Ed Royce

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, my question to the parliamentarian was whether offering amendment No. 51 or No. 52 would be in order. I believe he said 52. If I understand correctly, then the answer would have been No. 51. It is amendment No. 51 that could be offered.

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I would just like to share that in the report the GAO determined that the Foreign Agricultural Service overstated the program's economic input, used a faulty methodology, which is inconsistent with Office of Management and Budget cost benefit guidelines. The GAO also determined that the evidence contained within the relevant studies which estimate MAP's impact on specific markets is inconclusive. In fact, for every targeted market in which MAP funds demonstrated a positive effect, the studies found other target markets in which there was no discernible effect at all. So various studies commissioned by Congress, commissioned by the Trade Promotion Coordinating Committee have determined the economic benefits of the MAP program to be overstated, to be inconclusive, and to be speculative. But even if one does believe the flawed studies used by the proponents, one has all the more reasons to support the amendment. Because if MAP works, then corporations and trade associations ought to be spending their own money on their advertising budgets. The taxpayers should not be spending it. Finally, MAP proponents have argued that due to recent reforms, big corporations no longer receive MAP funds. It is true that, in order to correct some of the more egregious abuses of the Market Access Program of which we pointed out in the past, reforms were enacted that limit companies to 5 years of assistance in a particular country. After this time, companies were to be graduated from that country's market. While in fact some of the corporations were graduated in 1998, the graduation requirements were waived for cooperatives. What was the result of that waiver? The result was that large corporations received the subsidies. We simply do not need this wasteful program. Let us be honest. Most American businesses do not benefit and do not try to take advantage of government handouts like MAP. In the case of MAP, as in most corporate welfare programs, beneficiaries consist primarily of politically well- connected corporations and trade associations. Most, if not all of these organizations, would advertise their products overseas even without MAP funds, and they probably would work much harder to ensure that the money is well spent. Mr. Chairman, Congress should end the practice of wasting tax dollars on special interest spending programs that unfairly take money from hard-working families to help profitable private companies increase their bottom line. MAP is a massive corporate welfare program in my opinion, and we should eliminate it. I urge the support of the amendment. Point of Order

Mr. ROYCE. Amendment number 52 to eliminate the Market Access Program.

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

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, the rationale behind this amendment is simple. Hard-working taxpayers should not have to subsidize the advertising costs of America's private corporations. In my view, that is what the Market Access Program does. Since 1986, the Federal Government has extracted $2 billion from the tax-paying public and has spent it for advertising on the part of larger corporations and cooperatives in subsidies to basically underwrite their marketing programs in foreign countries. I think the American people would agree that their money could be better spent on deficit reduction or education or the environment or tax cuts rather than these advertising budgets. Originally, this bill contained a provision quietly inserted that would have allowed American tax dollars to be spent promoting the sale of luxury mink products in foreign countries. However, once we discovered their plan to expand eligibility in the MAP program, proponents reversed the course and agreed to strike the provision in the bill. But an important question remains, if it is wrong to spend hard- earned American tax dollars on the promotion of mink products, why is it acceptable to spend those same tax dollars overseas to promote other products? Last April, the GAO released an independent report, a report that was requested by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot) and myself and Senator Schumer. That report questioned the economic benefits of the foreign agricultural service study, which had advanced the arguments to begin with in the favor of this bill.

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

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

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I realize that this year's agricultural appropriations bill is below last year's level, and I applaud the chairman for his efforts on that. However, even more reductions can be made in this bill, and should be made, because, frankly, Congress should continue to cut government waste. Just a few weeks ago, the President signed into law a $15.3 billion crop insurance and emergency farm package. That measure marks the third big bill out of the agricultural economy in the last 3 years. Now, this emergency bill amounts to a mini-farm bill affecting most divisions of the agricultural department and sprinkling pet programs to special interest groups. In effect, Congress has been passing more than one agricultural appropriations bill each year; we have been passing two. In fiscal year 1999, Congress passed $6.6 billion in supplemental assistance. So far in fiscal year 2000, Congress has passed four different measures amounting to $15 billion in emergency agricultural spending, and this includes the $210 million of emergency spending attached to the military construction supplemental passed by this House just before the July 4th recess. Not even into fiscal year 2001 yet, Congress has already passed $1.6 billion in emergency funding. Mr. Chairman, Congress cannot afford to past two appropriations bills for agriculture each and every year. Since late 1998, Congress has allotted $22 billion in disaster market loss payments to growers, roughly doubling the subsidies promised under the 1996 Freedom to Farm law. Lawmakers are beginning to use this annual ritual of emergency packages as their vehicle of choice for moving pet projects. Under the guise of a national emergency, Congress rams through emergency spending bills full of unnecessary, unwanted, unauthorized, unmitigated pork. The emergency package for Colombia-Kosovo and disaster relief included millions for a Coast Guard jet, for instance, for Alaska. It included money for an ice breaker and other egregious pork. If we do not cut back now, our senior citizens will pay the bills when Medicare or Social Security runs dry, and that is not a legacy any one of us wants to live with. The Department of Agriculture in its current configuration still reflects the needs of an America that existed prior to the industrial revolution. These Depression-era programs still work to prop up commodity prices. Most agriculture spending aimed at farmers is based on a restrictive centralized planning system. Sixty percent of farm payments goes to 15 percent of the farmers with gross sales in excess of $100,000. Very little of these price supports goes to those who really need it, the small family farmers. Attempts to manipulate markets and subsidize the economic life of a group of businessmen only harm consumers and farmers. Programs dedicated to agriculture comprise 34 percent of the Department's budget. The remainder goes to forestry, rural development, and welfare. Back in 1862, when Abraham Lincoln created this agency, five out of 10 American workers were employed in agriculture. Well, that is no longer the case today; yet the Agriculture Department is the fourth largest agency in the President's cabinet, behind Defense, Veterans and Treasury. There is now about one bureaucrat for every six full-time farmers, and not a single one of these bureaucrats helps crops grow. I support a gradual and consistent reduction in this appropriations bill. We have made progress in the 1996 reforms, but we need to do more; and we need to ensure that these reforms stay put. We must continue to wean agricultural special interests from their dependence on the Federal Government. My amendment is supported by Citizens Against Government Waste. A 1 percent across-the-board reduction will save American taxpayers $750 million next year alone. It is my hope that this money will go to debt reduction. Again, the chairman has done an admirable job, but more can be done; and saving one penny on every dollar is the very least we can do. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

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

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, the point I want to make to the House and the point I would like to make to the gentleman is that the actual economic loss from the weather-related disasters that the gentleman has cited was $1.5 billion. Congress responded to this by adding $4.2 billion in emergency disaster relief. This is the impulse that I am trying to check with this amendment, to cut 1 percent, because I think this has been the response; and it has been overly generous in terms of what it has done with the taxpayers' funds.

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending that, I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Madam Speaker, the gentleman from Nebraska (Chairman Bereuter) is the author of this particular legislation, of this approach, of which I am a cosponsor. I want to thank him for introducing this bill. It is important that we honor those in the Armed Forces in the United States and in the armed forces of the Republic of Vietnam who fought together. These brave individuals risked their lives for liberty, and their actions should be honored 25 years now after the fall of Saigon. We must remember their deeds while working for increased political and economic freedom in the socialist Republic of Vietnam. I recently visited Vietnam. During my trip there, I paid a visit to the Venerable Thich Quang Do, who is the 72-year-old leader of the banned Unified Buddhist Church of Vietnam. Because of his peaceful protests, those protests that he engaged in in support of political freedom and religious freedom, Thich Quang Do has been imprisoned and exiled. Even though he was under surveillance, Thich Quang Do welcomed my visit. My private visits to him and Le Quang Liem, another dissident, were quickly denounced by the government. It is obvious the Vietnamese government is sensitive to international criticism. This obligates the United States to speak out constantly against the Vietnamese government's human rights violations. We may not always realize it, but protests by the American government and by the American people do help the cause of freedom in Vietnam. Silence is no alternative. This international criticism has come about in large part due to the tireless work of the Vietnamese-American communities. Their efforts to raise awareness about human rights and about the violations of basic freedoms of Vietnam have a critical, critical effect. It is imperative that we continue pressuring for increased openness in Vietnam. A two-track policy of engaging the Vietnamese government on economic reform on one hand while pressuring it on its political and religious repression, that approach requires diplomatic finesse. But if done right, it promises to bring long-sought freedom to the Vietnamese people, freedom for which many Americans have sacrificed. I want to commend the gentleman from Nebraska (Chairman Bereuter) for his authorship of this two-pronged approach. We all hope that it is successful in engaging and changing Vietnam.

Mr. ROYCE

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

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I think the new GAO report says it all, the GAO report is entitled ``supporting sugar prices has increased users costs, while benefiting producers.'' According to this new report by our Federal Government, the sugar program costs consumers $1.9 billion each year in higher costs. Secretary Glickman has announced that the Department of Agriculture would spend $54 million of taxpayers' money to purchase 130,000 tons of surplus sugar to prop up domestic prices. Every time an American goes to a vending machine to buy a candy bar or goes to the supermarket to buy ice cream, it can cost more because of the sugar program. Every time he tries to buy cranberry juice, it costs more, because of this program. The sugar program acts as nearly a $2 billion hidden tax to our consumers, but this tax does not go to the government to pay for the national defense or for some other program. It goes into the pockets of the big sugar lobby. The Freedom to Farm Act of 1996 began to phase out income supports for nearly every agricultural commodity, and tried to set them down the path toward free market competition, tried to set them towards free enterprise; however, the government continues to subsidize sugar producers by maintaining high sugar prices. Well, this amendment will limit the Commodity Credit Corporation from extending any more than the $54 million, the amount they have already purchased this year, on the purchase of additional sugar with taxpayers' dollars during fiscal year 2001. And to let the Commodity Credit Corporation continue to bail out sugar producers only continues the cycle of welfare to sugar producers and higher prices for consumers.

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, again reclaiming my time, we have not repealed the laws of supply and demand, and to the extent that we have these types of programs that force higher prices on the consumer, yes, that is ultimately reflected in pricing. I believe that the market works.

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

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I know that the sugar prices are low, and I also know that the Federal Government, in its GAO report, has extrapolated the costs to consumers at $1.9 billion a year.

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to bring attention to the tragic situation in Sierra Leone, where the democratically elected government of this West African country has long been under attack by rebels who have relied on the most heinous tactics, including systematically chopping off the limbs of little children. In Sierra Leone, the world is seeing pure evil. The administration's response was to encourage a deal with the rebels, which predictably feel apart and now we have a U.N. peacekeeping operation there. Well, the fact is that this peacekeeping operation is not up to the task. Its record of incompetence includes its troops having willingly turned over weapons and equipment to the rebels. This operation remains in shambles, and more troops and resources will not address its shortcomings. The rebels could, though, be marginalized by the Nigerian military and the defense forces of the Sierra Leone government, working with strong logistical training and other backing from the British. The U.S. should be focused on backing this effort, providing support to the Nigerian troops in Sierra Leone. Whether African states move towards great stability is very much in question. An alternative and disastrous vision of state disintegration is looming for large parts of Africa. That is why a response to Sierra Leone is so important.

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Chairman, I want to explain to the Members of this House the reason why we think it is so important to pass this particular amendment. These are flush times for Washington, D.C. There has been much ado about the record surplus we are expecting and the different ways we are going to spend that surplus. But in our eagerness to out do each other to spend the surplus, we overlook the long-term value of paying down the debt, a debt which is over $3 trillion, a debt which debt service alone runs $230 billion a year. We are saddled with that. That is the purpose behind this amendment, to try to do something, Mr. Chairman, to make certain that when we in fact put forward an amendment to cut spending, that it does just that. Mr. Chairman, the financial outlook for America may be good, but the past is mired in debt. We have maxed out on the credit card for Uncle Sam; and, frankly, until we pay this debt off, it is shortsighted for us to continue spending without restraint. It is shortsighted for us to claim on the floor that we are making an amendment to cut spending and then find out later that the appropriators have recommitted that spending. So what this lock box amendment does is to capture all the savings from amendments which reduce or cut funding and to vote to devote the savings to one thing, and that is debt reduction. Under current law, when a Member offers an appropriation amendment that cuts the funding and the House concurs and says yes, this is wasteful Washington spending, the savings is automatically utilized for other discretionary funding. This defeats the whole point of savings. Furthermore, this lock box will reduce the overall discretionary spending cap by the amount of the savings, to prevent our savings from being spent in the future. This will help Congress prepare for future needs. Mr. Chairman, the economy is not going to keep this pace forever. We need to find long-term solutions to paying down the debt.

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, let me explain why this is important: although most Americans assume that a Federal budget surplus in any year is automatically used to reduce the national debt or at least the debt held by the public, this actually is not the case. The U.S. Department of the Treasury must implement specific financial accounting procedures if it is to use a cash surplus to pay down the debt held by the public. If these procedures are not followed or if they proceed slowly, then the surplus revenue just builds up in the Treasury-operating cash accounts. This excess cash could be used in the future, yes, to pay down the debt, but only if it is protected from other uses in the meantime. Until the excess cash is formally committed to debt repayment, Congress could appropriate it for other purposes. Consequently, the current surplus will not automatically reduce the publicly held national debt of $3.54 trillion, unless Congress acts now to make sure these funds are automatically used for debt reduction and for no other purpose. That is exactly what this bill H.R. 4601 does; and, frankly, this offers a first step toward paying down the debt, because it protects the on-budget surplus for the remainder of this fixed fiscal year, and it appropriates it directly for debt reduction. This money will be deposited in a designated public debt reduction account. Appropriators would be able to reallocate these funds only by first passing a law to rescind the money from this account. Now, the debt is a huge drain on the Federal Treasury at a time when the impending Social Security crisis looms closer. Our current national debt problem pales in comparison to the unfunded liabilities already committed to current and future Social Security recipients. It is important we pay down this debt.

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, I stand before you today to introduce 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. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, in 1996, the President and the Congress agreed to provide no new money to the Clean Coal Technology Program. Taxpayers are footing the bill for technology to be used by private companies. In my view, government has no business favoring certain companies with tax breaks and subsidies. The free market is there to allocate resources in the most efficient way possible. Federal involvement only serves to distort the marketplace by giving selected businesses special advantages, corporate subsidies, put other businesses that are less politically well connected at a disadvantage. Corporate welfare has lead to the creation of what some have termed the statist businessman who has been converted from capitalist to capital lobbyist. Companies should invest their own money in research and development activities on what they believe are promising technologies, rather than look to the Government for funding. And private industry is much better suited to identify and target technologies that are commercially viable. The best thing government can do to promote economic growth is to get out of the way, get out of the way and let entrepreneurs and the mechanisms of the marketplace determine how the economy's resources will be directed. Private industry can flourish without this corporate welfare. Clean Coal Technology, as it is called, is supposed to help the electric industry, but it is not even interested in the technology. According to the Congressional Research Service, based on current trends, the technology of choice for new construction will be natural gas fired plants. In 1994, the General Accounting Office found that a number of Clean Coal Technology demonstration projects were experiencing problems and difficulties, and in a report released this March, the GAO found that the problems they identified then still continue today. Only worse, eight of the 13 remaining projects had serious delays or financial problems; six of eight are behind the schedule of completion date by 2 to 7 years; two of the eight projects are bankrupt and will never be completed. Instead of just deferring money, we should be investigating how we can get the obligated funds back from these bankrupt projects. Congress has had a history of rescinding money from this program due to the failure of projects being completed. In fact, for the past 3 years, over $400 million has been rescinded. At the very least, I think we should defer the amount that President Clinton has requested to be deferred; and on top of that, we should also defer what the President wanted to rescind. And that would be the total amount of $326 million, which is what this amendment would do. I believe, frankly, that it should not be spent on bankrupt and mismanaged programs, and I urge adoption of the amendment.

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Comprehensive Budget Process Reform Act. While this bill will not fix everything that is wrong with the budget process, I believe it is a step in the right direction. The current economic trend we are enjoying will not last forever. Now is the time to increase accountability for spending taxpayers' dollars, strengthening enforcement of budgetary decisions, promote long-term budget planning, and encourage fiscal discipline. This bill requires a binding budget resolution to compel the President and compel the Congress to agree, from the start, on levels of spending and not at the last moment, as is currently done. Furthermore, this bill forces both the Congress and President to budget up front for long-term liabilities. It sets aside a strategic reserve, something we should have done years ago instead of the supplemental budgets that become Christmas trees. It closes existing loopholes in budget enforcement. In addition, it will limit the authorization of any new spending program to not more than 10 years, and requires committees to submit a plan for reauthorization for all programs within 10 years. I urge my colleagues to pass these important reforms.

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I am one of the cosponsors of this legislation, along with the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott) and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane). Let me just say that I think that this bipartisan legislation, frankly, will not solve all of Africa's problems, but it is a big step in the right direction. It will help Africa. It will help the United States. Mr. Speaker, what this bill will do is to grant greater access to the U.S. market to those African countries that are lowering barriers to American goods and investment, that are lowering their tariffs, that are reducing their red tape, that are promoting private property rights. This legislation, in other words, treats trade as a two-way street between the African subcontinent and the United States. And this is why the African Growth and Opportunity Act has received such strong support from American exporters, particularly those already in Africa and aware of the many opportunities. America's exports to Africa total some $6 billion per year, but we at this point are less than 5 percent of that market. U.S. trade with Africa, which is greater than our trade with Eastern Europe, which is greater than our trade with Russia, supports 100,000 American jobs now. Passage of this bill would likely shift to Africa textile and apparel orders currently being filled by China and other Asian producers. This means that the African Growth and Opportunity Act bears no threat to American jobs. While modest from the American perspective, this bill promises tangible benefits as well as a psychological boost to African countries wanting to become economic partners with the United States. Realistically, the U.S. could not isolate itself from a 21st-century Africa suffering from war or environmental degradation or terrorism and drug trafficking. Increasing economic opportunities for Africans is an antidote to this scenario, translating into improved educational and health services, better environmental protections, and greater social stability. I recall President Museveni saying the only way we are going to increase the tax base here is by moving toward free enterprise. That is what they are doing in Uganda and Botswana and other countries in Africa. Africa, much of Africa, frankly, is in dire economic straits. But, fortunately, a number of African countries have changed course. They have liberalized their economies by lifting restrictions and reducing taxes on commercial activity, permitting private ownership of assets, and becoming more welcoming of foreign investment. This bill's passage and that of the Caribbean Basin Initiative that is now part of this bill would demonstrate that the world's most powerful economy has serious interests in Africa's economic development. This is a win for the United States. It is a win for Africa. I urge an ``aye'' vote on this rule and on final passage of the bill.