Ed Royce

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, the war in Sierra Leone has been one of the most barbaric in the world. A rebel group, the RUF, supported by neighboring Liberia, has been conducting the most hideous of violence against civilians in this west African country. They are doing this to steal the Nation's diamond wealth. Last week, 4-year-old Memunatu Mansaray told us how her and her grandmother were among 300 people who sought refuge in a mosque when rebels attacked the capital. When she cried out, the hiding population was discovered, and all but her were shot dead. She survived because, when it was her turn, a rebel commander told a 12-year-old boy, a boy captured and drugged by the rebels, not to waste a bullet on her, but to cut off her hand. Her right hand was amputated that day when she was just 2 years old. Fortunately, private Americans have come forth to give her medical attention. But there are thousands of other child victims with nothing. As a matter of fact, there are 20,000 amputees. I believe that those who saw her left with an awareness of why the U.S. must do more to help bring a just peace, a just peace to Sierra Leone. This savagery has to stop.

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, every year, and this year again, we will have several million women in this country who are attacked by their ex-husbands or by ex-boyfriends. There will be half a million who are stalked. Four thousand of these women will die. These are at times silent cries, with the victims not knowing where or to whom they can turn for help. This horrifying reality is a call for us to ensure that women and law enforcement, local law enforcement, have the resources necessary to escape abuse. That is why I am a cosponsor of this bill to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act. I think it is important for us to recognize that since it was authorized in 1994, we have seen a reduction by 21 percent of the level of violence committed against women and children by their spouses or by their partners. Thanks to this bill, more than 300,000 women who were seeking a safe haven have received much-needed shelter. I urge its passage today.

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. I thank the gentleman for yielding time. Madam Speaker, I would point out as we look at the graph, as we look at the chart, it is a fact that all spending bills originate in the House, as we contemplate where we would be today if we were using the President's budget from 1995, had we not had the election of a Republican House in 1994, where would we be today? I think the answer to that is based upon the President's budget at the time; we would still be running chronic $200 billion deficits today. I want to thank some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, particularly the Blue Dogs, for their efforts at deficit reduction. But I must say some of the credit also goes certainly to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich), our budget chairman, and goes to the Republicans who in 1994 and in 1995, we were able to slow the rate of government growth, one year down to 2.7 percent. And in so doing, by slowing that government growth rate, allow revenues to catch up with expenditures, and now we have balanced budgets. If indeed we do look at the chart, Members notice that when we begin to run those surpluses is at the point in time that the Republican House's budgets began to kick in. I rise in support of this debt relief lock-box act because this bill uses 90 percent of next year's budget surplus to pay down the national debt. I think as we look at the Republican plan to pay off the total public debt by 2013 and the President has signed on to that plan, we are committed to doing that; as we look at that, we now begin to realize that there are more revenues coming in than we ever imagined. The surplus is growing at a very good clip. The administration has continued to veto those measures like the marriage and death tax relief bills, so they have made it clear that they do not want to let Americans keep some of this money. They do not want to have that returned. From our side of the aisle, our response to that is, All right. Well, let's at least make certain that the government doesn't spend it. Let's make certain that it goes to paying down the debt. Because according to the General Accounting Office, the government made more than $20 billion in improper payments in fiscal 1999 through waste, fraud, and abuse. Let us at least agree that we are going to root out that waste, fraud and abuse in these Federal agencies; and let us agree that before we spend any more of this money, we will first use 90 percent of it to pay down that national debt. I urge my colleagues to prioritize by passing this bill so that we can reach that consensus, which I think will be something we can all agree upon.

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, maybe we can clarify this a little bit. What we are talking about in terms of the standard deduction, what our Democrat friends are saying is that they will support an adjustment in the standard deduction but they will not support what we do with the elimination of the marriage tax penalty, which is to say that we also take care of those who itemize. Now, 40 percent of the taxpayers itemize; and that is because 40 percent or more have homes or have a condominium. And, as a consequence, all of the examples we have seen here today, the posters on the floor, are of those people who, frankly, itemize their deductions. And because they itemize, they will not get any relief unless we pass the Republican bill. Under the Democrat proposal, they do not get relief from the marriage tax penalty. Now, on average, this is $1,400 per individual. Now, the President says these are the rich. But it is just not the case that everybody that owns a home or everybody that owns a condominium and, therefore, itemizes is rich. That is not true. I wanted to point out that.

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to the 150th anniversary of the founding of the golden State of California. From the port of Long Beach to the North Orange County region, the 39th Congressional District is one of the many examples of the state's remarkable diversity. This area was once thriving farmland, rich in oranges, lemons, avocados, and walnuts. Agriculture was the first important industry. With orange groves being so abundant, Orange County was named after the fruit. Many industrious individuals flocked to this area, like Walter Knott, who began the Knott legacy in Buena Park. He used to sell jams and jellies at a roadside stand. Mrs. Knott began serving up fried chicken dinners to those waiting in the lines, and they soon added a restaurant to accommodate more people. Mr. Knott wanted to build something as a tribute to the Old West and the pioneers who paved the way. The idea of a ghost town was born, which eventually evolved into the Knott's Berry Farm amusement park. Its original purpose was to educate and entertain and it still does today. The district has undergone tremendous growth since the days of the orange groves. The neighboring metropolis of Los Angeles burst at the seams and the population spilled across the rural valley. In its wake, the farmlands were replaced by an urban landscape of homes, shopping malls, and industrial parks. Today, Orange County is home to a vast number of major industries, the most prominent being the high-tech, telecommunications, and entertainment industries. Throughout its existence, this area has continued to thrive. No other environment is more conducive to innovation and creativity than this sun-blessed region of Southern California.

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.Res. 572, of which I am a cosponsor. Indian Prime Minister Vajpayee's state visit this week caps off a special year in U.S.-India relations that began with President Clinton's March visit to India. The Prime Minister's visit provides another excellent opportunity for the U.S. and India to advance further our rapidly improving and mutually beneficial relationship. I want to commend Speaker Hastert for inviting the Prime Minister to share his vision of India's relationship with the U.S. with members of the House and Senate. Thursday's speech will be the first congressional address by a foreign leader in over two years. This address will be an especially significant moment for the over 100 members of the Congressional Caucus on India and Indian Americans, who have worked hard on legislation affecting India. I had the privilege of traveling to India with the President, and saw firsthand the country's vitality and the desire by the Indian people to develop a closer relationship with America. In New Delhi, President Clinton and Prime Minister Vajpayee signed a joint statement on ``India-U.S. Relations: A Vision for the 21st Century.'' This is an important statement, coming after years of American indifference toward India. It is important that we treat this statement as a living document, working to ensure that its vision becomes reality. The joint statement includes a pledge ``to reduce impediments to bilateral trade and investment and to expand commerce'' between our two countries. The U.S. is now not only the largest investor in India, it is also India's largest trading partner, with trade between the two countries totaling nearly $13 billion. The Prime Minister's state visit will also be a larger opportunity to highlight the great economic and cultural contributions of all Indo- Americans, who act as a valuable bridge between our two countries. I join my colleagues in welcoming the Prime Minister and look forward to his speech before members of the House and the Senate.

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Social Security Benefits Tax Relief Act. In 1993, the Clinton-Gore administration increased the taxes on Social Security, arguably because we had a deficit. But I noticed it, I served notice at the time, that it seemed to be helping to pay for new Federal spending programs. I think that is why every Republican in the House and every Republican in the Senate opposed this increase on Social Security benefits. This tax was created when the Federal Government had a $255 billion deficit. Today, the deficit is gone. We have increasing surpluses. Yet this tax remains. As a result, seniors' benefits are taxed at rates between 50 and 85 percent. Single retirees whose income exceeds as little as $34,000 are punished by this tax. This taxation in terms of fairness is grossly unfair. The income from which these benefits are derived has already been taxed. That is the point. Taxing once more these benefits amounts to double taxation for these seniors on Social Security. This tax results in lower benefits and translates into less income for many of America's seniors. The time has come to end this double taxation and restore some fairness for America's seniors.

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I rise today in support of the Rohrabacher resolution. Mr. Speaker, let me say that we have heard about the terrible human rights situation in Vietnam; and sadly, let me say it, in fact, is true. If we look at the rights abolished by the socialist republic of Vietnam, political freedoms are gone, all religious freedom is gone, economic freedom has been systematically abolished for the people there. Now, the State Department tells us that the Vietnamese government quote, ``maintains an autocratic one-party state that tolerates no opposition.'' Earlier this year, I visited Vietnam and I saw firsthand the Communist Party's harassment of those Vietnamese citizens who decide to peacefully set forth dissenting political and religious views. I visited several who were under house arrest. Now, we can argue whether or not engagement best advocates freedom in Vietnam. In fact, I believe engagement does. If done right, a two-track policy of engaging Vietnam on economic reform, while pressuring it on its political and religious repression with Radio Free Asia and other means, promises to promote the freedom the Vietnamese people have long sought. Trade in investment terms with Vietnam, though, is not what this particular piece of legislation addresses. Denying this waiver would not make U.S. businesses any more or less free to do business in Vietnam. Approving this resolution would simply disallow taxpayer dollars from being used to continue subsidizing U.S. companies to do business in Vietnam. The reforms the Vietnamese government promises to make in its trade agreement with the U.S. generally are comprehensive. They are comprehensive because the business climate in Vietnam right now is so bad. The Communist Party runs the economy, making Vietnam abjectly poor, despite the talents and drive of the Vietnamese people. The economy is riddled with corruption, red tape, and cronyism. Mr. Speaker, the State Department says, U.S. businesses find the Vietnamese market is a tough place to operate. That is an understatement. American and European companies, which eagerly entered Vietnam a few years ago, are in retreat. If they wish to stay the course, that is their decision; but we should not ask for a U.S. Government subsidy to do that. Mr. Speaker, we all hope that freedom comes to Vietnam. Today we are debating whether the U.S. Government subsidies for American business is a constructive way to promote this freedom. I do not think that that case has been made for Vietnam, or from any other places, for that matter. I ask my colleagues to support this resolution.

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, Republicans want to preserve and protect social security and the Medicare trust fund, and we have. We have set aside 100 percent of the trust fund revenues for social security and for Medicare. We have ended the process that existed in the past before the Republicans became the majority of borrowing out of those trust funds. In addition, we have given workers the right to invest their money in the retirement plan of their choice, because yesterday we passed the IRA and the 401(k) expansion plan, we increased the contribution limits now to IRAs from $2,000 to $5,000 a year, and the 401(k) salary contribution to $15,000. This is going to help our economy. This is going to help job creation. We have paid down close to $300 billion in public debt, and under our budget, we will pay off the $3.5 trillion public debt even while eliminating penalties on the American people, like the marriage tax, and bringing more dollars to the classroom for our children's education. We increase that education budget by 10 percent. Mr. Speaker, this Republican Congress has taken the initiative on securing America's future, and should be proud of what it has accomplished.

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, these Sierra Leone diamonds that we are talking about and the conflict that is raging there are only a small part of Africa's production. However, the American public increasingly associates the devastation and the mayhem occurring in Sierra Leone with the sale of legitimately produced diamonds. That makes it very difficult for other countries in Africa, like Botswana and Namibia and South Africa, to use the proceeds from the sale of their diamonds in order to produce an education for their population, clean water and health care. I think the United States Congress must help ensure that the legitimate diamond industries in these countries are not adversely affected by the justifiable outrage over the anarchy and atrocities linked with conflict diamonds. And it was the message that the Subcommittee on African Affairs received from the African government and human rights groups at our hearing on May 9 on this issue. Now we have a special responsibility because Americans purchase more than 60 percent of these diamonds. I think my colleagues have heard the testimony from my colleagues about the mayhem that is occurring today in Sierra Leone. We must do all we can to bring an end to the tragic conflict in diamonds coming out of Sierra Leone and coming out of Liberia. Because, frankly, the proceeds from the sale of those diamonds are being used in order to arm the Revolutionary United Front, the RUF, which has decapitated or struck the limbs off some 20,000 women and children to date. If my colleagues go into Freetown, they will see countless numbers of maimed children on the streets as a result of this campaign of terror. And if we ask how did Fodoy Sankoh receive the financing to do this, it is from the sale of these conflict diamonds, it is from the fact that these diamonds have also gone over the border into Liberia where his ally, Charles Taylor, has also used them in order to obtain the funds for this activity. I think we must applaud the recent efforts of the international diamond industry to prevent rebel groups from using illicitly obtained diamonds to finance senseless wars. It has instituted new controls that will make it more difficult for conflict diamonds to be sold. But vigilance is necessary to prevent unscrupulous dealers from avoiding these new, tougher regulations. I just want to thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) and thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall) for their efforts. I would hope that more Members of this body would join them in their efforts to ensure the vigilance of these regulations and to ensure that we can try to impose an embargo on Liberia and on Sierra Leone in order to prevent this senseless war from continuing.

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, as we know, this Congress has accomplished much, and it should be proud of what it 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. Republicans said we would eliminate the deficit and pay down the debt, and we have. In fact, under the Republican budget, we will pay off the entire $3.5 trillion publicly held debt. When Americans across this land said they wanted us to eliminate the marriage tax, we ignored protests from the Clinton-Gore administration, and we passed a bill that makes married couples equal with singles in the eyes of the IRS. Let us work together in a bipartisan manner on behalf of all Americans to protect and preserve Social Security and accomplish these other goals.

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, clearly Social Security alone is not enough for retirement in relative comfort today. The private pension system is an indispensable part of retirement security, and this underlying bill, which I have been proud to coauthor, would give American workers more tools to prepare for a better future. The pension reforms we are considering today will help individuals to save more for retirement. Increased pension portability will allow workers to roll over their pension savings between plans when they change jobs. And streamlined rules and regulations would make it easier for small businesses to offer pensions. If these changes are enacted, they will give millions of American workers better tools to prepare for retirement.

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment, and I ask unanimous consent to reach ahead in order to consider this amendment en bloc.

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, I think in this debate we also need to think of India in strategic terms, not taking the action that the gentleman has proposed, which I think would be harmful to the relationship with India. In strengthening our ties with India, we have the great advantage of common values of democracy and rule of law. With that, we can push for the further reforms we want to see in India. But I think we should all remember that it is going to take engagement to push for those reforms. I think a decade of reforms by several governments has moved India from socialism and spurred economic growth. There is a new generation of Indians who have taken advantage of this liberalization of their economic climate, and frankly, I think that we see reforms coming to the fore in India. I think these reforms on the human rights front and in terms of trade can frankly succeed there because they have the rule of law as an underpinning. I think there is an effective bridge with the Indo-American community. I think for those reasons this would be counterproductive. I think that increasing U.S.-India cooperation is about maintaining a regional security balance. I would urge withdrawal of the amendment.

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from California for yielding to me. I appreciate her efforts here. Again, my request was to reach ahead in order to present my amendment en bloc.

Mr. ROYCE. I have the amendment printed in the Record.

Mr. ROYCE. Well, let me proceed, Mr. Chairman. This amendment goes to the issue----

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I rise in support of the base bill. As one of my constituents said in a town meeting last month, ``Marriage is penalty enough, we don't need the government penalizing marriage with this special marriage penalty tax.'' And yet the Internal Revenue Service pushes many couples, simply for being married, into a higher tax bracket, and generally this is targeted on the income of the second wage earner, typically the wife, at a much higher rate than if she were taxed only as an individual. I want to give my colleagues an example. A young woman was in my office on Friday. In terms of her own tax return, it means several thousand dollars of additional taxes if she makes the decision to get married. Now, if we go with the substitute motion, then we discriminate against those who itemize. She owns a house. As a result of the payments, those are deductible, so she itemizes. Those who make a payment toward their church or synagogue as a contribution, those are tax deductible. So we would be discriminating against those individuals. Let us treat everyone fairly. That is what the Marriage Tax Elimination Act does. It provides relief from the marriage tax penalty, a penalty that is keeping many parents from doing all they want for their children, a penalty that, frankly, is keeping many young couples from getting married because they would be pushed into that higher bracket. Many times both parents have to work full time, when one of them may prefer to work part time and spend more time with the children. This bill will help. As I say, the average penalty, right now, is $1,400 a year more in taxes than if they were single. Over a decade, as she pointed out to me, this young fiance, that money could go toward a family car, a college education, a downpayment on a home.

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I would just like to point out that when the author of the bill makes the statement that 13 percent of these rapists will serve no time at all, that is 13 percent of those caught and convicted. And there is only 10 percent in the United States of rapists that are actually even brought to trial. What is truly appalling and what this bill attempts to mitigate is the fact that there are 14,000 murders and rapes and sexual assaults that in a way occur needlessly in this society every year because those are repeat offenders who should in fact be behind bars. They have already committed that offense once. Now they are committing it again. One in eight of the major crimes that we see in this category are second-time offenders that have come from a different State and frankly, had the law been applied correctly, they would not be out on the street. These are appalling figures that have been cited here by the gentleman from Arizona, when we consider that victims of rape do not get a second chance at security, victims of child molestation do not get a second chance at innocence, and victims of murder do not get a second chance of life. By the same token, rapists, child molesters and murderers should not be given a second chance only to inflict their terror on other helpless victims. I believe this bill is a first step toward combating recidivism by making a State that releases a murderer or rapist from prison financially responsible for incarceration and for apprehension and prosecution if the felon commits another violent crime in a different State. The bill would also allow us really for the first time to tally precisely the number of crimes committed by previously convicted offenders who go in and out of that revolving door of the criminal justice system from State to State committing these types of crimes. When I was in the California State senate, I authored an anti- stalking measure after four local women were killed in the span of 6 weeks. Each one of these women fearing for her life had sought police protection only to be told that there was nothing that law enforcement could do until she was physically attacked. One police officer told me that the hardest thing he ever had to do was to tell a victim that there was nothing he could do until the woman was attacked, only to find her subsequently murdered. That is the reason that we are trying to reform these laws. By passing the No Second Chance for Murderers, Rapists or Child Molesters Act, we can prevent further tragedies. Aimee's Law is common sense law. We must stiffen sentencing and parole guidelines to ensure that murderers and rapists do not go free to commit these crimes again in a different State.

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

Mr. ROYCE

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

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

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, the Market Access Program is the leftover product of two previously failed USDA programs, the Market Promotion Program and the Targeted Export Assistance Program, and MAP funnels tax dollars to corporate trade associations and cooperatives to advertise private products overseas. Now, let me reiterate my position here. I think advertising is a function of the private sector, not of the taxpayers. While proponents of the program claim that it boosts exports, claims that it creates jobs, there is no evidence to support it. General Accounting Office studies indicate that this program has no discernible effect on U.S. agricultural exports. The private sector knows how to advertise. It does not need government interference. Taxpayer dollars merely replace money that would be spent by private companies on their own advertising. Provisions in the 1996 farm bill have attempted to reform MAP, but thus far have failed. The GAO audit and other audits find it overstated, inconclusive, and speculative in terms of its effect. Although the percentage of large companies that get MAP money have decreased, a number of corporations still receive millions of dollars indirectly through trade associations. The studies show that about three-quarters of the money indirectly benefits these corporations. Under this year's bill, an attempt also was made to expand MAP. Fortunately, this provision was stricken; and now we go to the question of the program itself. I believe it is now time to end the program. In the last 10 years, American taxpayers have shelled out $1 billion for this subsidy. I think the American people would agree that their money could be better spent, and I urge adoption of the amendment.

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

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, that being the case, that concludes my opening arguments on amendment No. 51. Amendment No. 51 Offered by Mr. Royce