, this agreement too was kept from Congress. This letter from Chernomyrdin to Gore indicates that Vice President Gore acquiesced to the shipment of not only conventional weapons to Iran in violation of the Gore-McCain Act, but also nuclear technology to Iran. According to Vice President Gore, the purpose of this secret deal was to constrain Russian nuclear aid to Iran in the construction of two nuclear reactors. If that is so, Vice President Gore plainly did not succeed. In August of this year, the CIA reported that ``Russia continues to provide Iran with nuclear technology that could be applied to Iran's weapons program.'' Now, our House Committee on International Relations chairman, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman), asked the administration on October 18 if it had pointed out to Vice President Gore's Russian partner in this that it is not the American way for the President to keep secrets from Congress when it comes to such serious national security concerns as proliferation of nuclear technology. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) has yet to receive an answer. The law requires that ``The text of any international agreement to which the United States is a party be transmitted to Congress as soon as practical, but in no event later than 60 days'' after it is reached. The law does not contemplate that Congress will discover such agreements 5 years after the fact by reading about them through leaks to a newspaper, commented the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox), the chairman of this committee. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee requested the first secret Gore-Chernomyrdin agreement on arms to Iran on Friday, October 13, the day The New York Times revealed it. Weeks later, the administration has yet to produce either it or the second Gore-Chernomyrdin letter dealing with nuclear transfers to Iran. Lastly, I wanted to cite from Russia's Road to Corruption, the Speaker's Advisory Group on Russia chaired by the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) comments about the ongoing Russian assistance to Iran's ballistic missile program. To quote from the report, ``Throughout the 1990s, despite repeated pledges by the Yeltsin government given during summits, Gore-Chernomyrdin Commission meetings, administerial level meetings, Russian private and government entities continue to provide critical technological assistance to Iran's ballistic missile program.'' In testimony before the House Committee on International Relations in October of 1999, proliferation expert Kenneth Timmerman testified that top Clinton administration officials were aware of Russian aid to Iran's missile programs and did little to counter it. In March of 1997, a CIA intelligence report labeled ``secret'' reportedly disclosed the then Iranian President Rafsanjani was pleased with the growing ties between Iran and Russia and that he expected Iran to benefit from Russia's highly developed missile program. Iran's President stated that he considered obtaining Russian military technology one of Iran's primary foreign policy goals, yet the Clinton administration, anxious to present a positive image of Russian-American relations, continued to accept the commitments from Yeltsin and Chernomyrdin during this period at the Clinton-Yeltsin summit in Helsinki, at the June Clinton-Yeltsin summit in 1997, and at the Gore- Chernomyrdin meeting in 1997 that Russia would hold its missile technology assistance to Iran, and all of this, while in November 1998, the Russian Duma passed a resolution calling for increased military cooperation with Iran. Nevertheless, the Clinton administration still refused to adjust U.S. policy to the torrent of information from the U.S. Intelligence community that corroborated the evidence from U.S. allies. American policy was based on the assurances from the administration's small circle of official Russian counterparts. Objective intelligence, objective reporting was discounted. While information from Russian sources, who clearly stood to be injured by the imposition of sanctions, was accepted. The bipartisan Iran Missile Proliferation Sanctions Act of 1997, which passed the House and Senate with veto-proof majorities, closed many of the loopholes invoked by the Clinton administration to justify its refusal to use sanctions. The act required suspension of U.S. Government assistance to foreign entities that assist Iran's ballistic missile program, but President Clinton vetoed that bill on June 23 of 1998. One month after that veto, Iran tested its Shahab 3 missile, 10 years ahead of the U.S. Government's original estimate of when it would be capable of doing so. Under threat of a congressional override of the veto of the Iran Missile Proliferation Act, the President finally issued an Executive Order. However, the Executive Order did nothing to address Russia's export control system, which even National Security Adviser Sandy Berger said was necessary when he announced the sanctions. In testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee in February of 2000, Director of the Central Intelligence Agency George Tenet testified that Iran probably will soon possess a ballistic missile capable of reaching the United States. The impact of Russian assistance was clear. Only a year earlier, Tenet had testified that it would take many, many years for Iran to develop a missile capable of reaching the United States. The Clinton administration's willful blindness to Russian proliferation has already done immense damage. The extensive Russian assistance has allowed Iran to improve significantly its ballistic missile capability. As a matter of fact with Russian assistance, Iran is now building a 2,600 mile-range Kosar missile based on a Soviet era SS5 missile engine. This missile could ultimately form the basis for an Iranian Intercontinental ballistic missile. Russia has also ignored the Clinton administration's ineffectual objections to its plans to build nuclear reactors in Iran. Both the Clinton administration and outside experts fear that Iran will use the civilian reactor program as a cover for a secret nuclear weapons program, but the Clinton administration has failed to move effectively to end this Russian assistance. Moreover, congressional attempts to influence Russian behavior by reducing U.S. bilateral aid to the Russian central government have been undercut by continued unconditional administration support for aid to Russia through the IMF and the World Bank and other multinational institutions. Iran is seeking to acquire Russian assistance in building other weapons of mass destruction as well. In December of 1998, the New York Times reported that high-ranking Iranian officials were aggressively pursuing biological and chemical expertise in Russia. In interviews conducted with numerous former biological weapons exerts in Russian, more than a dozen stated that they had been approached by Iranian nationals and offered as much as $5,000 a month for information relating to biological weapons. Two weapons experts claimed they had been asked specifically to assist Iran in building biological weapons. The Russian scientists who had been approached noted that the Iranians showed particular interest in learning about or acquiring microbes that can be used militarily and genetic engineering techniques to create highly resistent germs. Mr. Speaker, I yield time to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon), my colleague; and he has some points to make for the Record as well.

Mr. ROYCE. One of the comments that interested me was former Foreign Minister Federov's comment, where he told American officials do not give us money through the IMF into the central bank without strings, because if you do that that money will end up, quote, in Swiss bank accounts. Why was it, why was it, that we continued, against the advice of their own foreign minister who was trying to make reforms, to continue to put money into the government there instead of as an alternative attempting through democracy building to put the funding into building up political parties in Russia, building up a Democratic culture in Russia, assisting those who were trying to reform the country, why did all of the support go directly through the heads of state that were controlling the system, including the privatization? The gentleman alluded to Viktor Chernomydin's role there and in the report the indication is from the Russia's Road to Corruption, the Speaker's Advisory Group on Russia, the indication is that one of the main beneficiaries out of the entire privatization scheme was Chernomydin who ended up holding a large percentage of the oil and gas interests in Russia through so-called privatization, how could the administration allow this to occur without instead removing the resources from the government and putting the resources towards the forces of reform?

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, there is one other issue that is of concern to me. When we were in Moscow, we had an opportunity to speak to various officials in the Russian Government; and, upon our return, there was a story in the media about the fact that support among the Russian people for the United States was down to single digits for our policies and their feelings about the intentions of the United States was down to single digits. When we contrast that with the attitudes after the fall of the Berlin Wall and after the disillusion of the former Soviet Union, at that particular time the support for U.S. policy and intentions was registered to be the majority of Russians. In one poll I recall it was 70 percent. How does that go from 70 percent level of support down to a level of support that is around four or five percent? And at the same time, how do we go from a situation where we had a relationship with Russian parliamentarians to one where today a former KGB officer, now the President of Russia, states that his strategic alliance is going to be with China, not with the United States, but with China? How does that happen over the span of a few years?

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I have one question that I would like to ask the gentleman and that concerns the law as it pertains to these international agreements. Now, according to the law, as I understand it, when there is an agreement with a foreign power, that information is supposed to be given to Congress as soon as practical or no later than within 60 days. My question is this: Since we are now in a position where some 5 years after the agreement we are finding out about such agreements in the New York Times, what recourse does Congress have under the law at this time in order to assert our constitutional rights to be informed about what the administration is doing negotiating without sharing that information with either the Senate or with the House and in particular negotiating when there are laws on the books?

Mr. ROYCE. There was one last question I wanted to ask, and that had to do with the issue of privatization. I think for us as confusing as the comments of Foreign Minister Federov, who says he warned the administration not to give this money to the central bank without strings attached, not to turn it over to the government in power without a method of auditing it and making certain that it went for the purposes to which it was intended, even more confusing are what we are hearing now about the privatization schemes in Russia and how the beneficiaries of that did not turn out to be the Russian people but instead certain oligarchs, how can it be that this administration that was involved in giving assistance in helping through the IMF and the World Bank and helping with financial assistance, how could it be the case that we could end up with so much in assets turned over instead to a very small group, cadre of people?

Mr. ROYCE

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

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for yielding me this time, and my comments will go to the underlying bill. Let me just make the observation that we have had three votes on this measure, and it has passed with overwhelming bipartisan support. I think the time for reform really is now. The fact this bill will stop abusers while protecting those who need it most is important. I think for too many wealthy Americans bankruptcy is becoming the first stop rather than the last resort, and more and more higher-income people are choosing bankruptcy as a financial planning tool, sheltering substantial wealth, while sticking the consumers and responsible borrowers with the tab. That is part of what this is about. They wipe out billions of dollars worth of wealth by doing this. Even one case of bankruptcy fraud or abuse is too many. It takes 33 Americans to pay for one bankruptcy of convenience. My point is we must restore personal responsibility to our bankruptcy code. We have a trend here that is continuing. Despite economic growth, despite low unemployment, despite rising disposable personal income an exorbitant number of personal bankruptcies are filed every year, many by individuals who have the ability to pay down some or all of their debt. In fact, over the past decade, the number of personal bankruptcies have doubled, and this year more people are projected to declare bankruptcy than will graduate from college. Now, this reform helps women and children. Under provisions in the bankruptcy reform conference report, child support and alimony take priority, take priority over all other debts, making it now easier for single mothers to collect child support payments from fathers who would rather walk away from their responsibilities by filing for bankruptcy. Fixing the bankruptcy code and strengthening child support and alimony enforcement go hand in hand in reinforcing personal responsibility. Let me say that the enormous enhancements to support in terms of this collection remedy make this worthy of support. And those words come from the National Districts Attorney's Association in their support for this measure. Bankruptcy reform enjoys strong bipartisan support. I will just remind my colleagues of the fact that this legislation was agreed to by both Chambers and would help prevent those who can afford to repay some of their debt from pushing it off on to other hard-working Americans. Once again, I remind my colleagues that the House passed this reform by a margin of 313 to 108 here and by a margin of 83 to 14 in the Senate. The time for reform is now. Let us move the measure.